‘Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will experience the oppression of one by another’
‘Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me’. That’s what we were always told as kids and we had to learn to have a bit of a thick skin. If I said, ‘snipers and rockets will break your bones AND words will always harm you’. You would know exactly what I am talking about. Today the topic is Hate Crime.
As an immigrant, tiny wee boy with a German and protestant sounding name, just after the war, in a staunch Catholic part of early 50’s violent Glasgow I know all about offensive language. Violence and hatred was an every day occurrence especially in school. But, you know, we all came through that and it taught us how to grow a pair.
Today, in our multi-cultural country, in our multi-cultural world we have seen a pandemic of what the law in the UK describes as Hate Crime. In that respect the UK may be at the forefront of stamping out a horrible ill in our society. I have researched the subject a little and best describe Hate Crime as a multiplier. If someone attacks an Asian man, that is assault. However, if someone attacks an Asian man because he is Asian then that is a Hate Crime and the penalty is rightfully more severe.
This makes perfect sense in a multicultural and diverse society because nobody should ever be a victim because of who they are. But also, in terms of harmony, safety, security and cohesion in society, instances of Hate Crime can escalate across communities very quickly. Clearly, if a man is attacked because he is Asian then every other male and possibly any other group that may appear Asian in any way may also feel at risk.
So far, I am really only saying what most of us already know. So here is the sting.
Who you are is the crux of it all. Ask any Glaswegian or almost anybody in the world who has heard of Glasgow and they will say ‘Celtic or Rangers?’ They really mean Catholic or Protestant. As a Glasgow boy I am very well aware of the danger of a Catholic in Ibrox or a Protestant in Parkhead. This was once true of almost every part of Glasgow – guys had to be aware of the denomination of the areas they were in.
Who you are is generally something you cannot change easily if at all. The LGBTQ community is a good example. But this applies to gender, race, religion, dress code, even your body shape, the size of your nose, the style of your hair; the list goes on. Comediens even joke about ginger haired people. It has even been targeted at French, Germans or Belgians.
The law of course does not rank these attributes in any way. It is immaterial whether the attribute is unchangeable or a personal choice the law treats everyone equally; ok, but certainly in theory.
If you intimidate someone because they have a black skin colour, that is no more or less serious than intimidating someone because they have white, brown, yellow or red skin colour. Equally, if you intimidate someone because they are of the Muslim faith that is no more or less serious than intimidating someone because they are Jewish.
Today we have specific terms to cover many of the stereotypical groups that sometimes become victims of Hate Crime. This includes; homophobia, misogyny, misandry, racism, religious prejudice, antisemitism, Islamophobia etc.
These terms help us to understand the various forms that Hate Crime can take. The Crown Prosecution Service CPS as the authority who prosecute criminal cases have defined Hate Crime. On the face of it the definition looks clear. However, on closer examination the waters get a bit muddy and the details become subjective.
The Crown Prosecution Service’s definition of Hate Crime by the Director General, Alison Saunders: ‘When someone is hostile to another person because of their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity and they show their hostility in intimidation, harassment, damaging property or violence, it is a Hate Crime’. This seems very clear. We all understand the words used. No, wait, ‘hostile’ we know what that means, don’t we? do we? The CPS say this about hostility; There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
We seem to have uncovered a bit of a problem here? ‘There is no legal definition of hostility?’ I would have thought that would have been one of the first words that a judiciary would define. If there was no hostility in the world you would probably only visit a police station if you lost your wallet? Fortunately, the CPS have expanded their meaning of hostility into the everyday understanding. Really?? Unfriendliness, ill will, dislike … this is getting very, very worrying. I don’t think I have ever been in a company, an office a public place, a group or even a relationship or family gathering where these sentiments were not around at some point.
Is the CPS really saying that if one of these fairly common, not very nice but very common human sentiments strays into the realms of one of the ‘protected groups’ that we are now looking at Hate Crime??
This soft language, this vagueness, this subjectivity would not be a problem if we lived in a completely fair world, if everybody was reasonable – WE DON’T.
Hold this thought for a moments, in case there is a place it may fit; where the absence of an ‘Objective’ definition of hostility can be exploited.
For decades, wars and hostility (for want of a better word) have ravaged the Middle East. Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Iran just to start. The antagonists are clearly the West and their Allies. You might reasonably expect the narrative in the media to include terms like Islamophobia. Nope, not a cheap!
In Palestine there can be not doubt whatsoever that almost all their land has been taken from them, they are caged in what can only be described as the largest prison in the world with no escape. They have zero security, grossly inadequate water and food, almost no service and worse, they have desperately inadequate medical care. They have heavily monitored communication, no proper access to the outside world. Men, women, children, the elderly, disabled people, nurses, journalists and care workers are regularly picked off and maimed or killed by snipers with impunity. The aggressor is Israel, with full support of its Western Allies, especially the US and UK. You might reasonably expect to hear cries of ISLAMOPHOBIA to support this inhuman aggression?
But NO. Every aspect of the media, TV, newspapers and in the political environment all we hear about, morning noon and night is – ANTISEMITISM. Without a doubt the key driver for the antisemitism accusations is Israel and the global Zionist movement.
In response to this claim of a pandemic antisemitism is the adoption across the world of the IHRA definition of antisemitism with specific examples that prevent anyone from even questioning what Israel is doing in Palestine and the treatment and massacre of the Palestinian people.
It has even reached to the point where the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is hounded day and night and accused by a Jewish Politician in front of his colleagues on the Floor of the House of Commons for being antisemitic. He stand accused, not of failure to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism but of not endorsing specific examples. This in itself sounds very like Hate Crime directed at one of our most Senior politicians. He has now been forced to adopt the full definition of IHRA with examples and has been criticised by the same lobby for including a proviso for Free Speech.
And this brings my back to the thought I held earlier. My understanding of antisemitism is that this can be an example of Hate Crime if there is a crime committed predicated on antisemitism. However, my understanding is that antisemitism is not a crime until the ‘hostility’ word, the verb if you will, comes in to play.
And here we have my issue with the CPS definition. The absence of an Objective definition of the term ‘hostility’ appears to leave the door open for exploitation and subjectivity.
Hate Crime is an offence whether it be homophobic, Islamophobic or antisemitic. For the life of me I cannot understand why Jeremy Corbyn cannot simply say that:
Hate Crime in any form will not be tolerated, full stop.
The massive focus on antisemitism against Jewish people may give the impression that Jewish people are given preferential treatment under the law in terms of Hate Crime – this is absolutely at odds with the law. All forms of Hate Crime carry the same gravity and it must be clear that there must be a crime first and foremost and where this is predicated on a specific group whether LBGTQ, Islamic, female, Jewish etc then this would be a Hate Crime.