Getting the message? ‘New’ Labour and the criminalization of ‘hate’

Abstract

Hate crimes, it has been said, are 'message' crimes to which society needs to respond using the most powerful and unambiguous means of communication at its disposal, the criminal law. Using empirical data collected in the course of research conducted by the authors on racially motivated violence and harassment in North Staffordshire, this article sets out to interpret the messages about hate crime sent to perpetrators, and people from their local communities, by the creation, in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, of a new category of racially aggravated offences. To this end two possible anti-hate crime messages and three potential audiences are identified and evaluated in the light of data generated from biographical interviews with perpetrators and focus group discussions with other local people in and around the city of Stokeon-Trent. Our conclusion is that the supposedly clear deterrent and denunciatory or declaratory messages contained in the 1998 Act are either drowned out or distorted by other signals coming from successive 'New' Labour governments about crime, immigration, nationality and 'community cohesion', and by the highly idiosyncratic and unpredictable ways in which they are mediated and interpreted by their intended recipients.

Reconceptualizing hate crime victimization through the lens of vulnerability and ‘difference’

“…However, we would suggest that this line of thinking accounts for some, but not all forms of hate offending. Offences that we label as hate crimes may sometimes have little to do with any entrenched prejudice or hate on the part of the perpetrator but may instead arise as a departure from standard norms of behaviour; or through an inability to control language or behaviour in moments of stress, anger or inebriation; or from a sense of weakness or inadequacy that can stem from a range of subconscious emotional and psychological processes (Dixon and Gadd, 2006;Gadd, 2009;Walters, 2010). Equally, the selection of 'soft' or convenient targets because they are obviously 'different' (for instance, through markers of language, skin colour, dress or culture) or because they seem vulnerable (because of their age, isolation, disability or physical presence, to name but several factors) may have little to do with any conscious intent to suppress the 'other' or to communicate a message of hate to the victim's wider community.…”

The legislative context of prejudice motivated victimisation: perceptions of police legitimacy and citizen decisions to report hate crime incidents

“…Depending on each state, protected categories are based on race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and gender, as well as other categories 9 (Dixon & Gadd, 2006). By 1999, 41 US states 10 6 The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL) paid close attention to such incidents and tracked anti-Semitic incidents as early as 1978 (Gerstenfeld, 2011).…”

“…Grattet and Jenness (2001), however, describe prejudice motivated crime "as an age-old problem approached with a new sense of urgency" (Grattet & Jenness, 2001, p. 668 (Marshall & Farrell, 2008;Shively, 2005). Grattet, Jenness, and Curry (1998) (US) (Dixon & Gadd, 2006). This inclusion on the legislative agenda was dictated by "radical social movements involving black people, peace activists, women, gays, lesbians and people with disabilities" (Dixon & Gadd, 2006, pp.…”

“…In the first half of the Twentieth century in Europe, discussions around hate crime legislation emerged in the context of international human rights treaties and domestic statutes set out to conquer victimisation and genocide of certain groups (Goodall, 2013;Mason, 2014d (Dixon & Gadd, 2006;Wright, 2010). In the 1990s, a rise in numbers of racist incidents provided the impetus for further legislative approaches concerning hate crime (Iganski, 1999a).…”

“…During this period in the UK, the 'New' Labour government debated immigration policies, race relation and community cohesion and worked towards sentencing enhancements for racially aggravated offenses (Dixon & Gadd, 2006 (Bleich, 2007).…”