no / Research into the contours of hate crime has gone through several ebbs and flows over the last twenty years. At times, acts of horrific brutality have brought the issue of hate violence into the public imagination; sometimes leading to legislative changes, education programs and the funding of community organisations to manage the harms caused by this unique form of violence. The Stephen Lawrence murder in the UK in April 1993, and the Matthew Shepherd murder in the USA in October 1998 both led to major policing and legislative changes, including the introduction of penalty-enhancement measures, which were thought to more adequately ameliorate the additional harms generated from targeted violence, and to create the conditions for good citizenship in diverse societies. However, this legislative and policing transformation of hate crime regulation is not universal, even in Western democratic states. The Australian Federal government has not responded in comparable ways; preferring instead to abrogate much of its responsibilities under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to state governments¿particularly, in relation to gay men and lesbians¿ social citizenship rights. In relation to hate violence, contemporary Australian research has begun to address the inconsistent application of law, public policy and policing practice. However, the issue of `hate speech¿ has remained largely uninterrogated. Equally, research has tended to focus on the unique characteristics of specific forms of hate violence, rather than assess the conditions of exclusion shared by disparate groups. This book remedies both of these deficiencies by providing a critical analysis of the role of hate speech in hate violence, and offering a comparative investigation of antisemitic and heterosexist violence.

Yes / What’s wrong with human rights discourse and equality legislation is their creation under the guise of neutrality. The practice of human rights and equality sit within administration systems that are in general sites of production and implementation of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, transphobia and ableism. Whilst the people subject to these types of discrimination fight hard and make sacrifices to win the inclusion of their rights, whilst such privileges sit within archaic systems - can they ever be anything more than a temporary respite from oppression not a resolution?

This research focuses on the association between law enforcement training and implementation of hate crime legislation. The Anti-Defamation League's state hate crime statutory provisions and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Hate Crime Reporting by States data are examined. Section one includes the following: What Constitutes Hate?, The History of Hate Crime Legislation, and Issues Facing Hate Crime Legislation. Section two surveys literature on both Hate Crime Legislation and the training of law enforcement officers. Section three discusses the Anti-Defamation League and FBI data in detail and explains the methods used to test the association between law enforcement training and reporting of hate crime legislation. Findings yield a statistically significant association between law enforcement training and reporting of hate crime legislation.

Master of Science / Department of Family Studies and Human Services / Briana S. Goff / Homophobic hate crimes against lesbians and gay men represent a significant social problem that has important psychological consequences for survivors. Because the nature of these crimes is, by definition, against someone for his or her intrapersonal traits, it has even more potential to be damaging to a victim and in turn potentially detrimental to the development and/or maintenance of close personal relationships. The impact of trauma has long been studied from the view of the trauma survivor or any secondary traumatization of those around the primary survivor. The impact of hate crime victimization has also been examined, and it, too, has also been examined from the primary survivors perspective. Only in recent years has the impact of trauma on interpersonal relationships been examined. Additionally, there is currently little to no literature on the impact of trauma or traumatic events on gay or lesbian relationships. The types of hate crime victimization experiences range from verbal abuse to severe physical assault to death. While hate crime victimization is not specifically identified in the DSM – IV – TR as a potentially traumatic event, physical assault, which is found commonly in hate crimes, is identified. Therefore, hate crime victimization could be a potentially traumatic event. However, this has not been addressed in the traumatic stress field. This report is intended to address the gaps in the current body of literature in both the traumatic stress field and the gay and lesbian literature. This overwhelming lack of literature has the potential to be very detrimental to professionals working with this population and in turn detrimental to the population and society. Evidence suggests that there may be a difference in how or if the potentially traumatic hate crime victimization experience manifests itself internally or in other forms because of the nature and severity of the victimization in one or both partners. Evidence also suggests, similarly to heterosexual couples, the impact of trauma has repercussions throughout the couple relationship. This report provides a preliminary start to continue and expand the work with the gay and lesbian community.

The current retributive approach to tackling hate crime, while intuitively grounded in the principle of proportionately, does little to either repair the harms caused by incidents of hate or engender greater levels of acceptance of those deemed as “different”. This thesis therefore explores whether restorative justice, a relatively new theory and practice of criminal justice, is better placed to tackle the causes and consequences of hate victimisation. The 18 month empirical study, carried out to examine the thesis’ aims, uses a triangulation approach by incorporating observations of restorative justice meetings, semi-structured interviews with victim participants and semi-structured interviews with restorative practitioners who have experience facilitating hate crime cases. The mainly qualitative data collated provides for a detailed evaluation of the various processes found within restorative practices that: 1) helped to alleviate the distress caused by hate victimisation and 2) prevented the recurrence of hate-motivated incidents. A broad conceptualisation of hate crime was used within the thesis that included “hate incidents”. This allowed me to explore the utility of restorative practices in cases involving serious violence and the more pervasive “low-level”, but nonetheless highly deleterious, non-criminal incidents of hate that are frequently committed against minority group individuals. There were also several unanticipated findings from the study. First, data emerged which highlighted various aspects of the restorative practice which were unforeseen as being central to the successful application of restorative processes, these are discussed throughout the thesis. Second, great insight was gained into the nature of hate victimisation, helping to unravel some of the complex socio-cultural factors pivotal to both the cause and effect of hate victimisation. It is hoped that these additional findings provide important epistemological advancements in both fields of study.

The aim of this study is to examineindividuals talk about their experience of being exposed to hate crimes, how their exposure has influenced their everyday lives, how the individuals experience the policeinteraction, what affects the choice to report or not, but also to see if there is any difference between theexposure for females and males. Themain results that individuals feel because of the exposure, are a great concern and a limitation on everyday life. Individuals experience a positive first impression of the police, which turns to negativity when the investigation is not completed. This is often given as reason not to file a report. A view also develops that shows that females are both more concerned and exposed. One of the most important conclusionsare that social constructs in society have an impact on how the surrounding society, and the victim in person view their exposure. / Syftet är att studeraindividers berättelser om sina upplevelser av att utsättas för hatbrott. Hur utsattheten påverkat individer i deras vardag, hur individerna upplever bemötandet av polisen, vad som har betydelse för om man väljer att inte anmäla en händelse men också om man upplever skillnader mellan kvinnor och mäns utsatthet. Huvudresultaten visar att individer till följd av utsattheten känner en stark oro samt begränsning i vardagen. Individer upplever ofta första intrycket med polisen positivt vilket förändras till negativt då utredningen inte fullföljs. Detta anges ofta som förklaring till varför man inte anmäler. Framkommer gör också uppfattningen om att kvinnor både är mer rädda och utsatta. En av de viktigaste slutsatser som gjorts är att sociala konstruktioner i samhället har betydelse för hur omgivningen och offret själv ser på sin utsatthet

Hate crime laws in both Canada and the United States purport to promote equality using the language of antidiscrimination law. National criminal codes in both countries authorize enhanced punishment for crimes motivated by “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity” or “gender expression.” Cities and states in the United States have also adopted hate crime laws, some of which denounce both homophobic and trans-phobic crimes. Hate crime penalty enhancement laws have been applied by courts in both Canada and the United States to establish a growing jurisprudence. In both countries, moreover, other hate crime laws contribute to official legal knowledge by regulating hate speech, hate crime statistics, and conduct equivalent to hate crimes in schools, workplaces, and elsewhere. Yet, despite the proliferation of hate crime laws and jurisprudence, governmental officials do not control all legal knowledge about hate crimes. Sociological “others” attend criminal sentencing proceedings and provide support to hate crime victims during prosecutions, but they also frame their own unofficial inquiries and announce their own classification decisions for hate-related events. In both Canada and the United States, nongovernmental groups contend both inside and outside official governmental channels to establish legal knowledge about homophobic and trans-phobic hate crimes. In two comparable Canadian and American cities, similar groups monitor and classify homophobic and trans-phobic attacks using a variety of information practices. Interviews with representatives of these groups reveal a relationship between the practices of each group and hate crime laws at each site. The results support one principal conclusion. The availability of local legislative power and a local mechanism for public review are key determinants of the sites and styles of nongovernmental contention about hate crimes. Where police gather and publish official hate crime statistics, the official classification system serves as both a site for mobilization, and a constraint on the styles of contention used by nongovernmental groups. Where police do not gather or publish hate crime statistics, nongovernmental groups are deprived of the resource represented by a local site for social contention, but their styles of contention are liberated from the subtle influences of an official hate crime classification system.

This is a coming of age story about two very different boys – Jason, a Northerner who ends up stuck in a small Southern town and Billy, a Southern boy with an abusive father. The boys become friends and grow up learning the dark secrets that are allowed to fester in a tiny southern town ruled by the Good Ol’ Boy System of justice. The story chronicles how their shared experiences change them in ways they never imagined and ultimately destroys their friendship and their lives. Through a history of violence and prejudice, Billy and Jason learn who they really are and just how far they’re willing to go to get what they want. They discover the true meaning of strength and weakness and how to survive in a world where they don’t fit in. The story explores the issues of violence, drug abuse, and murder that often lie hidden beneath the façade of fanatic Christianity, propriety, and status in seemingly innocent, charming Southern towns.

Hate crime laws in both Canada and the United States purport to promote equality using the language of antidiscrimination law. National criminal codes in both countries authorize enhanced punishment for crimes motivated by “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity” or “gender expression.” Cities and states in the United States have also adopted hate crime laws, some of which denounce both homophobic and trans-phobic crimes. Hate crime penalty enhancement laws have been applied by courts in both Canada and the United States to establish a growing jurisprudence. In both countries, moreover, other hate crime laws contribute to official legal knowledge by regulating hate speech, hate crime statistics, and conduct equivalent to hate crimes in schools, workplaces, and elsewhere. Yet, despite the proliferation of hate crime laws and jurisprudence, governmental officials do not control all legal knowledge about hate crimes. Sociological “others” attend criminal sentencing proceedings and provide support to hate crime victims during prosecutions, but they also frame their own unofficial inquiries and announce their own classification decisions for hate-related events. In both Canada and the United States, nongovernmental groups contend both inside and outside official governmental channels to establish legal knowledge about homophobic and trans-phobic hate crimes. In two comparable Canadian and American cities, similar groups monitor and classify homophobic and trans-phobic attacks using a variety of information practices. Interviews with representatives of these groups reveal a relationship between the practices of each group and hate crime laws at each site. The results support one principal conclusion. The availability of local legislative power and a local mechanism for public review are key determinants of the sites and styles of nongovernmental contention about hate crimes. Where police gather and publish official hate crime statistics, the official classification system serves as both a site for mobilization, and a constraint on the styles of contention used by nongovernmental groups. Where police do not gather or publish hate crime statistics, nongovernmental groups are deprived of the resource represented by a local site for social contention, but their styles of contention are liberated from the subtle influences of an official hate crime classification system.

Hate crime laws in both Canada and the United States purport to promote equality using the language of antidiscrimination law. National criminal codes in both countries authorize enhanced punishment for crimes motivated by “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity” or “gender expression.” Cities and states in the United States have also adopted hate crime laws, some of which denounce both homophobic and trans-phobic crimes. Hate crime penalty enhancement laws have been applied by courts in both Canada and the United States to establish a growing jurisprudence. In both countries, moreover, other hate crime laws contribute to official legal knowledge by regulating hate speech, hate crime statistics, and conduct equivalent to hate crimes in schools, workplaces, and elsewhere. Yet, despite the proliferation of hate crime laws and jurisprudence, governmental officials do not control all legal knowledge about hate crimes. Sociological “others” attend criminal sentencing proceedings and provide support to hate crime victims during prosecutions, but they also frame their own unofficial inquiries and announce their own classification decisions for hate-related events. In both Canada and the United States, nongovernmental groups contend both inside and outside official governmental channels to establish legal knowledge about homophobic and trans-phobic hate crimes. In two comparable Canadian and American cities, similar groups monitor and classify homophobic and trans-phobic attacks using a variety of information practices. Interviews with representatives of these groups reveal a relationship between the practices of each group and hate crime laws at each site. The results support one principal conclusion. The availability of local legislative power and a local mechanism for public review are key determinants of the sites and styles of nongovernmental contention about hate crimes. Where police gather and publish official hate crime statistics, the official classification system serves as both a site for mobilization, and a constraint on the styles of contention used by nongovernmental groups. Where police do not gather or publish hate crime statistics, nongovernmental groups are deprived of the resource represented by a local site for social contention, but their styles of contention are liberated from the subtle influences of an official hate crime classification system. / Law, Faculty of / Graduate