IMPORTANT:This page has used Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia in either a refactored, modified, abridged, expanded, built on or 'straight from' text content! (view authors)

Template:Discrimination sidebar Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[2]


Examples from the past include Roman persecution of Christians, the Ottoman genocide of Armenians, and various Nazi pogroms, starting out as locally-sanctioned anti-Jewish activity in the early years of Nazi occupations and eventually reaching its apex in the Final Solution for the Jews.

More recently, ethnic conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and genocide in Rwanda have been described as mass-based hate crimes, but the term "hate crime" did not really begin to be used until after World War II and the end of most major government-sanctioned racial cleansing projects that had been linked with official fascism. The term "hate crime" is now used more often than in the past mainly because the groups that used to have official endorsement under fascist-linked regimes have now broken up into smaller grouplets that are still committed to the underlying racist and xenophobic ideas, but whose only real outlet for those ideas is individual actions rather than administratively-approved ones. Thus, "hate crime" as that term is most often used today is largely seen as, and dealt with, in a law enforcement capacity by police in individual areas, rather than on a larger scale with intergovernmental and/or armed forces involvement.

Concern about hate crimes has become increasingly prominent among policymakers in many nations and at all levels of government in recent years. There have been many examples throughout modern-day Europe by groups who harass and threaten many different racial groups.[citation needed] In the United States, racial and religious biases have inspired most hate crimes. As Europeans began to colonize the New World in the 16th and 17th centuries, Native Americans increasingly became the targets of bias-motivated intimidation and violence. During the past two centuries, some of the more typical examples of hate crimes in the U.S. include lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods, assaults on white people traveling in predominantly black neighborhoods, assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues and xenophobic responses to a variety of minority ethnic groups.[3]

Examples like the murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre tend not to be classified as "hate crimes" by U.S. investigative officials, but they have meanwhile been blasted as "hate crimes against whites by blacks" by right-wing commentators such as David Horowitz (a right-wing author and academic) and Michelle Malkin (a commentator for the Fox News channel and a prolific conservative author). The district attorneys in both these cases have specifically stated that while these incidents were indeed horrible, and had tremendous impacts on the communities affected by them, neither displayed evidence of being black-on-white racism, either upon initial or more in-depth review.

Hate crime victims

In the United States, racist anti-black bias is the most frequently reported hate crime motivation. African-Americans constitute the second-largest minority group with Hispanics being the first largest.[4] Of the nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 1995, the most frequently reported motivation was bias against blacks, almost 3,000,[5] other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-white, Jewish, Gay, Muslim, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic.[5]

Psychological effects

From a psychological standpoint, hate crimes may have extreme consequences. A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[6]

  • effects on people – psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.
  • effect on the targeted group – generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.
  • effect on other vulnerable groups – ominous effects over minoritarian groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups. Hate Crime is reported to the FBI

Hate crime laws

Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories: (1) laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes; (2) criminal penalty-enhancement laws; (3) laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and (4) laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.[7] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.



Discriminatory acts constituting harassment or infringement of a person's dignity on the basis of origin, citizenship, race, religion, or sex (Penal Code Article 313). Courts have cited bias-based motivation in delivering sentences, but there is no explicit penalty enhancement provision in the Criminal Code. The government does not track hate crime statistics, although they are relatively rare.[7]


Armenia has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with ethnic, racial, or religious motives (Criminal Code Article 63).[7]


Austria has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with racist or xenophobic motivation (Penal Code section 33(5)).[7]


Azerbaijan has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred (Criminal Code Article 61). Murder and infliction of serious bodily injury motivated by racial, religious, national, or ethnic intolerance are distinct crimes (Article 111).[7]


Belarus has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, and religious hatred and discord.[7][8]


Belgium's Act of 25 February 2003 (“"aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism"”) establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of sex, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features. The Act also "provides for a civil remedy to address discrimination."[7] The Act, along with the Act of 20 January 2003 ("on strengthening legislation against racism”"), requires the Centre to collect and publish statistical data on racism and discriminatory crimes.[7]

Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (enacted 2003) "contains provisions prohibiting discrimination by public officials on grounds, inter alia, of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, religion and language and prohibiting the restriction by public officials of the language rights of the citizens in their relations with the authorities (Article 145/1 and 145/2).”"[9]


Bulgarian criminal law prohibits certain crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, but a 1999 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance found that it does not appear that those provisions "have ever resulted in convictions before the courts in Bulgaria."[10]


Croatian law allows for consideration of any extenuating or aggravating circumstances in sentencing, but no explicit provision is made for bias-based motivations.[7]

Czech Republic

"The Czech Criminal Code defines racist motivation as a specific aggravating circumstance that judges are required to take into account in sentencing, as well as defining specific racist acts as crimes. Section 196 punishes “'violence against a group of inhabitants and against individuals on the basis of race, nationality, political conviction or religion.”'"[7]


Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, "section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender's motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence."[11] In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.[7][12]

Since 1992, the Danish Civil Security Service (PET) has released statistics on crimes with apparent racist motivation.[7]


Finnish Criminal Code 515/2003 (enacted January 31, 2003) makes "committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group" an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.[7][13] In addition, ethnic agitation (Template:Lang-fi) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that malicious message is emissioned. A more aggravated hate crime, warmongering (Template:Lang-fi), carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. However, in case of warmongering, the prosecution must prove an overt act that evidently increases the risk that Finland is involved in a war or becomes a target for a military operation. The act in question may consist of

  1. illegal violence directed against foreign country or her citizens,
  2. systematic dissemination of false information on Finnish foreign policy or defence
  3. public influence on the public opinion towards a pro-war viewpoint or
  4. public suggestion that a foreign country or Finland should engage in an aggressive act.[14]


In 2003, France enacted penalty-enhancement hate crime laws for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's actual or perceived ethnicity, nation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for murder were raised from 30 years (for non-hate crimes) to life imprisonment (for hate crimes), and the penalties for violent attacks leading to permanent disability were raised from 10 years (for non-hate crimes) to 15 years (for hate crimes).[7][15]


"There is no general provision in Georgian law for racist motivation to be considered an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions of ordinary offenses. Certain crimes involving racist motivation are, however, defined as specific offenses in the Georgian Criminal Code of 1999, including murder motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 109); infliction of serious injuries motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 117); and torture motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 126). ECRI reported no knowledge of cases in which this law has been enforced. There is no systematic monitoring or data collection on discrimination in Georgia."[7]


Modern-day Germany has very tough anti-Nazi laws, and BfV monitors the neo-Nazi groups that choose to defy these laws and take actions in accordance with the ideas of Nazism. German law specifically states that any group of this type is closely watched and that any attempt on their part to grow to a point where they could have influence in the German government will be stopped. The German administrative structure is very wary of any group, fascist or not, that vies for absolute power. That being said, the German Criminal Code does not specifically acknowledge any direct penalty in connection with hate or bias more generally. In the German legal framework motivation is not taken into account while identifying the element of the offence. However, within the sentencing procedure the judge can define certain principles for determining punishment. In section 46 of the German Criminal Code it is stated that "the motives and aims of the perpetrator; the state of mind reflected in the act and the wilfulness involved in its commission."[16] can be taken into consideration when determining the punishment. In the past hate and bias was regarded here.[17]

The only section in the German Criminal Code where hate and/or bias could be taken into consideration (more or less) directly in case of a violent hate crime is 211 (Murder). The qualification for murder (imprisonment for life) instead of manslaughter (imprisonment not less than five years) is stated in paragraph 2 of section 211: "A murderer is, whoever kills a human being out of murderous lust, to satisfy his sexual desires, from greed or otherwise base motives, treacherously or cruelly or with means dangerous to the public or in order to make another crime possible or cover it up."[18] In the past judges confirmed racial hate and xenophobia as being "otherwise base motives" that enhances a manslaughter to murder.[19]

Besides that the German Criminal Code holds sections against hate speech. Sections 86, 86a were introduced to defend against the ideas of National Socialism. The underlying principle is that propaganda material from forbidden organizations and parties (to which the NSDAP but also modern hate groups belong) can affect the public peace and safety as well as the Free Democratic Basic Order of Germany and therefore may lead to violence.

Section 130 states: "(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace: 1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or 2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population, shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years. (...) (3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine."[20]

Again the public peace and safety is protected and not the bodily integrity of an individual. Especially paragraph 3 shows a huge difference between Germany and (for example) the U.S. in defining the freedom of speech. In this case the so called "Auschwitz lie" – denying, approving or rendering harmless the Holocaust – is considered to disrespect the suffering of all victims. The legally protected interest of the human dignity (in Germany section 1 of the Grundgesetz (constitution)) limits the legally protected interest of freedom of speech (section 5 of the German Grundgesetz). In the U.S. this would be vice versa.[17]


Article Law 927/1979 "Section 1,1 penalises incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organisations which organise propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalises the act of refusing, in the exercise of one’s occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds."[21] Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.[22]


Violent action, cruelty, and coercion by threat made on the basis of the victim's actual or perceived national, ethnic, or religious status are punishable under article 174/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code.[7]


Section 233a of the Icelandic Penal Code states "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly abuses a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to two years."[23]


The Iranian constitution, article 14 states: "In accordance with the sacred verse 'God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with those who have not fought against you because of your religion and who have not expelled you from your homes' [60:8], the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and all Muslims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims in conformity with ethical norms and the principles of Islamic justice and equity, and to respect their human rights. This principle applies to all who refrain from engaging in conspiracy or activity against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran."[24]

Sexual orientation is not recognized as a protected class within the state: homosexuality is punishable by death, and executions under this provision are common.[25][26][27][28][29]


"The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989" makes it an offense to incite hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origins, or membership of the Traveller community, an indigenous minority group."[7]

Ireland does not systematically collect hate crime data.[7]


Italian criminal law, at Section 3 of Law No. 205/1993, contains a penalty-enhancement provision for all crimes motived by racial, ethnic, national, or religious bias.[7]


In Kazakhstan, there are constitutional provisions prohibiting propaganda promoting racial or ethnic superiority.[7]


In Kyrgyzstan, "the Constitution of the State party prohibits any kind of discrimination on grounds of origin, sex, race, nationality, language, faith, political or religious convictions or any other personal or social trait or circumstance, and that the prohibition against racial discrimination is also included in other legislation, such as the Civil, Penal and Labour Codes."[30]

Article 299 of the Criminal Code defines incitement to national, racist, or religious hatred as a specific offense. This article has been used in political trials of suspected members of the banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir.[7][31]


In Scottish Common law the courts can take any aggravating factor into account when sentencing someone found guilty of an offence. There is specific legislation dealing with the offences of incitement of racial hatred, racially-aggravated harassment and offences aggravated by religious prejudice. A Scottish Executive working party examined the issue of hate crime and ways of combating crime motivated by social prejudice, reporting in 2004.[32] Its main recommendations were not implemented, but in their manifestos for the Scottish Parliament election, 2007 several political parties included commitments to legislate in this area, including the Scottish National Party who now form the Scottish Government. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 19 May 2008 by Patrick Harvie MSP,[33] having been prepared with support from the Scottish Government, and passed unanimously by the parliament on 3 June 2009.[34]


Article 22(4) of the Spanish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness, or disability.[7]


Article 29 of the Swedish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or "other circumstance" of the victim.[7]

United Kingdom

For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.[35] For Northern Ireland, Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purpose.[36] A “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A “religious group” is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. The specified crimes are assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 compels a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated. The Act compels a court also to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime:

(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—
(i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or
(ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or
(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—
(i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or
(ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.[37][38]

Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws

Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, San Marino, and Slovenia have no hate crime laws.[7]

North America


The hate crime provision of the Canadian Criminal Code is Section 718.2. The section states (with regard to the hate crime):

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.

Section 430(4.1) of the Canadian Criminal Code provides an increased penalty for "mischief" when the mischief affects a place of religious worship or religious property or a cemetery and is motivated by "bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin."[39]

United States

Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity." In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity.

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics[40]

According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8% nationwide, with a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses reported by participating law enforcement agencies. Of the 5,449 crimes against persons, 46% were classified as intimidation and 31.9% as simple assaults. 81% of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction.[41]

However, according to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2007, the number of hate crimes decreased to 7,624 incidents reported by participating law enforcement agencies.[42] These incidents included 9 murders and 2 rapes(out of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007).[43]

Attorney General Eric Holder said in June 2009 that recent killings show the need for a tougher U.S. hate crimes law to stop "violence masquerading as political activism".[44]

South America


In Brazil, hate crime laws focus on racism, racial injury, and other special bias-motivated crimes such as, for example, murder by death squads[45] and genocide on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion.[46] Murder by death squads and genocide are legally classified as "hideous crimes" (crimes hediondos in Portuguese).[47]

The crimes of racism and racial injury, although similar, are enforced slightly differently.[48] Article 140, 3rd paragraph, of the Penal Code establishes a harsher penalty, from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years, for injuries motivated by "elements referring to race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, or the condition of being an aged or disabled person".[49] On the other side, Law 7716/1989 covers "crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin".[50]

In addition, the Brazilian Constitution defines as a "fundamental goal of the Republic" (Article 3rd, clause IV) "to promote the wealth of all, with no prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age, and any other forms of discrimination".[51]

Support and opposition

Support for hate crime laws

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[3] The beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny by black rioters during the same riot is also an example that would support this argument.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.

Opposition to hate crime laws

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint based discrimination in conflict with rights of free speech because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics.[52] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59]

In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics, James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.[60] Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[61] Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.[62]

See also


  1. Stotzer, R.: Comparison of Hate Crime Rates Across Protected and Unprotected Groups, Williams Institute, 2007–06. Retrieved on 2007-08-09.
  2. Hate crime, Home Office
  3. 3.0 3.1 A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes
  4. Table 1 – Hate Crime Statistics 2005
  5. 5.0 5.1 FBI – Uniform Crime Reports – Hate Crime Statistics 1995
  6. "MANUEL DES POLITIQUES DE LA COURONNE" (in French) (PDF). 21 mars 2005. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
  7. 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.22 7.23 Microsoft Word – Everyday Fears FINAL for web.doc
  8. Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, § 64 (1), para. 9 (translated from the Russian), June 9, 1999.
  9. Office of the High Representative, Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, January 2003.
  10. ECRI, “Second Report on Bulgaria,” adopted on June 18, 1999, and made public on March 21, 2000.
  11. ECRI, “Second Report on Denmark,” adopted on June 16, 2000, and made public on April 3, 2001, para. 9.
  12. Chahrokh, Klug, and Bilger, Migrants, Minorities, and Legislation.
  13. EUMC, “Racism and xenophobia in the E.U.,” p. 51.
  14. Penal Code (39/1889) as of 1006/2004. §§ 6:5.1.4 (ethnic hatred as an aggravating factor), 11:8 (ethnic agitation) and 12:2 (warmongering). The points cited remain in force on the day of retrieval, checked from the Finnish version: Rikoslaki. The Government proposal HE 55/2007 will move the § 11:8 to §11:10 without changing the content, if the proposal is passed by the Parliament of Finland. Retrieved 11-23-2007.
  15. Loi n° 2003–88 du 3 février 2003 visant à aggraver les peines punissant les infractions à caractère raciste, antisémite ou xénophobe
  17. 17.0 17.1 Marc Coester (2008): Das Konzept der Hate Crimes aus den USA unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Rechtsextremismus in Deutschland. Peter Lang: Frankfurt/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Wien
  19. BGH, Decision from 7. September 1993 – 5 StR 455/93
  21. ECRI, “Second Report on Greece,” adopted on 1999-12-10, and made public on 2000-06-27.
  22. Sitaropoulos, N.: “Executive Summary on Race Equality Directive, State of Play in Greece, section 5, 2003-10-12. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
  23. Icelandic Penal Code (in Icelandic)
  24. ICL – Iran – Constitution
  25. Search the Iran Human Rights Memorial, Omid – Boroumand Foundation for Human Rights in Iran
  26. WikiNews: Execution of two gay teens in Iran spurs controversy
  27. SkyNews: Day 58: Obama Backs Global Gay Rights
  28. The Washington Post: Pictures From An Execution Come Into Focus
  29. The Independent: Brutal land where homosexuality is punishable by death
  30. CERD, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention; Concluding Observations: Kyrgyzstan, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
  31. “Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2004 (Events of 2003), International Helsinki Federation,” 2004-06-23. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
  32. [1][dead link]
  33. Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill
  34. MSPs approve new hate crime laws BBC News 3 June 2009
  35. Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) amended sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
  36. Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
  37. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
  38. "Hate crime" legislation is distinct from "hate speech" legislation. See Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom.
  39. Criminal Code of Canada
  40. State Hate Crime Laws, Anti-Defamation League, June 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
  41. Statistics, 2006 Hate Crime Statistics, 2006, Federal Bureau of Investigation
  42. Statistics, 2007 Hate Crime Statistics, 2007, Federal Bureau of Investigation
  43. Statistics, 2007 FBI Crime in the United States 2007, Federal Bureau of Investigation
  44. Attorney general urges new hate crimes law – Crime & courts-
  45. Template:Pt (Law 8072/1990, Article 1st, I)
  46. Template:Pt (Law 2889/1956, Article 1st)
  47. Law 8072/1990 (aforementioned link), Article 1st, I and single paragraph.
  48. Template:Pt
  49. Template:Pt
  50. Template:Pt
  51. Template:Ptçao_Compilado.htm
  52. R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
  53. The Essayist (1998). Hate Crime Premise. 24 Jul. 1998.
  54. Evenson, Brad (2003). Looking for thoughtcrime to crimestop. National Post. February 8, 2003.
  55. Schwartz, L., I.T. Ulit, & D. Morgan (2006). "Straight talk about hate crimes bills: Anti-gay, anti-transgender bias stall federal hate crimes legislation". Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law 7 (2): 171–186.
  56. Icke, David (2003). Tales from the Time Loop. Bridge of Love. ISBN 0953881040. [2]
  57. Smith, Peter J. (2007). Democrats refuse religious freedom amendment to hate crimes bill. LifeSite, 26 April 2007.
  58. Kamine, Wendy. The Return of the Thought Police: "Hate crime" legislation is an assault on civil liberties. The Wall Street Journal. October 28, 2007.
  59. Wolski, Chris (1999). Hate Crime Laws Will Spawn Thought Police. Capitalism Magazine Website. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
  60. Jacobs, James B. & Kimberly Potter. (1998). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 130–144
  61. AEI – Short Publications
  62. Constitutional Challenges to Hate Crimes Statutes

External links

Template:Racism topics


cs:Zločin z nenávisti cy:Trosedd casineb da:Hate crime de:Hate crime es:Delito de odio fr:Crime haineux ko:증오범죄 he:פשע שנאה hu:Gyűlölet-bűncselekmény ja:ヘイトクライム pl:Zbrodnia nienawiści pt:Crime de ódio ru:Преступление на почве ненависти simple:Hate crime fi:Viharikos sv:Hatbrott tr:Nefret suçu zh-yue:仇恨罪行 zh:仇恨罪行

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.