Curbing hate crimes tough in democracies

Tackling ‘hate speeches’ through the law-and-order machinery is a problem in some democratic countries. The concept of freedom of speech embedded in their Constitution hinders their ability to restrict such hostile narratives or launch successful prosecutions against persons concerned even in what may appear publicly as incitement to terrorism.

It took 18 years for the British police to launch successful criminal prosecution against Pakistani British Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary after he established ‘al-Muhajiroun’ in Britain in 1996. They could do this only after he pledged allegiance to the banned Islamic State in 2014.

In the USA, the William H Webster Commission, which was asked to enquire into the alleged lapses leading to the “Fort Hood” incident, stated in 2012: “Radicalism is not a crime. Radicalization alone, without incitement to violence, may not constitute a threat. Our Constitution protects thoughts, words, and even actions associated with extremism, including speeches, public assemblies, and attendance at places of worship.”

The Fort Hood incident happened on November 5, 2009. US Army Major Nidal Hasan opened fire, killing 13 of his colleagues and injuring 30 in their Fort Hood (Texas) Army Camp. He had allegedly done this under the influence of radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who he was in contact with through e-mails. The FBI was monitoring his mails. The Webster report, submitted on July 9, 2012, made several recommendations to improve watch on such extremist behaviour.

After the January 2021 Capitol attack during the last days of President Donald Trump, a re-assessment was done on the threats posed by the White majoritarian “supremacist” organisations in the USA. In June 2021, President Joe Biden unveiled a national strategy to check “racial or ethnic bigotry and animating ideologies” by “domestic violent extremists” (DVEs) arising out of “complex, multi-layered set of societal dynamics” leading to “domestic terrorism”.

It is not that the White supremacist movements were not monitored earlier. On October 21, 2016 the US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) said that the FBI was alerting the state and federal law enforcement agencies about this threat for the past 10 years. The FBI had issued an “Unclassified/ Law Enforcement Sensitive” intelligence assessment on October 17, 2006 on “the threat of white nationalists and skinheads infiltrating police to disrupt investigations against fellow members.” FBI director James Comey had addressed a national conference of the chiefs of police on October 16, 2016 in which it was said that the Americans had actually “no idea whether racial bias in policing is really an epidemic”.

There was even an interpretation that the US Constitution’s First Amendment’s “Freedom of Association” would mean that it was perfectly legal for anyone to join even hate groups and still be members of the police and that the authorities could debar them only when this membership interfered with their duties.

These legal difficulties facing the law-and-order machinery while dealing with DVEs were highlighted in a combined FBI-Homeland Security paper ‘Strategic Intelligence Assessment & Data on Domestic Terrorism’ presented to the US Congress in May 2021, highlighting their limitations.

The first was the definition that DVEs should be operating within America without backing by any foreign power or organisations that have subversive interests against America.

The second was a legal point that “the mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric or generalised philosophical embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism and may be constitutionally protected.”

On August 31, 2021, a Reuters report said that the ‘hate crimes’ had hit a 12-year high in America in 2020. In 2019, it was 7,300 and in 2020, it reached 7,759. These figures were reported to the FBI by the 15,000 US law enforcement agencies. However, it was always felt that the actual figures were much higher. The reasons may be their difficulties in defining a “hate crime” or a disinclination by the local police to report hate-based crime figures to the FBI which tracks the data through their National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

After President Joe Biden’s national strategy was unveiled, the FBI has elevated hate crimes and civil rights as the top national security priorities. US agencies have now concluded that the only way to control ‘hate crimes’ is to link it to ‘civil rights’. This initiative was taken by United States Associate Attorney-General Vanita Gupta who has appointed a “Hate Crime Coordinator” to be the focal point between the prosecutors and FBI offices, who will also have full-time civil rights coordinators.

The US Justice Department feels that it might be easier to deal with hate crime after a new law HR 2383 (“Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act of 2021”) is passed. The Bill connects ‘hate crimes’ with the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which punishes anybody, including officials, who would by force or threat of force intimidate or interfere with others based on race, colour, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. This law is pending with the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Simultaneously, the FBI is doing an outreach to the members of the public to encourage them to report hate crimes to the law enforcement authorities. It is undertaking a campaign through its 56 field offices to educate the public and protect all victims of crimes, regardless of their country of national origin or immigration status.

Admittedly, none of these difficulties exist in India. Our laws are very clear. Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code can be successfully used to prosecute a person who promotes disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or on places of birth. If this act is done from a place of worship, it would entail enhanced punishment. A similar provision is there under Section 295-A, whereby any deliberate act, made with a malicious intention to hurt the religion or religious beliefs of others, is punishable.

In other words, our local police can, on their own, act and even take stern preventive measures against known depredators violating these sections of law. They have a lot to explain why their actions are tardy and inadequate.

Views are personal