Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Hate Crime’ Category

kaushikKaushik Paul, Durham University

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the ECtHR”) delivered a judgment in the case of Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium (application no 37798/13) on 11 July 2017. In this case the ECtHR, in line with its previous decision in SAS v France (application no 43835/11), upheld the ban on wearing Islamic full-face veils (e.g. the niqab and the burqa worn by Muslim women) in public places in Belgium on the grounds of living together. In Belcacemi, the ECtHR unanimously said that “the wearing in public of clothing that partly or totally covers the face” can be prohibited to “guarantee the conditions of ‘living together’” and for the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. The ECtHR also maintained that Belgium’s ban on full-face veils was “necessary in a democratic society” under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Before moving to offer a critique of Belcacemi ruling, it is worth elaborating on the concept of ‘living together’. This concept was established and accepted by the ECtHR in SAS. However, the ECtHR has never clearly defined the notion of living together. In upholding the full-face veil ban in France on the basis of the living together principle, the Grand Chamber held in SAS that “the voluntary and systematic concealment of the face is problematic because it is quite simply incompatible with the fundamental requirements of living together in French society and that the systematic concealment of the face in public places, contrary to the ideal of fraternity, … falls short of the minimum requirement of civility that is necessary for social interaction” (para. 141-142). The Grand Chamber also held that allowing women to wear the full-face veils in public spaces might breach “the right of others to live in a space of socialisation that makes living together easier” (para. 122). (more…)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Alex Shar10689909_1016854768344392_8793741729286128967_npe, Professor of Law at Keele University and barrister at Garden Court Chambers, London. Twitter handle: alexsharpe64

We are familiar with opposition to rights acquisition by sexual and gender minorities, at least when it comes from socially conservative and/or religiously moral quarters. Yet, in our topsy-turvy world, it is elements of the liberal or libertarian left that increasingly appear to block the way. In this article, I will consider this disturbing tendency through the example of the recent announcement of the Equalities Minister Justine Greening that the government intends to liberalise legal arrangements governing legal recognition of gender identity.[1]

This reform proposal has led to sustained criticism from several leading liberal or libertarian political journalists. Thus it has been criticised by Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked Magazine,[2] and by Helen Lewis, the deputy editor of the New Statesman.[3] In this article, I want to take to task the central objection each raises. O’Neill objects to what he views as the re-writing of history regarding the ‘facts’ of gender. For her part, Lewis imagines all manner of harmful consequences that reform may produce for cisgender women. In O’Neill’s case, existing legal arrangements, as well as proposed reform, appear to represent an affront, while Lewis focuses on potential harms which she links to expanding the pool of people able to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

I will argue that O’Neill’s objection is based on a mistaken view of history, of historical analysis, of the doing of history. Conversely, Lewis’ claim is an empirical one, but one utterly lacking in evidence. What unites both is fantasy. Lewis’ imagination runs amok, sensitising the public to the possibility that one of the most marginalised and vulnerable groups in society (trans women) might, if permitted to pee in female bathrooms, have recourse to female refuges and/or be allocated to a gender-appropriate prison, prey on cisgender women. In a different register, O’Neill invokes the cultural power of Orwell and points to the dystopia he believes reform will inevitably deliver. (more…)

Read Full Post »

IB imageSnapshots of law, gender and sexuality news from the past couple of weeks.

The LGBTQ+ Community and “Gay Conversion Therapy”

William Lee, University of Manchester

Malta made history on the 7th December 2016 when the Maltese Parliament unanimously approved the Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression Bill. Among other things, the Bill criminalises “gay conversion therapy”, giving legal recognition that for the position that “no sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression constitutes a disorder, disease or shortcoming of any sort”. This thereby relieves the LGBTQ+ community of potentially being subjugated to any “deceptive and harmful” act designed to change their sexual behaviour or gender identity.

The new Act in effect positions Malta as the first European country to ban “gay conversion therapy”.

The Business Insider states that Malta has been at the forefront of progressive social reforms in Europe since the Labour government was elected in 2013. For that, Malta quite comfortably deserves its ranking of being the best European country for LGBTQ+ rights as deemed by the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA- Europe).

In light of such radical progress in Malta, this post will look briefly at the origins of “gay conversion therapy”. It will also briefly outline the United Kingdom (UK) and American’s current stance in regard to this practice. (more…)

Read Full Post »

IB image

Twitter Clamps down on Abuse and Hate Crime

Ama Williams, Newcastle University

Online abuse on social media platforms is endemic. The majority of people who frequent social media will have either seen or been the victim of some form of abuse. Last week Twitter introduced provisions to try and tackle online abuse and instances of hate crime – that is, abuse targeted toward someone because of their membership of a particular social group. It has now added ‘Advanced Muting Options’ to the previous option to mute accounts. This means that a user can block certain words or phrases from appearing in their personal notifications, in the hope that this will shield the user from abuse being targeted specifically at them. However there is some concern that these measures do not actually stop hate speech being posted and due to the anonymity Twitter affords to its users, abuse may continue to be prolific.

Recent reports have shown that abuse online is on the increase. Pink News reported that there has been an online spike of homophobia since Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential race. In one instance a homophobic word increased from being tweeted 8,000 times to 32,000 times in the day after his win. In England, abuse of women in positions of power is inherent on many platforms but social media seems to breed particularly depraved forms of hatred. (more…)

Read Full Post »

YRYvette Russell is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol. 

On July 13, 2016 Nottinghamshire police became the first force in the UK to recognise misogyny as a hate crime.  Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a personal characteristic’. In practical terms, this means that in Nottinghamshire police can record reported incidents such as wolf whistling, verbal abuse, taking photographs without consent, and using mobile phones to send unwanted messages with an additional ‘flag’ or qualifier on their incident log as hate crime.  It appears that the move is largely symbolic, as gender animus is not a relevant aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing under relevant UK ‘hate crime’ legislation,[1] and does not create any new criminal offences.  However, the initiative has been supported by the force working in partnership with the Nottingham Women’s Centre and has involved the specialised training of officers to better identify and respond to the public harassment of women by men. (more…)

Read Full Post »

IB imageSnapshots of law, gender and sexuality news from the past couple of weeks

The First Discussions About Intersex Issues at the United Nations Human Rights Council

Gita Keshava, Durham University

This week has marked a development in the protection of intersex people at the level of the United Nations. On Monday, March 10 2014, Holly Greenberry, an intersex activist with IntersexUK, addressed the UN Human Rights Council on behalf of intersex organisations around the world about current human rights issues. She spoke of the human rights violations faced by intersex children in all countries in the world and the consequences experienced during adulthood. She addressed the issues of discrimination at all levels of society, the influence of the media in the stigmatization of intersex people, and the violence that is perpetrated against them. On Tuesday, March 11 2014, activists from the United Kingdom, Argentina, Switzerland, and Australia discussed genital mutilation, psychological trauma, discrimination, and torture faced by intersex people and called for concrete action to be taken by the international community. It marks the first – and hopefully not the last – time that the United Nations has held an event targeting the specific human rights violations currently faced by intersex people. (more…)

Read Full Post »

10689909_1016854768344392_8793741729286128967_nProfessor Alex Sharpe, School of Law, Keele University

Until very recently, I used to think transgender people were an especially vulnerable group in our society. It certainly appeared so. Didn’t they experience far more violence, discrimination and general incivility than most of us? In fact, I’m sure I remember reading somewhere (somewhere credible in fact) that 42% of transgender people never come out at work for fear of losing their jobs. Well you can understand it really. Indeed, and sorry for being pedantic, but wasn’t it the case, despite an obvious clear and present danger, that law, and the criminal justice system more generally, failed miserably to protect transgender people’s bodily and sexual autonomy? In fact, I might be mistaken (though I think you’ll find I’m not), but wasn’t it the case that the very definition of rape excluded transgender women so that cisgender men could basically rape them with impunity (see, further, my article ‘The Failure to Degenderise the Law of Rape: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and the Transsexual Rape Victim’ (1995) The Criminal Lawyer, 7-8). Of course, some things have improved. But none of this really matters, because this version of recent history (while true) is no longer fashionable.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »