The Need for New Tools to Break the Silos: Identity Categories in Hate Speech Legislation

Abstract

The implications of specifying certain identity categories have been widely debated in the context of hate crime laws and policies. However, they have been less thoroughly examined in the particular contexts of hate speech. Although the majority of laws regulating speech do not differentiate between identity categories, the ‘stirring up’ offences of the United Kingdom Public Order Act 1986 are stratified along grounds of race, religion and sexual orientation. This article argues that, while the concerns raised about identity categories in relation to hate crime legislation are equally relevant to the stirring up provisions, the proposed solutions cannot automatically be transposed to hate speech offences. Accordingly, this article explores challenges that are encountered in attempts to make hate crime and hate speech legislation more inclusive before advancing some tentative suggestions for how hate speech laws might move beyond identity silos.

Eliminate Hate

“…World" Neller (2018) argued that the way in which hate crime is addressed by the criminal justice system can be discriminatory in and of itself. There is a tendency to rank the pain and suffering of others in a hierarchy.…”

“…This is problematic for a number of reasons. The term "balkanization" describes how individuals and groups are encouraged to view themselves as competing groups and uses identity to create a division among communities (Neller, 2018). Anti-hate legislation reform typically occurs with the persistence of specific lobby groups, so laws only protect a select group of people, leaving other groups vulnerable to attack.…”

“…Conversely, if a group or individual is perpetually viewed as a victim, this may disempower them and reinforce patriarchal laws. Despite differences, there is a shared experience of oppression that would be better served to unite individuals and groups in solidarity against injustices (Neller, 2018).…”