We Need to Talk About Women: Examining the Place of Gender in Hate Crime Policy

Mason-Bish, Hannah

doi:10.1332/policypress/9781447308768.003.0013

Cited by 7 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, our findings illustrate that, on the basis of the experience of victims, the targeting of goths and alternatives show a number of similarities with the experiences of established hate crime victim groups. We have also draw attention to the importance of conceptual arguments, noting that, although goths and alternative participants would not seem to fit comfortably with structural conceptions of hate crime, their experience could be regarded as more consistent with recent theorisations of hate crime that centre in a broader sense on the targeting of difference and vulnerability (Walters 2011;Mason-Bish 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

‘F**king Freak! What the Hell Do You Think You Look Like?’

Garland¹,

Hodkinson²

2014

CRIMIN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greater Manchester Police's categorisation of targeted attacks on 'alternative subculture' members as hate crimes prompted extensive debate about whether such incidents are comparable to those of recognised hate crime groups. Hate crime experts have contributed to this debate but there is a lack of detailed empirical research on the subject. Drawing on qualitative interviews with twenty-one respondents mostly affiliated to the goth scene, this paper uncovers extensive experience of verbal harassment and, for some respondents, repeated incidents of targeted violence. The nature and impact of such experiences, we argue, bears comparison with key facets of hate crime. Such evidence informs and underlines the importance of conceptual arguments about whether hate crime can or should be extended beyond recognised minority groups.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

‘F**king Freak! What the Hell Do You Think You Look Like?’

Garland¹,

Hodkinson²

2014

CRIMIN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Canada and some states in the United States include gender as a protected category. And, scholars who argue for the general inclusion of gender under hate crime statutes make the claim that these crimes, as well as other bias crimes, hurt more (Carney, 2001) and that many hate crimes are gendered (Mason-Bish, 2014). However, the gendered aspect of hate crimes is often overlooked because gender is not covered by hate crime laws (Mason-Bish, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And, scholars who argue for the general inclusion of gender under hate crime statutes make the claim that these crimes, as well as other bias crimes, hurt more (Carney, 2001) and that many hate crimes are gendered (Mason-Bish, 2014). However, the gendered aspect of hate crimes is often overlooked because gender is not covered by hate crime laws (Mason-Bish, 2014). Victims in this study who experienced the incident to be motivated by the offender’s hostility or prejudice against their gender or gender identity, an overwhelming majority being women, were more likely to experience anger and worry and to make changes to their everyday life by avoiding places than those who did not make the same interpretation of the same type of event.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

For Whom Does Hate Crime Hurt More? A Comparison of Consequences of Victimization Across Motives and Crime Types

Mellgren

Andersson

Ivert

2017

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hate crimes have been found to have more severe consequences than other parallel crimes that were not motivated by the offenders' hostility toward someone because of their real or perceived difference. Many countries today have hate crime laws that make it possible to increase the penalties for such crimes. The main critique against hate crime laws is that they punish thoughts. Instead, proponents of hate crime laws argue that sentence enhancement is justified because hate crimes cause greater harm. This study compares consequences of victimization across groups of victims to test for whom hate crimes hurt more. We analyzed data that were collected through questionnaires distributed to almost 3,000 students at Malmö University, Sweden, during 2013. The survey focused on students' exposure to, and experiences of, hate crime. A series of separate logistic regression analyses were performed, which analyzed the likelihood for reporting consequences following a crime depending on crime type, perceived motive, repeat victimization, gender, and age. Analyzed as one victim group, victims of hate crime more often reported any of the consequences following a crime compared with victims of parallel non-hate-motivated crimes. And, overall victims of threat more often reported consequences compared with victims of sexual harassment and minor assault. However, all hate crime victim groups did not report more consequences than the non-hate crime victim group. The results provide grounds for questioning that hate crimes hurt the individual victim more. It seems that hate crimes do not hurt all more but hate crimes hurt some victims of some crimes more in some ways.

show abstract

“…It is relatively common these days for a gay, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) or queer community to be spoken of, but can persons with disabilities be said to form a community? What if we consider gender as a ground that motivates acts of hatred (Mason-Bish 2014)? Can women be said to comprise a community?…”

Section: Open-ended Clauses and The Community Criterionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Neller

2018

Int J for Crime, Justice & Social Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

We Need to Talk About Women: Examining the Place of Gender in Hate Crime Policy

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

‘F**king Freak! What the Hell Do You Think You Look Like?’

‘F**king Freak! What the Hell Do You Think You Look Like?’

For Whom Does Hate Crime Hurt More? A Comparison of Consequences of Victimization Across Motives and Crime Types

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About