Introduction

The term “hate crime” is now widely used among academics, policy makers, justice practitioners, and activists when referring to criminal offenses that are at least partly motivated by some form of identity-based prejudice. There is now a substantial theoretical and empirical evidence base on hate crime (Hall, 2015; Perry, 2009). Although there remains a paucity of theoretical explication of the phenomenon (see, for example, Iganski, 2008; Perry, 2001; Walters, 2011), a more extensive literature has developed on the harms it causes (Iganski & Lagou, 2015; Perry & Alvi, 2012) as well as how governments should respond to it. In particular, much has been written about the use of hate crime legislation to tackle hate-motivated offenses (Brax & Munthe, 2015; Iganski, 1999; Schweppe, 2012). Still in its infancy is research and practice on alternative criminal justice responses to combating hate crime (Hall, 2015: Part Four; Walters, 2014).

In tandem with much of this research and practice has been the development of a policy domain focused on addressing the root causes of hate-motivated crimes (e.g. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights [ODIHR], 2009). Much of the policy work on combating hate crime has been influenced by academic research (Giannasi, 2014), while in turn the ongoing work of policy makers and practitioners has provided a rich source of information for academic study (Hall, 2014). Nonetheless, there has also been a tendency for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners to work in silos, each developing their own understandings of hate crime; at times with little dialogue between or across sectors (Chakraborti & Garland, 2014). Such a situation is liable to result in disparate understandings of the problem forming both within and across borders. Moreover, the lack of any formal partnerships between researchers and policy makers risks the development of ill-informed policies on hate crime, and in reverse to a scholarship that has little perceived relevance to policy or practice. For instance, Chakraborti (2014) asserted that there has often been the perception that academic theorizing on hate crime is “too complex, too ethereal and too detached from the everyday realities confronting those who deal with hate crime cases . . .” (p. 3). Academic research must therefore become more accessible to both policy makers and practitioners if costly and time-consuming research is to have a chance of having any “real life” impact. To ensure that the knowledge bases currently being developed on hate crime are shared effectively, greater emphasis must be given to the development of multiple-sector partnerships.

Another area in which our knowledge of the patterns of hate crime has been underdeveloped has been at the level of the international. We have been myopic, if not blatantly ethnocentric in our study of hate crime. In 1998, two “international” anthologies on hate crime were published almost simultaneously. Kaplan and Bjorgo’s (1998) Nation and Race focused almost exclusively on European issues. Kelly and Maughan’s (1998) Hate Crime: The Global Politics of Polarization strayed a little further afield, to address hate crime in India, ethnic cleansing in Colombia, and Palestinian persecution in the Arab world alongside the standard European and American fare. Subsequent to these two anthologies, however, little else has been done to examine hate-motivated violence outside of the West. Emphasis has largely been placed on the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Western Europe.

In short, the scholarship on hate crime, per se, has been dominated by American and Western European perspectives, where both the academic and legislative frameworks are relatively well established. We know virtually nothing about racial or religious violence in Japan, or homophobic violence in Saudi Arabia, for example. There is some extant literature on the genocides of Rwanda, or the ethnic cleansing of the Balkan states, but we have not mined these tragic conflicts for lessons about the evolution of hate, or what the Anti-Defamation League might refer to as the pyramid of hate. As the Office for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) noted in 2012, hate crimes “can escalate rapidly into broader social unrest, are often severely underreported, and they can be exacerbated by or take place in a context of intolerant discourse” (p. 2). This is clear not only in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand but also across the world in regions where the term is rarely used or recognized. The time has come to widen our geographical lens. Following Akbar Ahmed’s (1995) advice, we ought to “draw universal principles and locate global explanations” for other-directed violence across the world (p. 4).

These two limitations—lack of synergy between academics and policy makers, and a narrow geographical scope—were the inspiration for the launch of the INHS in 2013. Led by academics, policy experts, and practitioners, the Network was established to provide a platform from which researchers, policy makers, and practitioners (and the public) can share knowledge globally. The INHS has four key aims: sharing information, public policy engagement, collaboration in research, and improved understanding of hate crime globally (see http://www.internationalhatestudies.com/about-us/aims-and-objectives-of-the-network). As we state on our website, “[h]ate has no borders and, with the proliferation of online sources and resources, its study needs a multi-disciplinary and international focus as well as one which examines local and jurisdiction-specific causes and responses.” As part of this mission, the INHS held its inaugural conference, on May 8 and 9, 2014, at the School of Law, Politics and Sociology, University of Sussex in the United Kingdom with the theme Understanding Hate Crime: Research, Policy & Practice. A number of different platforms were used throughout the 2-day conference to facilitate creative engagement across the academic, policy, practitioner, and activist communities, with the aim of providing innovative insights and responses to hate crimes. The conference was truly international, with a total of 110 delegates (including 65 speakers) traveling from Africa, Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia, offering domestic, comparative, and global analyses.

This edition of CJPR is the first official output from the collaborative work of the Network. The journal contains the full versions of four of our plenary speakers whose papers centered on the topic of research, policy, and practice. Each author offers an original insight on the importance of maintaining strong connections between research, policy, and practice domains and how this might be achieved in the longer term. There is also considerable attention to international efforts to come to terms with hate crime, either through formal policy, or on the ground programs for potential and actual victims and/or offenders. Collectively, the contributors illustrate how research, policy, and practice when combined offer the most effective means of improving our understandings of hate crime and how ultimately it can be effectively challenged at domestic and international levels.

Joanna Perry’s article provides a useful framework for understanding the connections among three key sectors engaged in hate crime work: practitioners, scholars, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Her equilateral “triangle” allows us to make sense of how each of these sets of actors might ideally interact, bringing their respective insights and expertise to the table. It also highlights the risks involved when the engagement across sectors is weakened. The articles from Neil Chakraborti and Jon Garland, interestingly, take up these same themes. Chakraborti sheds further light on the connections between practitioners and scholars, in particular, exploring the long-lived disconnect between hate crime scholars and hate crime practitioners. In an earlier article, Chakraborti reminds us that “good practice needs to be informed by good policy, which in turn needs to be informed by academic knowledge” (Chakraborti, 2014, p. 3). However, he argues that the relationship between the two sectors has historically been hostile at worst, distrustful at best. Garland explores similar arguments, but then also illustrates signs of “rapprochement” through case studies that highlight the advantages to be derived from collaborative approaches among practitioners, academics, and community activists.

While Chakraborti and Garland confine their discussions largely to the English context, Joanna Perry and Barbara Perry (no relation!), in their respective articles, emphasize the second priority of the INHS—the global dimensions of hate crime. Joanna Perry speaks to the development and also lack of alignment of hate crime policy across EU and Office for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) countries. Like Garland, she nonetheless sees reason for optimism in the joint efforts of NGOs and government bodies around enhanced reporting mechanisms, for example. Taking a cue from Joanna Perry’s global frame, Barbara Perry seeks to provide a broad introduction to responses to hate crime found across the globe. Although this survey includes consideration of formal legislative and other state responses, it also draws attention to the efforts of NGOs and other sorts of community based—often grassroots—groups. From social media campaigns, to exit strategies directed at White supremacists, to victim services, countless and diverse examples of antihate initiatives are identified.

This special edition of CJPR thus seeks to both explicate and further elaborate on both the goals of the INHS specifically, and problematize and highlight future developments for the field of hate studies generally. As a relatively young discipline, the domain of hate studies is unusual for a number of reasons. It is by its nature interdisciplinary, and scholars typically seek to engage with policy makers, practitioners, and those most affected by the exclusionary phenomenon of hate. The Network embraces the unique qualities of the field and, along with its 2014 conference, has held a number of workshops which engage the academic and policy domains. Its task in the future is to create a space in which all communities—local, regional, and global—can work together to both communicate and combat the harms of hate.