Common Issues

Culture

Culture refers to a set of shared meanings that form a structure for social relationships (Truscott & Crook, 2004). Any group targeted in hate crimes can be seen from a cultural perspective as being different from the dominant culture or as having different norms from the dominant culture. Support workers, however, must not make the same mistake as the hate crime perpetrators: each victim is an individual and we should not view them simply as a member of the group. Support workers need to be aware of cultural norms, but also keep in mind that this person has a unique perspective that must be the focus (Truscott & Crook, 2004).

For the purposes of this chapter, we will be taking an expansive definition of culture that includes many elements of identity. When I reference the dominant culture or the dominant group, these terms represent those in the general culture. This would be roughly defined in Canada as the white (Northern European), middle-class, heterosexual, and able-bodied group. However, it is important to note that the values and specific make-up of a dominant culture will vary in various parts of the country. Dominance does not mean the most numerous but those who have more power (social/economic/political) and define what is “normal.”

Prejudice in Society

All crimes occur within a social context. There are social, economic, family and personal pressures on both the victim and perpetrator, and many argue that hate crimes need to also be understood within the context of living in a prejudicial society (Garnetts et al., 1990; Goodley & Runswick, 2011; Gutiérrez, 2022; Herek et al., 1997; Perry, 2002; Perry, 2008; Willis, 2004). In fact, some have shown how coping with oppression and discrimination can lead to similar mental health symptoms as dealing with hate crime victimization (Bandermann & Szymanski, 2014; Szymanski & Balsam, 2011). In other words, those who are treated as “different” or “not belonging,” whether that treatment is criminal or not, often need to mobilize psychological resources to cope. Within our society, what is seen as “normal” is set by the dominant culture—there are those seen as acceptable and those that are seen as “different.” Often those seen as different can be the target of prejudice and, potentially, hate-motivated crimes by perpetrators who want to send a message that “those people” are not welcome.

Beyond the context of crime, support workers can recognize that this in-group/out-group dynamic may cause a great deal of distress to the victim and their family (Ardley, 2005; Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005; Dunbar, 2001; Glaser, Dixit, & Green, 2002; Helms et al., 2010). Furthermore, those who are part of the out-group may also experience other stressful issues, such as poverty, that will affect their victimization experience (Dale et al., 2016), even if it does not seem to be directly related to the crime. Coping with prejudice, poverty, and marginalization may be part of their everyday experience and this will likely become part of any work (Gutiérrez, 2022; Teyber, 2006).

This chapter will not be discussing perpetrator motivations in detail; however, it is appropriate to draw attention to prejudice in this section. In discussing prejudice in policing, Senator Murray Sinclair highlighted system issues: “Systemic racism is when the system itself is based upon and founded upon racist beliefs and philosophies and thinking and has put in place policies and practices that literally force even the non-racists to act in a racist way. So it is what you would call systematic racism.” (Bien, 2020). This is a critical issue which may explain why many people who commit hate crimes are not typically extremists or members of hate groups (Chakraborti, 2015). Prejudicial views and racism are baked into multiple layers of Canadian society, not just policing, and hate crime victims are often the recipient of that exclusion. Thus, it may be seen as acceptable to intimidate or harass certain groups in the workplace, at school or in the community. Such harassment may be at the hands of peers or persons in authority (Dupper, Forrest-Bank, & Lowry-Carusillo, 2015) and reflect an acceptance of prejudicial views as normal and potentially grounded in historical and more violent prejudicial acts (King, Messner, & Bailer, 2009; Perry, & Scrivens, 2019). For examples of marginalized groups, one need only look at the policies of the residential school/Indian hospital system (Drees, 2010) in Canada, and later government apology (Harris, 2017), or the historical mistreatment of the 2SLGBTQI+ community in the federal civil service. Thus, hate crimes can be viewed in the context of a prejudicial society. For evidence, we can look at the increase in Islamophobia and hate crimes against people who looked Middle Eastern after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 (Gerstenfeld, 2002) or the rise in hate crime and discrimination directed at Asians during the COVID-19 pandemic (Huang & Tsai, 2022; Huynh, Raval & Freeman, 2022; Inman et al., 2021; Kim & Tummala-Narra, 2022; Lee & Waters, 2021; Oh, Zhou & Banawa, 2022; Sims et al., 2022; Wang & Santos, 2022; Wong-Padoongpatt, Barrita & King, 2022). This harmful behaviour obviously reflects the perpetrator’s personal views, but also of views that might be promoted online or in the media. It is to this concept of community prejudice that we now turn.

The Internet and Hate

The internet and social media have been used to make positive connections and social linkages, including online support groups, fundraising, and discussion forums on prosocial interests. Littman (2015) reflects on how media advances like the printing press and cheap paper, radio, television, and now the internet have had benefits but also came with a cost. People can easily find a community and make healthy links to others in ways that might have been onerous or impossible prior to the internet because of physical isolation or resources. This is also true for those wishing to spread hate. In a survey of six countries, Reichelmann et al. (2021) found that most people in their sample of those between 18 and 25 years old accidentally found hateful messages when online, with 72.7% to 94.8% indicating they did not seek out hateful messages. Hateful messages included use of stereotypes, group blame for personal or social problems, promoting discrimination, promoting hatred, and promoting violence (Reichelmann et al., 2021).

Rohlfing (2015) points out that hate groups have always existed and are not simply the result of online access. The challenge pre-internet was finding like-minded people. She indicated that such groups might use pamphlets, small meetings, music, and other materials distributed by hand or information shared by word-of-mouth, highlighting the effort needed. The internet offers a much less expensive and wider reach than these old-style methods of gathering like-minded people. It is also useful for support workers to keep in mind the point that many hate crimes are committed by people who are not members of organized groups but, rather, people who may hold prejudicial ideas (Chakraborti, 2015). For the victim, however, hate on the internet and hate expressed during the crime are part of the same message that they are the problem.

Within the context of hate crimes, online networks have allowed people to anonymously connect and share prejudicial attitudes offensive to wider society. In a study on cyberbullying and cyber hate, Wachs et al. (2019) highlight factors that contribute to toxicity (termed ‘toxic online disinhibition’), including how being uninhibited because of being anonymous, and physically distant from victims, reduced empathy because of non-contact with victim and lack of appropriate social cues online. People who were previously isolated can now find a community where their views are validated and potentially enhanced by people who hold similar values or provide social support to hateful messages. One could look at this as a radicalization of prejudicial beliefs that may stay within the virtual world or extend to activities in the real world (Awan & Zempi, 2015; Corb, 2015b). Hate-oriented websites can have diverse goals but often focus on linking people with similar views, ‘educating’ the curious, and recruiting new members (Corb, 2015b; Rohlfing, 2015).

The internet also provides a new virtual environment for hate crimes (Rohlfing, 2015), such as criminal harassment targeting a person because of their personal characteristics. Social media can also serve to vicariously traumatize other members of the group who might see videos or encounter print descriptions of hate crimes (Pickles, 2021), extending the victim group. Furthermore, perpetrators can pretend they are from the victim’s group in order to get personal information to use to commit an offence (Alhaboby, al-Khateeb, Barnes, & Short, 2016). Such virtual criminal activity can be quite damaging as it visits the victim in the relative safety of their home and might occur at any point they respond to email or engage online. Alhaboby et al. (2016) note how cyber harassment may affect the victim directly, but also the victim’s family and other supports. Victims themselves note the possibility of online threats or hate crimes moving into the real world (Awan & Zempi, 2015) which can intensify feelings of fear, mental health symptoms, and overall distress. Awan and Zempi (2016) argue that the boundary between the online world and the real world is blurred and the impacts of hate crimes on the victims’ sense of safety and belonging to greater society represent a continuum of attack, wherein victims feel at risk and unwelcome in both the online and real world. Furthermore, the psychological effects of hate crimes may be the same, regardless of whether the crime was online or in the real world (Zempi, 2017).

Creating an internet safe from online hate and hate crime may be as challenging as creating a crime-free society. Littman (2015) notes how people might protect themselves by blocking others, but this generally only occurs after the hate has been perpetrated. Furthermore, this also means the perpetrators may go on to victimize more people. Blaya (2019) reviewed initiatives focused on teaching victims how to assertively confront online attacks, report perpetrators, and training in appropriate reactions. They noted how such initiatives had not undergone rigorous evaluation but focused on victim empowerment. These challenges highlight the importance of guidelines, rules, regulations and monitoring that might be needed to maintain a safe internet (Chetty & Alathur, 2018; Littman, 2015; Rauf, 2021).Footnote 4 Given that the internet knows no international boundaries, this may prove challenging (Chetty & Alathur, 2018). Support workers aiding victims would be well-served to help them learn how to assess and defend against hate when venturing into the online world through the use of resources (e.g., guides, websites) focused on defending against online bullying.

Reporting the Crime

There is much written about how many victims of hate crimes do not report the crime to authorities (Boeckmann & Turpin-Petrosino, 2002; Corb, 2015a; Díaz-Faes & Pereda, 2022; Garnetts et al., 1990; Herek et al, 1999; Herek et al., 2002; Janoff, 2005; Kaysen et al., 2005; Kuehnle & Sullivan, 2003; Kutateladze, 2022). Díaz-Faes & Pereda (2022) completed a review of the literature and highlighted how the psychological effects of hate crimes work to suppress reporting. They noted that issues of differing legal definitions, perceptions of police legitimacy, police attitudes, political climate, the victim’s experience of discrimination, and offender characteristics affect reporting decisions (Díaz-Faes & Pereda, 2022). These issues highlight some of the cultural and systemic discrimination issues outlined above that have a daily impact on the victim.

With reference to the Canadian context,Footnote 5 Corb (2015a) also noted that hate crimes are underreported, pointing to reasons such as fear of repercussions, fear of exclusion from the general community, stigmatization, fear of the police or law enforcement, and so forth. The finding that victims underreport crime is supported by more recent research estimating that only 29% of hate crimes are reported to police (Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada, 2023). Thus, support workers may want to identify how to help victims in a way that does not leave them feeling controlled. The goal is to empower people to make an informed decision that promotes healing, which can differ among people. Although police in Canada accept third-party reporting, support workers should discuss with victims how to best approach authorities, including the decision to report or not report. Victims may need informational support or assistance in looking at the costs and benefits of reporting to clarify any misconceptions about the Canadian system based on their experiences and perceptions of the justice system. At the core of these discussions is enhancing victims’ sense of control over their lives. Corb (2015a) noted that the multicultural and immigrant nature of Canada means that victims may have diverse experiences with the police or authorities either here or, for immigrants, in their birth country. Depending upon the person’s individual experiences with law enforcement and government, such open discussions can be essential. This is why support workers must always validate a victim’s choice in whether to report and how to approach the situation in general.

Several researchers have noted that victims may be reluctant to report hate crimes because of fear of secondary victimization and/or concerns about police bias (Atak, 2020; Herek et al., 2002; Peel, 1999). Furthermore, victims may not perceive the attack as a hate crime, even in the face of evidence, because they have become accustomed to prejudice in society, highlighting the need to sometimes explore this perception directly by asking: “Do you think you were victimized due to prejudice?” (Cuevas et al., 2021). In other words, people can become so desensitized to dealing with daily prejudice that they may not consider the possibility they were targeted due to that same prejudice.

Researchers have also identified several other reasons people give for not reporting hate crimes (Chahal, 2017; Herek et al., 2002; Peel, 1999), including that:

A victim’s previous experiences can also affect whether they will report the crime. Stermac and Sheridan (1993) point out that victims who belong to more than one marginalized group are at higher risk of being a victim of hate crime, but also are at increased risk of facing discrimination in society. This feeling of not being accepted because of multiple labels may also decrease the chances they will report the crime (Dunbar, 2006). Thus, an Indigenous lesbian might be less likely to report a hate crime than a white lesbian. Dunbar (2006) also indicates that for victims of anti-2SLGBTQI+ violence, the more violent the attack, the less likely it is to be reported; yet others have found that more severe hate crimes are more likely to be reported (Lantz, Wenger, & Malcom, 2022). These mixed results may involve differences in victim groups, but also changes in society over the intervening years of the research. Feddes and Jonas (2020) found that those who had previous experience with being a hate crime victim were also less likely to report and reported less trust in the police. Support workers may need to help victims look at their personal costs and benefits of reporting the crime to authorities as part of an ongoing informed consent process (Garnetts, Herek, & Levy, 1990).

Given the above, some researchers have looked at those who did report hate crimes. McDevitt et al. (2001) noted that hate crime victims were more likely to talk to other people before reporting the crime. This may relate to all crime victims’ need to decide whether what happened was a crime or to seek other types of support. Kutateladze (2022) also found that the biggest predictor of reporting was encouragement and support from friends. Peel (1999) indicated that those who report hate crimes are more likely to view the police as effective and reported that they did not want the perpetrator to “win.” However, those who reported also felt more fear about reporting the crime (Peel, 1999). The severity of the hate crime increased the likelihood of reporting for some victims (Lantz, Wenger, & Malcom, 2022), possibly indicating that the severity of the crime may overcome some of the limiting factors outlined above.

Waves of Victims

Although the criminal act harms the primary victim, there are also many secondary victims (Ardley, 2005; Ashraf & Nassar, 2018; Jacobs & Potter 1998; Perry & Alvi, 2012; Pickles, 2021; McDonald & Hogue, 2007; Stults, Kupprat, Krause, Kapadia, & Halkitis, 2017). Iganski (2001) described “waves of harm” which move out from the initial victim to the group/neighbourhood, other targeted communities, social norms, and values. Hate crimes send a clear message to the initial victim’s community that they are not welcomed or accepted in society (Jacobs & Potter 1998) regardless of whether they live in the immediate area (Blee, 2005). Furthermore, there is evidence that people have a stronger reaction when the crime victim is from a group with which one identifies (Paterson et al. 2019a; Walters et al., 2020) and are more likely to see it as a hate crime (Lee et al., 2007). Empathy for the victim who is like oneself may be the explanation (Paterson et al., 2019a; Paterson et al., 2018), although also being a victim may reduce this pattern and result in victim-blaming (Paterson et al., 2019b).

The issue of vicarious traumatization has been highlighted when people see the victimization of someone like themselves (Ashraf & Nassar, 2018; Perry & Alvi, 2012). For example, if a religious site (e.g., synagogue, church, mosque) in Montreal is vandalized, this can affect the feelings of safety and security of a similar people in Vancouver. Similarly, if a rainbow crosswalk is vandalized, media reports can affect 2SLGBTQI+ people in other communities. Any cultural symbol, religious or otherwise, can be a target of hate to traumatize the target group (e.g., burning or removal of totem poles or crosses). This can result in increased feelings of fear, lack of safety and vulnerability in all members of the targeted community (Boeckmann & Turpin-Petrosino, 2002; Jacobs & Potter 1998; Herek et al., 2002; Huang & Tsai, 2022; Jenness & Broad, 1997). This in turn can lead to even greater feelings of being marginalized.