balkan region hate crime training june 9, 2015 ... - enil.eu · encourage victims to report hate...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Balkan Region Hate Crime Training June 8 – 9, 2015 Zagreb Cooperation between ENIL, Croatian Disability Ombudsman and OSCE/ODIHR
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Background information: ........................................................................................................................ 3 Events report ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Concrete Outcome ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Annexes .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Annex 1 – Participant List ....................................................................................................................... 6 Annex 2 – Miro Griffith’s Speech – ....................................................................................................... 7
Event Organizers: Branka Meic – Croatian Disability Ombudsman, Joanna Perry – OSCE/ODIHR, Jamie Bolling – ENIL and Miro Griffiths – ENIL
3
Background information: Targeted Countries for the workshop: Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Serbia, Aims of the workshop: To gain a strong understanding of the concept and nature of disability hate crime, and to share experiences;
To learn advocacy arguments that can be used to raise awareness about the importance of recognizing and responding to disability hate crime;
To identify relevant resources and next steps in specific country-contexts. Aims of the high level meeting Raise awareness about the concept and nature of disability hate crime, and share experiences from the region; Present effective responses to disability hate crime at the national level, and; Identify ways forward for criminal justice officials, national human rights institutions, and civil society. Expected Outcomes: Outcome of regional training: knowledge on issue; describe and recognize, advocating; describing for officials; raising of awareness; using knowledge for monitoring; support to victims; training of others; collection of stories. Outcomes of High-level meeting: discussion on the low awareness level of disability hate crime and the lack of official recording; discussion on what needs to be done for improving recording; subgroup with disability focus could be needed to complement the existing government work group.
4
Events report Regional workshop – June 8th, 2015 The ENIL 2015 Hate Crime training took place in Zagreb with two events one on June 8th and the other on June 9th in cooperation with the Croatian Disability Ombudsman and the OSCE/ODIHR. The events were organised in partnership between ENIL – European Network on Independent Living, OSCE – ODIHR and the Croation Disability Ombudsman The Regional workshop on Hate Crimes against People with Disabilities that took place on June 8th, 2015 targeted young people who want to work with the issue of hate crime nationally. Anka Slonjsak, Disability Ombudsman for Croatia, Jamie Bolling, Director of ENIL, Joanna Perry Hate Crime Officer, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights participated to set the scene on the story about and experience of disability hate crime, and the response of authorities. ODIHR’s approach to hate crime was presented and discussed with participants. Common bias indicators in disability hate crimes were listed and discussed. Participants shared their own experiences of hate crime. Common themes were identified and discussed. Participants then used case studies to apply their learning and to identify key bias indicators. Advocacy arguments were practised that could be used to raise awareness about the importance of recognizing and responding to disability hate crime. Participants also worked with trainers to identify resources and opportunities in their own countries to improve awareness and responses to disability hate crime.
5
National Seminar – June 9th, 2015 The seminar on the 9th offered a forum for government officials and law enforcement practitioners involved in preventing and responding to hate crime in Croatia to explore challenges and identify good practices and ways forward in partnership with people with disabilities. OSCE participating States agree that hate crimes violate core values of tolerance, mutual respect and understanding, and pose a serious danger to the security of targeted groups, threatening to create long-lasting experiences of isolation, exclusion and fear. In Moscow OSCE participating States committed themselves, ‘to ensure the protection of people with disabilities’. Participating States specifically committed themselves to combat hate crimes in Maastricht (2003). A comprehensive approach to responding to hate crime was set out in Athens (2009), where governments acknowledged the need to “take appropriate measures to encourage victims to report hate crimes”, and committed themselves to enact hate crime legislation, to report sufficiently detailed hate crime statistics to ODIHR, and to develop the capacity of criminal justice agencies to respond to hate crime. However, hate crime against people with disabilities is particularly underreported, with successive annual data released by ODIHR revealing that only a small number of participating States collect data on disability hate crime, and that disabled people’s organizations have very limited capacity for monitoring activities.
In October 2014 the Disability Ombudsperson for Croatia hosted a workshop in partnership with ODIHR and ENIL involving people with disabilities from Croatia. Participants relayed personal experiences of hate crime ranging from verbal threats to physical assaults. They agreed that the issue should be brought to the attention of senior police and those involved in criminal justice policy, in order to raise awareness of the problem and to identify steps that can be taken to measure and effectively respond to it. This seminar offered a forum for government officials and law enforcement practitioners involved in preventing and responding to hate crime in Croatia to explore challenges and identify good practices and ways forward in partnership with people with disabilities. Anka Slonjsak the Disability Ombudsperson of Croatia welcomed all and expressed her gratitude to the OSCE/ODIHR and to ENIL for the collaboration in the combat against hate crime. Joanna Perry, Hate Crime Officer gave an overview of international approaches to disability hate crime across the OSCE region. Miro Griffiths shared his experience of being involved in the UK national inquiry into disability-related harassment and shared the government experience of responding to the inquiry, and its impact on disability hate crime policy. Participants then worked together to identify key actions that can be taken to improve information, awareness of and responses to disability hate crime. These examples and ideas were shared in plenary.
Concrete Outcome The concrete outcome of the regional training was plans for a project, given the temporary working name - Impact after the Zagreb Hate Crime training – the way forward? It is to be an informal project/network that with the participants of the Hate Crime training. Participants are to support one another in the process forward both at the national and even the regional
6
level. Areas for development will identified and what is thought needed to be achieved in each country. The areas of development could be on the law, collection of data, victim support or others. Individual work plans will be written and shared through a Skype meeting in fall 2015. Relevant stakeholders and allies will be identified. Regular webinars are to take place for support for national activity but also for common trainings etc. Ideas for action were discussed and the following made the list:
On-line reporting systems – Truevision.uk could be visited, maybe they could give an introduction at a webinar. Bring forward case studies from the countries Commission small pieces of research to understand and highlight the prevalence and impact of disability hate crime. Implementation of the Victim directive in each country – can we participate in the process or keep track from a disability perspective to make sure it is being done and raise awareness Writing guidelines for NGOs on how to monitor disability hate crime and for police and other public authorities on how to identify DHC. Set up local co-production groups and networks
Annexes
Annex 1 – Participant List Participant list - ENIL, OSCE/ODIHR and Croatian Disability Ombudsman Hate Crime Training – Zagreb 8 June 2015 Participant Country Organisation Email
1 Milanca Nikolic Serbia Association of Students with Disability
2 PA Milanca - Aleksandr Sumilov
Serbia [email protected]
3 Milica Mima Ružicic-Novkovic
Serbia CIL Serbia [email protected]
4 PA Mima, Biljana Radusin Serbia [email protected]. 5 Elena Kočevska Macedonia - Skopje Polio Plus [email protected] 6 Elena PA Ilinka
Staletovikj Macedonia - Skopje
7 Radoš Keravica Serbia Disability Rights Promotion International - DRPI
8
Ana Kotur BiH Project In [email protected]
9 Jamie Bolling Sweden ENIL 10 Mari Siilsalu Sweden ENIL 11 Miro Griffiths UK ENIL [email protected] 12 Michael Stewart-
McKaigue UK ENIL [email protected]
13 Gordana Jurcevic Outside Zagreb [email protected] 14 Mr. Mario Zeger Outisde Zagreb 15 Joanna Perry Warsaw ODIHR 16. Branka Meic Zagreb Disability Ombudsperson
Office, Croatia [email protected]
17. Anka Slonjsak, Disability Zagreb Disability Ombudsman for [email protected]
7
Ombudsman for Croatia Croatia 18. PA Anka Slonjšak Zagreb Disability Ombudsperson
Office, Croatia
19. Anja Mihajlović Zagreb Disability Ombudsperson Office, Croatia
20. Senada Halilčević Zagreb Association of self-advocates [email protected] 21. PA Senada Halilčević Zagreb Association of self-advocates 22. Ines Porupski Zagreb Association of deaf and hard
of hearing of the City of Zagreb
PA Ines Porupski 23. interpreter 24. interpreter 25. Presenter on Djordjevic
case (tbc)
Annex 2 – Miro Griffith’s Speech – SLIDE ONE – TITLE: Hello, thank you to Anka, Jamie, Joanna and Branka for inviting me back to Zagreb. For those of you who don’t know or, perhaps, don’t remember me, I was here last year when ENIL was involved in a seminar on disability hate crime. SLIDE TWO – WHO: To give you a better understanding of my work and areas of interest, I will just quickly explain a little about my background and experience. I have worked in disability rights for over nine years and collaborated with various organisations, institutes and government departments on a wide range of issues pertaining to disability theory. For six years, I was an advisor to the UK Government offering strategic, confidential advice on issues that affect disabled people, particularly on education, community development and health services; more recently, I was a project officer at the European Network on Independent Living and, as part of my role, coordinated the writing of a disability hate crime guide for disabled people’s organisations, law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders. Now, I work as a researcher and teacher at Liverpool John Moores University, UK. SLIDE THREE – TODAY: I have been asked to discuss and focus broadly on the key issues associated with addressing disability hate crime. During the training event yesterday and the seminar today, we have the opportunity to reflect on current practices, identify concerns and plan further action to address this matter at the local and national level. Whilst we acknowledge there has been positive progress, we also need to be honest and recognise that more has to be done - whether it is at the grass-root level with improving awareness of hate crime amongst community groups or strengthening government departments with clear strategies for recognising and reducing hate crime, which, subsequently, will improve the lives of disabled people. We can all agree that such crime is an epidemic that does not know national borders and often they are done in a campaign of terror against disabled people with, possibly, multiple perpetrators involved (Sherry, 2010). Furthermore, there needs to be recognition that while stereotypes may exist, the reality is that perpetrators can be strangers, local community associates, professionals working in the services that disabled people use or close friends and family members. Drawing from my professional, academic and personal experiences of working within disability hate crime, I would like to use my time to highlight a small number of key themes, which will hopefully stimulate discussion for the remainder of the seminar and
8
future conversations. The issues I raise are, from my perspective, paramount and need continual review and reflection if we are to strengthen any nation’s strategy to address disability hate crime. For any country, we should be in a position to acknowledge and praise the positive steps we have taken to tackle hate crime towards disabled people, but every one of us needs to reflect on what has not worked well and consider the most effective plan of action. SLIDE FOUR – DIS/VUL: Firstly, I would like to focus on the notion that disability and vulnerability are somewhat mutually dependent upon each other. Our perception of vulnerability, within this context, can become a barrier that prevents disabled people from gaining the full protection of the law. Historically and traditionally, disabled people are viewed as vulnerable due to the symptoms of their impairment or health condition, ultimately minimising or disregarding the social factors associated with their participation and inclusion within society. By perceiving vulnerability within an individualised approach, we could, inadvertently, fail to acknowledge the structural discrimination against disabled people (Morris 1993). Recent literature from disabled activists and academic quarters have suggested that the association of disability with vulnerability, within the context of statutory responses to hate crime, unhelpfully ensures that safeguarding and protection measures often take precedence over criminal justice responses - thus denying many disabled people the right to be taken seriously in the criminal justice system (Roulestone, et al, 2011; Edwards, 2013; Macdonald, 2015) It is also worth noting that the concept of ‘victim identity’ may be rejected by many disabled people as it can emphasise notions of ‘personal tragedy’, which is a construction of disability that many disabled people and their organisations have sought to dismiss. Yet disabled people may find they need to appear vulnerable, dependent, and grateful in order to get the support they need, and are forced into a situation and a form of behaviour. It has been suggested that vulnerability is not related to the symptoms of an individual’s impairment but to a number of social issues, such as housing, access to the right level and type of support and social attitudes of people involved in a disability hate crime case (ENIL, 2014; Edwards, 2013) For example, globally, the majority of disabled people experience poverty and can be situated in areas with some the highest levels of deprivation; furthermore, disabled people can be made vulnerable as a result of a reduction in - or difficulty accessing - care and support provision. This can lead to individuals being exploited and becoming the victim of hate crime coordinated by family members, friends, neighbours or paid support staff (Thomas, 2010). Recently, I came across research conducted by criminologists in the USA, which suggested that social attitudes of perpetrators identify disabled people as ‘second-class citizens’ and easy targets for exploitation (Sherry, 2010). To address this perception the concept of disability hate crime needs to be understood and prioritised by front line staff within education, employment, support, health and legal systems. As we continue to raise awareness of disability hate crime, we need to ensure that when incidents are reported to - for example - teachers, employers, health and social care administrators, they are incorporated within the criminal justice system. I have witnessed many examples when family members or paid support staff commit an offence, only to discover the incident being dealt with internally and never reaching the attention of local law enforcement agencies. Ultimately, we need to consider the socio-economic factors that impact on the quality of life for disabled people; tackling disability hate crime requires involvement of social justice professionals/departments but needs to become part of the strategy and vision
9
of other government departments, local systems and services. The opportunity to have a diverse range of departments and services working together, in joint partnership, will ensure a holistic approach is taken to identify disability hate crime, address incidents and provide suitable and accessible support to the victim or victims (ENIL, 2014). This would be irrespective of when, where or what service/system the individual is accessing at the time of the incident. SLIDE FIVE – SUPPORT: My next point reflects on the barriers and support experienced by disabled people when reporting an incident. Access to justice requires all key stakeholders to provide an inclusive and accessible experience, particularly when disabled people are participating within the justice system. Many barriers have been highlighted, which include: failure to meet the access requirements of people with particular impairments or health conditions during procedures, negative attitudes amongst professionals, people being perceived as unreliable reporters or witnesses of crime and a general lack of information about the process of reporting hate crime. There is also an issue over the amount and type of support provided to victims after an incident has taken place (Macdonald 2015). If we consider the role of police, there are two issues to think about: firstly, how police respond to incidents of disability hate crime and, secondly, the perceptions of police by disabled people. With regards to the first point, there needs to be an understanding as to how evidence and data is collected and how individuals from law enforcement agencies demonstrate empathy towards disabled people. By reflecting on the different stages involved with recording information, we can recognise the positives and barriers associated with collecting precise facts under questioning. This approach allows us to consider the framework used by the police and determine how inclusive and accessible
the procedure is (Edwards. 2013). My second point, which refers to perceptions, is affected by our overall strategy to address disability hate crime; nevertheless, local law enforcement agencies and other key community stakeholders have a vital role of ensuring disabled people have confidence in the police taking their crime reports seriously. Research has suggested, reinforced by my experiences in the UK, that if disabled people lack confidence on this issue, it may have a negative impact on future reporting of crimes and could, potentially, reinforce attitudes on the part of perpetrators that disabled people lack protection by the criminal justice system (Balderstone, 2013; Sherry, 2010). Existing barriers will need to be acknowledged and current practices and frameworks, adopted by local law enforcement agencies, will need continual review to promote a culture of accessibility and inclusivity. Over the last number of years, I have been interested in the dynamics of a working relationship between community groups and local/national government departments. The usual approach to working with experts by experience and established community-led organisations is through a basic engagement strategy, which relies on traditional methods of consultation, feedback and distribution of resources. SLIDE SIX – EMBED:
10
The role of disabled people and their organisations were instrumental for advancing the involvement of experts-by-experience in current policy development and continues to be a crucial factor for advancing the rights of disabled people. By reviewing disability activism there is an appreciation and understanding for their success of effective engagement with local, national and European level policy and practice. My view is that a workplan for the disability hate crime strategy should be designed, developed and delivered in a co-productive model, with authentic engagement and shared ownership for decision-making, which is experienced by disabled people, their organisations, relevant community groups, local, regional and national law enforcement and criminal justice stakeholders. By co-production, I am referring to inclusive working practices between experts by experience and organisations. It is about equal partnership and collaboration between parties passionate about improving service provision; every person involved in the process of co-production is valued, respected and listened to, with everyone involved in designing, developing and delivering. Co-production improves services and communities. Applying a co-productive model in this context demonstrates a shared commitment between individuals, community groups and central decision-makers creating a partnership with values and behaviours that include dignity, respect, time and support, diversity, choice and control, positive relationships, equal power – letting go of power dynamics and reinforcing valued contributions, sharing support and achieving outcomes together. If local, regional and national voices of disabled people are included and work alongside their government counterparts in supporting the development and delivery of a strategy, which addresses disability hate crime, then it will further improve the transition between vision and implementation of the strategy. SLIDE SEVEN – RES: Disabled people want to access and become active members of their community with valued roles and responsibilities; within the context of disability hate crime, it requires various different stakeholders to take part of the responsibility to address this and support the participation and inclusion of disabled people within society. We need to consider the role of the media in taking disablism seriously and not allowing it to dominate mainstream environments; furthermore, we must reflect on our engagement strategies to inform the public on the notion of hate crime, particularly in relation to disability. How do we embed a culture of awareness in tackling disability hate crime, which reaches various, different cohorts of our community?
11
Whether we experience, witness or know about an incident of disability hate crime, we need to be in a position to address the matter through the appropriate channels. The measures that have been taken should lead to efforts from the community and younger generations to challenge hate crime attempts and, in cooperation with civil society, counter incitement to imminent violence and hate crimes, including through the Internet and social media. Providing power and control to disabled people will go a long way to change the dominant expectation of dependence. The right peer support mechanisms need to be in place to send a clear message that, given the right circumstances, disabled people are not vulnerable and dependent. SLIDE EIGHT – OUTCOME: The outcome of all our work is to improve inclusion of disabled people within society, remove discriminatory practices as a result of policy implementations and work to protect disabled people when encountering discrimination. It infringes the human rights of those affected, stopping them from being able to enjoy the full benefits of the society. As I said at the beginning of this talk, I wanted to raise a few key issues which I feel are pertinent to raising awareness of disability hate crime and having effective strategies to address it. I have spoken about the need to work with other systems and services to ensure the notion of disability hate crime is understood and prioritised; there has also been reference to implementing a co-productive strategy, which harnesses the skills, talents and networks of the community and government stakeholders, leading to the promotion of a culture that encourages working together. SLIDE NINE – TALK: I hope this has helped you to reflect on your own practices and consider what has been working well and what can be improved. Thank you for listening. Bibliography
Balderston, S. 2013. “After Disablist Hate Crime.” In Disability, Hate Crime and Violence, edited by A. Roulstone and H. Mason-Bish. London: Routledge in Macdonald, S (2015) ‘Community fear and harassment’: learning difficulties and hate crime incidents in the north-east of England. Disability and Society [Online] 30 (3) pp. 353-367. [Accessed on 18th May 2015]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1009000
Edwards, C. (2013) Pathologising the victim: law and the construction of people with disabilities as victims of crime in Ireland. Disability and Society.
12
[Online]. 29 (5) pp. 685-698. [Accessed on 18th May 2015] Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.844099.
European Network on Independent Living (2014) Disability Hate Crime: A guide for disabled people’s organisations, law enforcement agencies, national human rights institutions, media and other stakeholders. Ireland: ENIL.
Macdonald, S (2015) ‘Community fear and harassment’: learning difficulties and hate crime incidents in the north-east of England. Disability and Society [Online] 30 (3) pp. 353-367. [Accessed on 18th May 2015]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1009000
Morris, J. (1993) Independent lives? Community care and disabled people. London: Macmillan.
Roulstone, A., Thomas, P., Balderston, S. (2011) Between hate and vulnerability: unpacking the British criminal justice system’s construction of disablist hate crime. Disability and Society. [Online] 26 (3) pp. 351-364. [Accessed on 18th May 2015]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.560418
Sherry, M (2010) Disability Hate Crimes: Does anyone really hate disabled people? USA: Ashgate.
Thomas, P (2010) ‘Mate crime’: ridicule, hostility and targeted attacks against disabled people. Disability and Society [Online] 26 (1) pp. 107-111. [Accessed on 18th May 2015]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.532590.