Moscow Murder Underscores Dangers for Russian Activists, Journalists

The brutal murder of 26-year-old anti-fascist activist Ivan Khutorskoi in Moscow yesterday is yet another reminder of the dangers faced by activists and journalists in Russia. Read our press release. These execution-style murders have become all too common in Russia, and rarely are those responsible found or held accountable.

Human Rights First has frequently voiced concerns about the attacks on racial and ethnic minorities in the Russian Federation, where there has been a dramatic upsurge in violent hate crimes in recent years. People like Khutorskoi, antifascist activists opposed to racist violence, have also been frequent targets in violent attacks. Just a few months ago, on June 28, 2009, assailants used knives and air pistols in a murderous attack on another antifascist activist, Ilya Dzhaparidze. Read more about our work in Russia, and more broadly on hate crime across Europe and North America.

Khutorskoi's murder happened on the same day that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) released its annual report “Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region – Incidents and Responses,” concluding that hate crime is still a significant problem throughout a region that includes 56 countries in North America, Europe, and the former Soviet Union. To compliment the intergovernmental report, U.S. international rights groups Human Rights First (HRF) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a reaction paper that highlights the failure of many of the OSCE states to fulfill commitments to combat the problem.

Obama Signs the Hate Crime Bill into Law! What's Next?

By Paul LeGendre, cross-posted from Huffington Post

Ten years ago this month, Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard was brutally attacked and murdered because he was gay. A year before Matthew's murder, James Byrd. Jr. was kidnapped, beaten, and stripped naked by three white supremacists, who chained him by the ankles to a pickup truck and dragged his body for three miles. These tragedies reawakened American consciousness about hate crime and sparked debate far beyond U.S. borders.

Today, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act, critical legislation that strengthens existing U.S. laws by extending federal hate crime protection in cases where the victim was targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender, disability, or gender identity. The new law -- which the U.S. Attorney General Holder called a "civil rights issue that is clearly a priority" -- will also permit federal authorities to assist local governments in hate crime investigations and increase their capacity through training programs.

This much-needed step to enhance the government's response to hate crime at home will play an important role in enhancing US leadership on combating hate violence globally. This is already happening.

Secretary of State Clinton recently underlined the importance of combating hate crime, at the launch of the State Department's 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom by proclaiming that the best antidote to religious intolerance is "a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression."

Together, President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and other members of the administration must be prepared to carry and promote this message overseas, in countries where governments are not responding adequately to violence motivated by religious intolerance, racism and xenophobia, sexual orientation and gender identity bias, or other similar manifestations of intolerance. In many parts of the world, governments are failing to take hate violence seriously by bringing the perpetrators to justice.

As the United States begins the work of enacting this important new bill, Human Rights First is encouraging the government to also demonstrate continued international leadership in multilateral organizations, advocate measures to combat hate crime in bilateral relationships, and expand efforts to support civil society organizations, by taking the following steps:

-Raising violent hate crime issues with representatives of foreign governments and encouraging, where appropriate, legal and other policy responses, including those contained in Human Rights First's ten-point plan for governments to combat violent hate crime. Talking Helps!

-Offer appropriate technical assistance and other forms of cooperation, including training of police and prosecutors in investigating, recording, reporting and prosecuting violent hate crimes as well as translation of Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) materials on hate crimes. Peer tutoring works!

-Ensuring that groups working to combat all forms of violent hate crime have access to support under existing U.S. funding programs, including the Human Rights and Democracy Fund and programs for human rights defenders. Money is needed!

-Maintain strong and inclusive State Department monitoring and public reporting on racist, antisemitic, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Roma and other bias-motivated violence -- including by consulting with civil society groups as well as providing appropriate training for human rights officers and other relevant mission staff abroad. Reporting matters!

Today is a day to welcome the president's signing the Hate Crime Prevention Act into law and to congratulate all those who worked for more than a decade to make this happen. It is also an important moment to recall the global nature of hate violence. While not losing sight of the challenges at home, we call on the U.S. to enhance its global leadership role by working to ensure that hate violence is met with a vigorous response everywhere.

Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Bill Passes Congress, Awaits Signature

At the end of last week Congress passed a bill that has been over ten years in the waiting, extending hate crime protection to gays. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act expands the current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, and is a major step forward in terms of criminal enforcement and prevention for hate crimes against LGBT persons and the disabled. Read the AP story.

This is a victory to celebrate. As President Obama prepares to sign the bill into law, Human Rights First is prepared to continue this crucial fight abroad - where hate crime protection is all-too-often insufficient or inexistant. In a few of our target countries, homosexuality itself is still a crime.

Read about our work on hate crime, and particularly with regard to LGBT persons.

Respecting freedom of expression, while combating discrimination and intolerance: HRF Congressional Testimony

Check out testimony below made by Human Rights First's Tad Stanhke, at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Hearing yesterday on the Implications of the Promotion of “Defamation of Religions.”

In his testimony, Tad outlined ways for the U.S. to advance respect for freedom of expression while combating racial and religious discrimination and intolerance:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this timely hearing.
Human Rights First has long opposed international recognition of the concept of defamation of religions as well as efforts to create internationally binding obligations to guarantee against defamation of religions. The concept of defamation relates to religions as a whole rather than the rights of individuals to be protected from racism, racial and religious discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Efforts at the United Nations to prohibit defamation threaten protections for the universal rights to freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. At the national level, UN experts and other human rights monitors have found that laws prohibiting blasphemy, religious defamation, injury to religious feelings and incitement to hatred can be abused by governments and others to target individuals for the peaceful expression of political or religious views, thus stifling debate and dissent. These abuses exist in some of the same countries whose governments are the strongest proponents of the defamation concept.

At the same time, Human Rights First, through its Fighting Discrimination Program works to combat bias motivated violence, in particular racist, antisemitic, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, homophobic and related violence in Europe, North America and the former Soviet Union. We have developed a set of concrete recommendations for governments to confront such violence. We have also proposed steps that can be taken by international institutions and the U.S. government, as part of its foreign policy, to promote a stronger response by governments. Human Rights First does not advocate restrictions on speech as part of this program.

Our research shows that violence targeting members of ethnic and religious minorities is a serious and growing problem in Europe, where most governments have been slow to respond. Muslims are one group among many who have been targeted for violence. While attacks on Muslims may often be motivated by racist or ethnic bias, intolerance is increasingly directed at Muslims expressly because of their religion. Muslim places of worship and women wearing the hijab are particularly vulnerable targets. These violent attacks are taking place in the context of a climate of hostility towards Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim. There is a longstanding strain of political discourse in Europe – worsened in recent years – that has projected immigrants in general and Muslims in particular as a threat not only to security but also to European homogeneity and culture.

For many years, the United States and European countries have generally failed in their efforts to defeat proposals promoting the defamation of religions concept at the UN. Now is a good time to take a fresh look at the strategy to achieve that goal.

In that regard, I would like to make three points and then offer some recommendations:

1. The next six months provide a unique window of opportunity for the U.S. government to begin to turn the tide against defamation of religions at the UN; the failure to do so could result in a major setback.

There is a glimmer of positive momentum. Provisions on defamation of religion were dropped from the draft outcome document of the Durban Review Conference. The United States is now on the Human Rights Council, and this seems to have had, at least for now, a positive impact on the environment there. Also, at the Council session earlier this month, the United States worked with Egypt to pass by consensus a resolution on freedom of expression that – although it has one or two problematic elements – is nevertheless an improvement from the resolution passed in 2008, as the latter recognized “abuses of the right to freedom of expression that constitute acts of racial or religious discrimination.”

Despite this small measure of momentum, it is very clear that the issue is not going to go away. Defamation remains a priority for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Defamation proponents remain a formidable force, with well-resourced and experienced diplomats focused on advancing their cause wherever they can. Indeed, the defamation issue will come up in one guise or another at numerous UN venues over the next several months, including:

• The Ad hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complimentary Standards, meeting now through October 30 in Geneva, where there is a serious proposal on the table to draft an international convention on the prohibition of incitement to racial and religious hatred.

• The current session of the UN General Assembly, where we expect the OIC to introduce, as they do each year, a Resolution on the Defamation of Religions; under current conditions, the United States probably does not have the votes to defeat the resolution.

• The Human Rights Committee, the body that reviews state compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is preparing a draft General Comment to guide States Parties in the implementation of the right to freedom of expression; the draft may be released at the session meeting this month, or the Committee’s next session in March.

• The Human Rights Council, where Defamation of Religions will be considered again in March.

• A proposal by the High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold regional seminars on incitement to violence, discrimination and hatred; this proposal was endorsed by the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference.

Thus, the battle in opposition to the defamation of religion concept will need to be waged vigorously on several fronts simultaneously.

2. The U.S. government must become more central to the debate in order to successfully oppose threats to free expression under the guise of prohibitions on defamation of religions or of expansive interpretations of the obligation to prohibit incitement.

Virtually all other countries – both allies on the defamation issue and opponents – have viewed the United States as marginal to the defamation of religions debate. The United States is considered an outlier because of its robust First Amendment protections against restrictions on speech; most other countries allow restrictions on speech as a matter of law that are not permitted in the United States. The United States has also entered a reservation to article 20 of the ICCPR, which requires states to prohibit advocacy of national, racial and religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. Under U.S. law, incitement to violence can be prohibited only under certain very narrow circumstances.

Opposition to defamation of religions on the basis of its incompatibility with the First Amendment or even with existing international human rights norms has not carried the day. Continuing with this approach will likely not yield better results. Although the United States should not abandon these principles, and should not under any circumstances accept language that violates them, additional approaches should be tried.

3. The United States should promote recognition of the problem of hostility and intolerance faced by members of ethnic, religious and other groups, as well as the experience gained in this country from confronting it without restricting freedom of expression; doing so can help to reframe the debate on defamation of religions and undercut support for limitations on free speech.

As noted above, members of several minority communities in Europe face a climate of hostility and intolerance. This problem exists in many other parts of the globe as well. At the international level, the U.S. government should be promoting stronger responses by all governments to serious manifestations of hostility and intolerance, which occur in numerous countries, including the United States.

All governments can do more to respond to bias motivated violence, including by working with affected communities to investigate and prosecute those responsible for such violence as well as by ensuring that police and prosecutors have the tools and the training to do the job. Laws and policies to combat discrimination should be adopted and enforced. In addition, responses to other acts of hatred and intolerance – responses that do not involve restrictions on speech – should be identified and promoted. The rich experience of civil society groups in the United States in working together across racial, ethnic and religious lines, as well as working with law enforcement and political leaders at all levels of government can provide examples of best practices. Government officials and political leaders should be pressed to speak out more often and more forcefully to condemn acts of hatred and intolerance, especially when committed by their colleagues.

These efforts should encompass all forms of bias, and not only religious intolerance. While promoting best practices, the U.S. government should continue to highlight the human rights violations that occur as a result of abuses of laws prohibiting blasphemy, religious defamation, injury to religious feelings and incitement to racial and religious hatred.

Recommendations

To advance respect for freedom of expression while combating racial and religious discrimination and intolerance, we make the following recommendations:

• The State Department should be encouraged to deploy the resources necessary across the relevant UN bodies to confront efforts to advance the defamation of religion concept and expansive interpretations of the obligation to prohibit incitement. The goal should be to develop and deploy an experienced cadre of diplomats at both the political and working levels that can focus and operate effectively in different UN venues on these issues.

• Senior U.S. officials should raise these issues not only at the UN, but also in capitals in the course of bilateral relationships with key countries.

• The U.S. government should promote internationally an active program to combat all forms of bias-motivated violence, as specified in the attached recommendations.

• The U.S. government should also develop and advance a set of best practices on combating acts of hostility and intolerance without restricting freedom of speech, and should invite American civil society groups, Members of Congress and state and local officials to share their experiences in this regard.

• The State Department should continue to support the efforts of the UN Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion or Belief, on Freedom of Expression, and on Combating Racism to document human rights violations by states in the enforcement of national laws to prohibit blasphemy, religious defamation, injury to religious feelings and incitement to racial and religious hatred, discrimination and violence.

A Ten-Point Plan for Combating Hate Crimes

1. Acknowledge and condemn violent hate crimes whenever they occur. Senior government leaders should send immediate, strong, public, and consistent messages that violent crimes which appear to be motivated by prejudice and intolerance will be investigated thoroughly and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
2. Enact laws that expressly address hate crimes. Recognizing the particular harm caused by violent hate crimes, governments should enact laws that establish specific offenses or provide enhanced penalties for violent crimes committed because of the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, mental and physical disabilities, or other similar status.
3. Strengthen enforcement and prosecute offenders. Governments should ensure that those responsible for hate crimes are held accountable under the law, that the enforcement of hate crime laws is a priority for the criminal justice system, and that the record of their enforcement is well documented and publicized.
4. Provide adequate instructions and resources to law enforcement bodies. Governments should ensure that police and investigators—as the first responders in cases of violent crime—are specifically instructed and have the necessary procedures, resources and training to identify, investigate and register bias motives before the courts, and that prosecutors have been trained to bring evidence of bias motivations and apply the legal measures required to prosecute hate crimes.
5. Undertake parliamentary, inter-agency or other special inquiries into the problem of hate crimes. Such public, official inquiries should encourage public debate, investigate ways to better respond to hate crimes, and seek creative ways to address the roots of intolerance and discrimination through education and other means.
6. Monitor and report on hate crimes. Governments should maintain official systems of monitoring and public reporting to provide accurate data for informed policy decisions to combat violent hate crimes. Such systems should include anonymous and disaggregated information on bias motivations and/or victim groups, and should monitor incidents and offenses, as well as prosecutions. Governments should consider establishing third party complaint procedures to encourage greater reporting of hate crimes and conducting periodic hate crime victimization surveys to monitor underreporting by victims and underrecording by police.
7. Create and strengthen antidiscrimination bodies. Official antidiscrimination and human rights bodies should have the authority to address hate crimes through monitoring, reporting, and assistance to victims.
8. Reach out to community groups. Governments should conduct outreach and education efforts to communities and civil society groups to reduce fear and assist victims, advance police-community relations, encourage improved reporting of hate crimes to the police and improve the quality of data collection by law enforcement bodies.
9. Speak out against official intolerance and bigotry. Freedom of speech allows considerable latitude for offensive and hateful speech, but public figures should be held to a higher standard. Members of parliament and local government leaders should be held politically accountable for bigoted words that encourage discrimination and violence and create a climate of fear for minorities.
10. Encourage international cooperation on hate crimes. Governments should support and strengthen the mandates of intergovernmental organizations that are addressing discrimination—like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, and the Fundamental Rights Agency—including by encouraging such organizations to raise the capacity of and train police, prosecutors, and judges, as well as other official bodies and civil society groups to combat violent hate crimes. Governments should also provide a detailed accounting on the incidence and nature of hate crimes to these bodies in accordance with relevant commitments.
    

Surge in Anti-Roma Violence

An NPR piece today highlights the growing problem of violent hate crime against the Roma in Eastern Europe.

The piece recalls a tragic case in Hungary:

The latest victim was single mother Maria Balogh, 45, and her 13-year-old
daughter Ketrin. In early August, the Baloghs were asleep in their house in
Kisleta, a quiet farming village in northeastern Hungary near the Ukrainian
border. An unknown number of armed men broke into their house and fired on the
women. Maria was killed, and her daughter remains hospitalized with critical
injuries.

Human Rights First's Paul Legendre wrote a piece in the Huffington Post a couple weeks ago on this case and the broader problem of increased violence against the Roma. He points out ways the Hungarian government can respond.

Human Rights First works with European institutions, local partners and governments on how to combat this trend with stronger hate crime laws and enforcement throughout Europe. Read our factsheet.

Tad Stahnke: a Voice on Antisemitism at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

HRF's Policy and Program Director Tad Stahnke participated in the Voices on Antisemitism series at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Listen to his statement, from the museum and recently taken up on public radio.

Testimony from Ukraine: Racist Violence and Need for Government Action

Check out this Huffington Post article from a partner working at the African Center of Kyiv.

The rise in racist violence has turned what was originally a cultural mission to one that deals largely with hate crimes and urging increased government response.

Charles Asante-Yeboa, the auth0r of this piece, was himself a victim of hate crime and knows firsthand why criminal justice is important for these heinous acts:

I am yet to recover fully from the wounds that I suffered, and the memory
of that evening still makes me cautious as I walk down even busy city streets.
Furthermore, I am still waiting for the perpetrators to be brought to
justice. Like in most other cases of racist violence in Ukraine, there is a
general climate of impunity for those who commit these brazen acts of
discrimination.

As Vice-President Biden meets with high-level officials in his visit to Ukraine, let's hope he takes the opportunity to encourage the Ukrainian government to take practical and concrete steps - like those outlined in Human Rights First's Hate Crime Survey to strengthen its response to hate crime.

Paul Legendre's Huffington Post article on hate murder of Jewish man in Paris

Check out Paul's piece in the Huffington Post on the Ilan Halimi case.

In February 2006, Halimi was kidnapped, tortured and killed because he was
a Jew. He was held captive for twenty-four days during which he was stabbed and
burned with cigarettes and acid before being found naked and handcuffed to a
tree.

Last week, the leader of a Paris gang was sentenced to life in prison, and other trials continue.

Paul underlines the importance of criminal justice in fighting hate crimes. Read the whole opinion piece.

Anti-Muslim Murder in Germany: a sad reminder of a disturbing trend

Last week in a German courtroom a pregnant Muslim woman was stabbed to death by a Russian man with a history of anti-Muslim hate crime.

This shocking incident has sparked outrage in the victim's native Egypt and draws attention to the growth of anti-Muslim hate crime in Europe – a topic Human Rights First has closely followed and studied. To learn more, read our factsheet on violence against Muslims.

Read more about the murder of 32-year-old Marwa El Sherbiny - deemed the "headscarf martyr" - in a recent Guardian article.

HRF Op-ed in JTA on the Holocaust museum shooting

Check out HRF Fighting Discrimination Program Director Paul Legendre's op-ed published in the JTA on the recent shooting at the Holocaust museum in D.C.

Fight back! Support the hate crime bill that is pending in the Senate.

Attorney General Speaks About Hate Crimes and Coming Report on Torture

Attorney General Eric Holder mentioned hate crime legislation as a top priority in a Senate hearing today. Let your senator know that you agree with him – write today in support of a hate crimes bill expected to come to vote very soon. In the same hearing, Holder referred to the awaited report from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigating the development of legal advice that authorized torture.

The Washington Post quotes Human Rights First in an article covering the hearing:

"The American people have a right to know how the U.S. Justice Department
came to issue legal opinions approving acts of cruelty that shocked the world,
damaged U.S. moral authority and harmed efforts to combat terrorism
effectively," according to a letter from Human Rights First and more than a
half-dozen other activist groups. "Requests for release of the OPR report have
been met with excessive delay and insufficient explanations. We urge you to
release the OPR report now and send a clear message that transparency in
government and adherence to the law are core American values as well as key
assets to U.S. national security."

Fighting Homophobic Hate Crime: Paul LeGendre on Huffington Post

Read HRF Fighting Discrimination Program Director Paul LeGendre's recent piece on the Huffington Post about why a proposed hate crime bill is important and necessary to prevent homophobic and other bias-driven violence.

Help support the passage of this crucial bill by writing your senator today!