HATE CRIME MEETING HIGHLIGHTS REMAINING CHALLENGES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USOSCE 000180

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR DRL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/03/2013
TAGS: PREL PHUM KDEM OCSE
SUBJECT: HATE CRIME MEETING HIGHLIGHTS REMAINING CHALLENGES

Classified By: Political Counselor Samuel Laeuchli for reasons 1.4 (b)
and (d).


1. (SBU) SUMMARY AND COMMENT: The June 16-17 Meeting of the
National Points of Contact on Hate Crime organized by the
OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) in Helsinki highlighted the significant challenges
that remain in the effort to combat hate crimes.
Participation in the meeting was somewhat disappointing, with
only two-thirds of the delegations represented and the ban on
NGO participation was unfortunate for the precedent it set.
On the substantive side, there is still no consensus on the
basic definition of a hate crime, although agreement was
reached that a lack of meaningful, reliable and consistent
data on hate crimes makes trend analysis on the issue
difficult. Many delegations commented that the draft 2007
Hate Crime Report was too long and needed revision.


2. (SBU) This was the first meeting organized by ODIHR for
the focal points on Hate Crime, so it is perhaps not
surprising that the results and participation were less than
ideal. However, we are concerned that ODIHR's Tolerance and
Non-Discrimination (TND) unit, both in this meeting and in
the draft Hate Crime Report for 2007, appears to endorse
limits on the freedom of expression, assembly and association
in order to battle hate crimes effectively. END SUMMARY AND
COMMENT

AMBITIOUS AGENDA
--------------


3. (C) The June 16-17 Meeting of the National Points of
Contact on Hate Crime was developed as a "training session"
for the focal points on hate crimes that were designated by
the participating States and as a forum where delegations
could exchange experiences and best practices in dealing with
and preventing hate crimes in the OSCE region. It was
envisaged that there would be greater agreement on the roles
and responsibilities of the focal points, definitions related
to hate crimes, and on the frequency of future meetings.
However, more than one-third of the participating States did
not attend the meeting, including key States such as France,
Norway, Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and
incoming OSCE Chairman Greece.


4. (C) The disparity in areas and levels of expertise among
the delegations, (focal points came from Ministries of
Foreign Affairs, Justice and/or Interior, human rights
institutions, judicial and/or police units, prosecutors
offices and anti-discrimination bodies) made in-depth
discussion of the technical issues difficult. The lack of
NGO participation was unfortunate for the precedent it set.
(NOTE: USOSCE had urged both ODIHR and the CiO to allow NGO
participation in the event. In a last-minute concession, the
Finns organized an NGO meeting the Sunday before the event
with NGO recommendations presented at the first session.
U.S.-based Human Rights First was the only non-Finnish NGO
present for this meeting. END NOTE).

DIVERGENT VIEWS ON DEFINITIONS/PRIORITIES
--------------


5. (SBU) The CiO's Three Personal Representatives on
Tolerance, who moderated the session on trends and issues
related to hate crime, noted that basic definitions related
to hate crime issues have not yet been established in the
OSCE area. The ODIHR distributed descriptions of various
categories of intolerance were deemed inadequate for
legislative and law enforcement purposes because they were
descriptive rather than legal in nature. Anastasia Crickley,
the Personal Representative on Tolerance dealing with Racism,
Xenophobia and Discrimination against Christians and Members
of other Religions, said the OSCE should be a norm-setting
organization and definitions need to be tested and contested
constantly due to the political nature of the topic. She
said the OSCE hate crime program is too ambitious, noting
that in Europe, the OSCE is third in importance in dealing
with this issue, with the EU and the Council of Europe in the
forefront. She continued that there is insufficient and
inadequate data with which to conduct any kind of trend
analysis on hate crimes.

DATA COLLECTION AND LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES REMAIN
-------------- --------------


6. (SBU) ODIHR's Hate crimes report demonstrated a wide
disparity in data collection. In essence, countries doing a
good job in reporting hate incidents to ODIHR are made to
appear to have the biggest problems. Sweden reported 3,500
hate incidents whereas the Russian Federation only 170. Some

USOSCE 00000180 002 OF 002


countries such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan report no hate
crimes at all. While ODIHR continues to work on a template
for standardized hate crime date reporting, the large
differences in legislative definitions of hate crimes and
even larger gaps in data collection efforts remain
significant challenges. Representative Crickley noted
pointedly that collection of available data does not equate
with detailed research and that the report is simply a
snapshot of what the ODIHR was able to see.

COMMENT
--------------


7. (C) The ODIHR effort to deal with the issue of hate crimes
is an excellent work in progress though significant
challenges remain. There is no OSCE consensus on such
fundamental issues as the definition of a hate crime. Data
collection is problematic and trend analysis suffers
accordingly.


8. (C) It is a matter of some concern that some ODIHR staff
appears to have come to the conclusion that effectively
battling hate crimes may require criminalizing speech and
putting limits on freedoms of expression, association and
assembly. Large portions of the draft Hate Crime report
discussed during the Helsinki meeting deal with incidents
(such as speeches, political campaigns, media broadcasts,
websites, and public demonstrations) that are not crimes" and
do not violate OSCE commitments. In discussing concern about
non-violent manifestations of hate and intolerance, the
Report says that "Recognizing the core values" (freedoms of
association, assembly and expression) "encapsulated in these
rights does not imply that no restrictions are permissible to
individuals or groups who use these rights to create
intolerance and hatred" and "many States have imposed
limitations on what opinions can be disseminated and how."
The report concluded that "Many States have made
international commitments to restrict rights to assembly and
expression under certain circumstances." End Comment
FINLEY