Documenting Hate CrimesAgainst LGBT Persons in the Republic of Croatia

Abstracted by the Legal Team of Iskorak and Kontra (henceforward: “The Legal Team”)

1. INTRODUCTION

Hate crime is even more harmful to victims than other types of crime. Hate crime constitutes an assault on the victim’s essential sense of personal worth. A person who has been singled out for victimisation based on some group characteristic, such as his or hers sexual preference, race, gender or ethnicity, has, by the very act, been deprived of the right to participate in the life of the community on an equal footing for reasons that have nothing to do with what the victim has done, but everything to do with what the victim is. Namely, a bias-based attack is as much an attack on the victim’s persona as on the victim’s person. Recognition of this fact inevitably produces a sense of vulnerability, isolation and oppression that rarely disappears with the healing of physical injuries.

Hate crime has wider impact than ordinary crime. Hate crime affects not only the victim, but all the members of the victim’s group as well, along with all the other groups vulnerable to this type of crime. Hate crime attacks the community cohesion and the social order in general, leading to distrust, fear, and anxiety. Hate crime legislation sends a clear message that homo/bi/transphobia, racism and bigotry will not be tolerated inside the community. They help to create climate of tolerance and respect for differences which, when combined with education, diminish the likelihood of violent hate crime being committed – or accepted.

In Croatia, there is no statistic data on the motives of hate crime. Upon demanding from the State authorities to produce statistics on crime motivated by victim’s religion, race, ethnic origin, skin color, assets or sexual orientation, we were answered that these values were protected in the context of crime of violation of equality of citizens (Article 106 of the Penal Code) and crime of racial and other discrimination (Article 174 Section 1 of the Penal Code). On the basis of the data given by the State authorities to the OSCE (OSCE 2005, Combatting Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: An Overview of Statistics, Legislation, and National Initiatives), Croatia was categorized in a group of countries that did have regulations on hate crimes (Article 174 of the Penal Code – Racial and other Discrimination).

On the other hand, inquiries of the Legal Team of Iskorak and Kontra as to the statistics on crime in which the perpetrator is motivated by a characteristic of the victim that identifies the victim as a member of a certain social group, we received an answer only in regards to crimes of discrimination in a sense of an unequal treatment and hate speech (regulated in Article 174 Section 3 of Penal Code). We didn’t receive any data on crime motivated by the perpetrator's hatred of a certain social group, leading us to conclude that such crimes are not treated with notable difference as compared to non-bias crimes, and that special statistics are not being gathered in regards to hate crimes.

Collecting data is particularly problematic when it concerns hate crime against sexual minorities, because victims of such crimes mostly do not report acts of violence and discrimination against them due to fear of revealing their sexual orientation or gender identity, and their distrust of legal protection afforded to them in Croatia. The Penal Code itself affords protection of sexual minorities against some crimes, but not all hate crimes. The crime of violation of citizens' equality, or the crime of racial and other discrimination, only covered crimes of discrimination (unequal treatment, hate speech), but did not cover other crimesmotivated by victim’s affiliation (such as homicide committed against a transgender person, motivated by victim’s gender expression).

Therefore, the Legal Team, supported by the Women’s Network of Croatia and the Center for Peace Studies, has drafted and presented to public three draft amendments to the Penal Code which included definition of hate crime.

There is also another serious problem, which refers to the Croatian Penal Code and its Section 174 Section 3, designed to address hate speech. The interpretation of Section 3 indicated that direct intent was to be proven in each instance; therefore it was impossible to implement this provision in practice. All hate speech cases that have so far been presented to the Legal Team were dismissed by the Public Attorney’s Office because direct intent of offender was impossible to prove. The reasoning was that the suspect stated his/her opinion about the topic in question without any intent to propagate hatred on the basis of someone’s sexual orientation. Therefore, we suggested that words “with the aim of propagating racial, religious, gender, national or ethnic hatred. or hatred on the basis of skin color, or with the aim of degrading another person” be deleted from Section 174 Section 3 of the Penal Code, so as to be exempt from the requirement to prove direct intent in respect to the hate speech offenders. We shall include changes to Section 174 Section 3 of the Penal Code in our amendments to the Penal Code.

1.2. PURPOSE AND GOALS OF THE PROJECT

The project's purpose is to document the cases of hate speech and hate crime towards the LGBTIQ persons. This shall provide a better insight into the current status of the LGBTIQ's, and show the extent and the regional distribution of their discrimination, as well as increase the efficiency of the Legal Team in its offering of necessary ways of support and fight against discrimination.

The purpose of this project is to document more systematically the cases of hate crimes (Legal Team has been providing direct legal help to the victims of hate crime since 2002) and hate speech against sexual and gender minorities.

1. 3. A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION

During its existence, the Legal Team has, in various ways, noted the cases and data on the persons who requested its services. However, this data was in possession of the involved activists themselves, and was incompatible for comparison. A significant difficulty was created by the fact that not all data was digitally filed, hindering its storage. Case data was being disseminated during the regular weekly meetings.

The Legal Team has also secured the services of a press-cutting firm, which created a database of articles that dealt with or mentioned the LGBTIQ issues. During the weekly meetings, ways of responding to hate speech in media were discussed. However, there was no analysis of hate crime in the media, nor was there any logging of the ways some of these cases were responded to.

With the support of ILGA Europe, a project was created to consistently document data of the Legal Team's cases in order to provide information on hate crime and hate speech in the media, thereby pinpointing the areas of further intervention and increasing the efficiency of such intervention. Aside from hate speech and hate crime, the intent is to log the ways in which the Legal Team has responded to those occurences.

Initially, the focus was on developing a method of logging the cases and a pattern of noting hate speech in the media. After that, the activists started noting the cases and corresponding responses in the designed forms.

The project's activities included the retroactive noting of cases in the designed forms, to convert the data into a digital form, to be systematised and analysed.

The cases of requesting help and support, submitted to the Legal Team over the Internet, by phone, or in person during 2005, 2006 and 2007, have been included in the forms and are a part of the analysis within the documentation project.

As far as hate speech in the media is concerned, the analysis covers only 2006, but the database includes and notes earlier responses as well.

2. THE MEANS OF GATHERING AND DOCUMENTING DATA

Data has been gathered on two levels: one covered the cases which contacted the Legal Team over the Internet, by phone, or in person, and the other covered the printed media and the analysis of hate speech therein. Having gathered and analysed data, the Legal Teams responded in both cases, if it was determined that there was sufficient cause.

2.1. THE MEANS OF GATHERING AND DOCUMENTING CASE DATA

An instrument was developed to log the cases which contacted the Legal Team over the Internet, by phone, or in person. The first part of the instrument logs the date and time of the contact, and the activist who replied.

Next, personal data on the applicant is logged: age, sex, sexual preference, education, place of residence, employment status, family status, and the frequency of contact. Due to fear of being stigmatised and other reasons, persons in need of assistance and support often do not contact the Legal Team themselves, but have it done by proxy.

In such cases, data on the applicant is logged separately from the data on the user, or the person to whom the response applies.

The instrument also logs detailed data on the case itself. Type and direction of contact is noted by checking whether the contact has been: 1) concerned with the LGBTIQ issues, especially asking about the rights or rights violation (hate crime reporting); 2) concerned with legal status of other groups; 3) made for other reasons, i.e. contacting the activist himself or herself for any sort of abuse. Then the case is described, and information is noted on any previous responses to the case and the services contacted. The final part of the instrument notes the responses made by the Legal Team and their results.

2.1.1. THE LOGGING INSTRUMENT: THE LIST OF PERSONAL HELP AND SUPPORT USERS

1. Date:

2. Time and place of contact:

(Also note the means of contacting and where the contact info has been obtained)

3. Name of activist:

4. Applicant info:

(Insert data on the person who contacted the Legal Team for service)

4.1. Sex: M F D

(D stands for transgender persons, persons of unstated sex etc.)

4.2. Age:

4.3. Applicant identity:

(Should the applicant not provide a name or codename, they will be assigned a codename by the activist.)

a) Anonymous

b) Declared name, surname or nickname:

c) Activist-assigned codename:

4.4. Declared sexual orientation: L G B H Other:

("Other" pertains to asexual persons and all other sexual orientations that aren't otherwise noted.)

4.5. Applicant's place of residence:

a) Lodging:

b) Permanent home:

4.6. Frequency of contact:

a) First contact

b) Previous contacts:

c) Constant applicant:

4.7. Education:

a) Unfinished elementary school

b) Elementary school

c) Middle school

d) University student

e) University

f) Other:

4.8. Employment status:

a) Unemployed

b) Employed

c) Part-time employed:

d) Illegaly employed:

e) Other:

4.9. Applicant's marital status:

a) Not married

b) Married

c) Common-law married

d) Same-sex relationship

e) Other

4.10. Applicant's parental status:

(Note the number of children and specific info, i.e. if the child has been adopted etc.)

a) None

b) Plans to

c) Has:

5. Case data

5.1. Case type:

a) Concerning the applicant himself or herself

b) Concerning a third party:

c) Concerning the applicant and the third party:

d) Other

If the contact relates to a third party or parties, data in #6 has to be provided for those persons as well.)

5.2. Case type (check one):

a)LGBTIQ questions – rights enquiries

b)LGBTIQ questions – rights violations (hate crime or hate speech)

c)Enquiries about the legal status of other groups

d)Abuse

e)Other:

5.3. Case description:

5.4. Previously requested help from other services:

a) None

b) Requested, from:

c) Is under continuous care of other services:

d) Other:

Description of previous activities to solve the problem, and the ways in which the previously-contacted services offered help and support:

6. Applicant's personal data

(To be filled if the applicant, or caller, makes the contact on behalf of another person, or the user. In such cases, fill the data from 6.1. to 6.9. for the user.)

6.1. Sex: M F D

(D stands for transgender persons, persons of unstated sex etc.)

6.2. Age:

6.3. User identity:

(Should the applicant not provide a name or codename, they will be assigned a codename by the activist.)

a) Anonymous

b) Declared name, surname or nickname:

c) Activist-assigned codename:

6.4. Declared sexual orientation: L G B H Other:

("Other" pertains to asexual persons and all other sexual orientations that aren't otherwise noted.)

6.5. Applicant's place of residence:

a) Lodging:

b) Permanent home:

6.6. Education:

a) Unfinished elementary school

b) Elementary school

c) Middle school

d) University student

e) University

f) Other:

6.7. Employment status:

a) Unemployed

b) Employed

c) Part-time employed:

d) Illegaly employed:

e) Other:

6.8. Applicant's marital status:

a) Not married

b) Married

c) Common-law married

d) Same-sex relationship

e) Other

6.9. Applicant's parental status:

(Note the number of children and specific info, i.e. if the child has been adopted etc.)

a) None

b) Plans to

c) Has:

Interventions

7. The activist's intervention:

a)Organising a counselling meeting

b)Help with document creation:

c)Counselling while seeking institutional aid:

d)Legal help of the attorney:

e)Counselling aid or psycho-social aid by the following expert:

f)Other:

8. Is the user the injured party, or victim, of a criminal offence: YES NO

If yes, which:

9. Is the perpetrator being prosecuted:

YES – prior to the Team's involvement

YES – through the Team's response

NO – the user wished not to press charges

10. Type of prosecution:

a) Felony

b) Crime

c) Civil

11. Outcome of the process (fill in for the pertaining type of process):

11.1. The outcome of the felony process:

a) DISCARDED by the police:

b) DISCARDED by the state attorney's office:

c) DISCARDED by the court:

d) The perpetrator was FOUND NOT GUILTY:

e) The perpetrator was FOUND GUILTY:

11.2. The outcome of the criminal process:

a) DISCARDED by the police:

b) DISCARDED by the state attorney's office:

c) DISCARDED by the court:

d) The perpetrator was FOUND NOT GUILTY:

e) The perpetrator was FOUND GUILTY and sentenced to:

11.1. The outcome of the civil process:

a) DISCARDED by the court:

b) The perpetrator was FOUND NOT GUILTY:

c) The perpetrator was FOUND GUILTY:

12. Duration of the process:

13. Notes (i.e., attitude of the justice system towards the victim, etc.):

2.2. THE MEANS OF GATHERING AND DOCUMENTING DATA ON MEDIA RESEARCH AND PUBLIC ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE LGBTIQ ISSUES

A press-cutting firm has been hired to gather articles in any way connected to the LGBTIQ persons, i.e. those that mention the LGBTIQ persons. This documentation project systematises data about hate speech directed towards the LGBTIQ persons in 2007, and documents the Legal Team's responses against hate speech in media, both for 2007 and for the three previous years (2004, 2005 and 2006).

The analysis was made using a form containing the following data:

Name of media

Article's attitude

Picture/text compatibility

Type of hate speech:

- The journalist is reporting a public person's hate speech

- The journalist is using hate speech him- or herself

Legal characteristics of the hate speech

Responses

3. OVERVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTED DATA

3.1. OVERVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTED DATA ON THE LEGAL TEAM'S CASES – DISCRIMINATION AND HATE CRIME

The Legal Team of Iskorak and Kontra had a total of 79 applicants in 2006, and a total of 27 applicants in the first five months of 2007. Comparing this number with the number of contacts in 2005, with a total of 71 applicants, it is clear that there was an overall increase in contacts to the Legal Team in 2006, and a decrease in 2007.

Analysing the means of contact, it is apparent that 2006 and 2007 see a significant increase in the number of contact via e-mail.

The majority of applicants still contact via telephone, about 78% of them.

In the case of telephone contact, it needs to be said that the project has used different phone lines to contact the Legal Team during its existence. Applicants also used office phone lines of Kontra and Iskorak, used for other purposes. Such instances made it necessary to ensure the quality of the information applicants receive over different phone lines. These circumstances hindered the logging of received contacts. Thus it became necessary to develop a methodology to log calls and document the cases of the LGBTIQ persons' rights violations. Through the ILGE financial assistance, these difficulties were solved within the project by creating a form to log all phone calls, as well as voice mail and e-mail contacts. During its time, the project also developed a digital case database, dealing with cases from 2006 and 2007, as well as previous years, starting from 2004.

This digital case database contains personal data on the victims. Therefore, it is only accessible to the Legal Team's activists. It proves to be a significant asset to Iskorak and Kontra, as it enables the analysis of cases, the information thus received influences the policy-making within the organisations and the further process of legal initiative.

The Legal Team has received a new phone line in late 2006, and the total number of contacts in 2007 decreased in comparison to the previous year.

Ways in which contacts were made

Using the phone / Using e-mail / Total
2005 / 68 / 96% / 3 / 4% / 71
2006 / 52 / 66% / 27 / 34% / 79
January-May 2007 / 18 / 67% / 9 / 33% / 27
Total / 138 / 78% / 39 / 12% / 177

Types of services requested

LGBTIQ-related contacts / Queries on legal status of other groups / Other
Abuse / Other
(i.e., media contacts)
Queries on legal rights / Rights violation cases
2005 / 16 / 23 % / 6 / 8 % / 2 / 2 % / 21 / 30% / 26 / 37 %
2006 / 19 / 25% / 16 / 20% / 8 / 10% / 12 / 15% / 24 / 30%
January-May 2007 / 7 / 26% / 6 / 22% / 3 / 11% / 5 / 19% / 6 / 22%

A more detailed analysis of the received queries reveals that betweent 30% and 50% were LGBTIQ-related, and that there is a yearly increase in the percentage of queries related to the LGBTIQ issues. Most of the LGBTIQ-queries were about their legal rights, whereas those related to rights abuse reporting were somewhat fewer (this includes hate crime and hate speech as covered in Section 174 Section 1 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Croatia – Racial and Other Discrimination).