Elisa Massimino Testifies in Congress on Antisemitism

Human Rights First President and CEO Elisa Massimino testified today at 2 p.m. before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the alarming rise of antisemitism worldwide.

Congressman Russ Carnahan (MO-03), Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight, is convening experts to give recommendations on how to combat this dangerous trend. He warns, “Anti-Semitism is not just rhetoric; it is a violation of human rights.”

Read our press release, and her statement, “Combating Antisemitism, Protecting Human Rights,” excerpted below:

TESTIMONY OF ELISA MASSIMINO

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST

Hearing on

“COMBATING ANTISEMITISM: PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS”

UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT

April 14, 2010

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Carnahan and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for convening this hearing

to examine antisemitism as a human rights concern. I appreciate the opportunity to be here

this afternoon to share Human Rights First’s findings and recommendations on this important

matter and to discuss ways that we can work together with you to advance human rights

protections. We are grateful to the Subcommittee for the important role it plays in keeping key

human rights issues front and center in the Congress, and we look forward to continuing to

work with you to assist in these efforts.

Human Rights First (HRF) has been working since 2002 to both monitor antisemitic violence

and press for stronger government action to combat it. Our advocacy has been based on

documentation of the problem in regular reports:

• Fire and Broken Glass: The Rise of Antisemitism in Europe (2002);
• Antisemitism in Europe (2004);
• Everyday Fears: A Survey of Violent Hate Crimes in Europe and North America
  
  (2005);
• 2007 Hate Crime Survey: Antisemitism (2007);
• 2008 Hate Crime Survey: Antisemitic Violence (2008).

Our focus has been—and the focus of my testimony today will be—on the rise of antisemitic

violence in many parts of Europe, North America, and the former Soviet Union (countries that

comprise the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)) and on practical

steps that governments and others can take to more effectively combat this problem.

Human Rights First has long maintained that antisemitic violence, as well as other forms of

hate crime, must be viewed and responded to as a serious violation of human rights and that

governments can and must do more to confront these abuses.

Likewise, we believe it is important that these violations be challenged, not just by victims’ groups or those who represent communities of targeted individuals, but by all those who seek to advance universal rights and freedoms. Although some progress has been made in the last decade to draw greater attention to the issue—to a large extent in response to efforts led by the United States—high levels of antisemitic violence persist, and the political will to reverse that trend remains lacking in much of the OSCE region.

I would like to make three key points today.

• Antisemitism is a unique and potent form of racism and religious intolerance and the
  
  extent of violence motivated by anti-Jewish animus throughout much of the OSCE
  
  region remains alarming.
• With a few exceptions, governments have not responded adequately to this rising tide
  
  of violence, and there is an urgent need to adopt comprehensive strategies to combat it
• Related forms of violent hate crime, motivated by race, religion, national origin, sexual
  
  orientation, and other similar factors, have been on the rise in many countries.
• Strategies for combating antisemitic violence are effective and necessary to confront
  
  these scourges as well.

Finally, Human Rights First has several recommendations to strengthen the leadership role

that the United States has taken to combat antisemitism, along with other forms of bias

motivated violence, working both bilaterally and multilaterally.

ANTISEMITIC VIOLENCE TODAY

Antisemitic violence in Europe and North America remains at high levels, following a

significant increase beginning in 2000. Indeed, violence in some countries is several times

higher than that of the end of the 1990s. Although the number of incidents in the last decade

has fluctuated from year-to-year and from country-to-country, our findings show that, with

alarming frequency, synagogues, Jewish homes, and Jewish-owned businesses have been

targeted in arson attacks and subjected to widespread vandalism, and ordinary people have

been harassed, beaten, stabbed, or shot because they were Jewish.

Antisemitism—like other forms of racism and religious intolerance—is an obstacle to

participation in public life fully and free of fear. As such, it can take the form of an assault on

identity itself. Violent incidents have involved individuals who are identified as Jewish by

their religious dress or appearance when traveling on public transport or walking in the street.

Some people have been targeted because of their leadership positions in the Jewish

community. In many other incidents, Jews have been targeted while going to or from their

place of worship or from schools. In others, attacks have targeted Jewish community

institutions, from synagogues and community centers to secondary schools and kindergartens.

As we reported in Everyday Fears, in the face of the daily reality of harassment and risk of

violence, some Jewish Europeans have acknowledged that they no longer openly wear

pendants of the Jewish star; that yarmulkes are worn in public only under baseball caps or

other concealing headgear; and that they think carefully before acknowledging their identity to

strangers.

Among the representative incidents that we have documented, epithets and threats were

shouted from passing cars, and Jews walking home from schools or synagogues were pelted

with eggs, trash, or noxious liquids. Threatening graffiti was daubed on homes and shops.

Windows were broken, sometimes with accompanying graffiti making clear that this was done

because of hatred of Jews. Individuals faced everyday threats of physical violence, from

pushing and shoving on the sidewalk to full scale assaults; from stone throwing to attacks

with fists, clubs, knives, or guns.

Frequently, attacks have been directed at synagogues. These incidents ranged from graffiti and

acts of desecration to gunfire and attacks with explosives and Molotov cocktails. The realities

of everyday violence were often exacerbated by periodic explosions of extraordinary violence,

including murder.

The translation of sentiment against Israel or the policies of its government into anti-Jewish

antipathy has since 2000 generated new patterns of antisemitic violence that have fluctuated in

relation to events in the Middle East. In this “new” form of antisemitism, Jews around the

world have increasingly been targeted for violence and vilification as if collectively

responsible for wrongs attributed to the state of Israel. This new antisemitism combines the

ancient roots and forms of antisemitism with new political elements, and may be largely

responsible for both ongoing high levels of antisemitic violence and periodic surges in attacks.

Over the past decade, several principal “trigger events” in the Middle East were followed by

sharp increases in attacks on Jewish institutions and on ordinary Jews living in Europe and

North America.

Most recently, Israeli military action in Gaza triggered a wave of backlash

attacks against Jews in Europe and contributed to sharp rises in the number of incidents for

the whole of 2009. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Community Security Trust’s

incident reports for 2009 showed it to have been the worst year on record since monitoring

began in 1984. Record numbers were also reported by B’nai Brith Canada, which overall

noted a five-fold increase in antisemitic incidents over the past decade. The 2009 annual

report by the French Jewish Community Protection Service (SPCJ) noted a 75 percent

increase in antisemitic incidents in 2009 over the previous year.

Some examples from January 2009 show the virulence of antisemitic violence which swept

Europe during that time, and underscore the potential for recurring surges of violence:

• In Belgium, attackers threw a firebomb into a Brussels synagogue; broke windows in
  
  another, in Charleroi; and attempted to burn down a Jewish family home in Antwerp.
• In France, attackers rammed a burning car into a synagogue’s gates in Toulouse;
  
  damaged kosher shops in Bordeaux; and threw Molotov cocktails at a community
  
  center in St. Denis, outside Paris, which houses a synagogue and a center for autistic
  
  children.
• In the Netherlands, attackers set a synagogue and a house alight in Amsterdam; and
  
  there was an attempted arson attack at a synagogue in Arnhem.
• In the United Kingdom, arsonists attacked a North West London synagogue; attackers
  
  dragged a man from his car and beat him; and vandals damaged Jewish property in
  
  numerous incidents.

The Middle East is, however, only part of today’s antisemitism. Contemporary antisemitism is

multi-faceted and deeply rooted. It cannot be viewed solely as a transitory side-effect of the

conflict in the Middle East. Antisemitic incitement and violence predate the Middle East

conflict and continue to be based in large part on centuries-old hatred and prejudice. The

branding of Jews as scapegoats for both ancient and modern ills remains a powerful

underlying factor in the antisemitic hatred and violence that continues to manifest itself today.

Less than a year ago, we received a startling reminder of this old hatred when James von

Brunn, a self-avowed white supremacist and antisemite, gunned down and killed a security

guard at the entrance to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Prosecutors were

pursuing hate crime charges when Mr. von Brunn died in January 2010.

This age-old antisemitic hatred is continuing to erupt into violence across the OSCE region.

Just last month:

• Two 23-year-old women and a 25-year-old man were asked if they were Jewish and

then beaten and insulted with antisemitic slurs on a subway train in Berlin, Germany;

• The home of a Chabad rabbi in Budapest, Hungary, was pelted with rocks as a

number of people gathered there for the second Passover Seder;

• Holocaust memorials at a former Nazi concentration camp near Krakow, Poland,

were desecrated with antisemitic graffiti and swastikas a day before a planned march

marking the 67th anniversary of the liquidation of Krakow’s ghetto.

Violent crime is antisemitism’s sharp edge, but it is important to note that these crimes often

occur in the context of virulent hate speech. In some countries, established political and

religious leaders engage in persistent antisemitic discourse. This discourse often reflects

longstanding antisemitic themes, attacking Jews through stereotypes, slanders, and

scapegoating. In addition, Jews as a people are vilified in the context of attacks on Israel or

Israeli policies. While criticism of Israeli government—or any government’s—policies is

certainly legitimate, criticism of Israel or the Zionist movement crosses the line to become

antisemitism when it disparages or demonizes Jews as a people.

When hate speech involves direct and immediate threats of violence to particular individuals

or institutions, governments must hold those responsible under criminal law. Short of this, the

hate speech dimension of antisemitism still deserves our attention, in particular when public

officials and community leaders are the ones responsible for statements advocating or inciting

anti-Jewish hatred, which can contribute to a climate in which violence takes place. But

confronting hate speech must not impinge on free expression. Indeed, when applied

consistently and comprehensively, political and educational tools can be effective in

responding to antisemitic and other forms of hate speech without restricting speech.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO ANTISEMITIC VIOLENCE

Government authorities have an obligation under national legislation and international human

rights law to respond to antisemitic, as well as other violent hate crimes. National

governments must take proactive measures to deter and prosecute actions motivated by anti-

Jewish hatred.

Human Rights First has advocated a comprehensive program of action for governments to

combat antisemitic and other forms of bias-motivated violence (see HRF’s attached 10-point

plan). In response, we have seen some limited progress in the last several years. There has

been some improvement in public recognition of the problem; in monitoring and reporting; in

the enactment of effective hate crime laws; in law enforcement; and in the priority given the

fight against antisemitism in public policy. But high levels of antisemitic violence persist and

the political will to address them is still lacking in much of the region.

In our first report on the problem, in 2002, we pointed to a “data deficit” on antisemitic

offenses, with most governments failing even to monitor and report upon these crimes.

Almost ten years later, most European governments still fall short of their commitments to

monitor antisemitic offences—an essential building block for comprehensive responses to the

problem. The failure of many governments to act in the areas of monitoring and reporting,

legislation, and effective law enforcement also reflects a leadership shortfall: a reluctance to

speak out and take a stand at the national and regional levels.

For example, in the area of data collection, only 14 of the 56 participating states of the OSCE

are fulfilling their basic commitments to monitor hate crimes. (Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden,

the United Kingdom, and the United States.) The others collect and publish

either nothing at all or extremely limited information on the incidence of antisemitic or other

hate crimes.

As concerns monitoring and reporting specifically on antisemitic hate crime, the European

Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency reports that only six (of 27) EU countries collect

sufficiently robust criminal justice data on antisemitic hate crime to allow for trend analysis

over time about the incidence of such crime. (Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.)

Likewise, while OSCE states have made political commitments to adopt and implement hate

crime laws, including those addressing antisemitic violence, 22 OSCE countries still have no

express provisions defining bias as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of violent

crimes against persons. (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Macedonia, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Poland, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Turkey.) Even among countries that have adopted such laws, effective enforcement is often hindered by inadequate training among law enforcement and criminal justice officials and a lack of political will to ensure accountability.

THE SHARED NATURE OF BIAS-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE

The threats facing the Jewish community today are deeply-rooted and uniquely potent, but

also should be seen as part of a rising tide of hate-motivated violence across Europe. We have

reported since 2005 that bias-motivated violence is increasing in the region, perpetrated

against members of a range of communities because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual

orientation, or other similar factors.

Many of the OSCE states experience levels of violent hate crimes that are a cause for concern.

In these, violence motivated by racism and xenophobia, often exacerbated by religious bias,

threatens communities distinguished by ethnic or national origin, including both national

minorities and people of immigrant origin, citizens and noncitizens, longtime residents, and

newcomers.

In addition to antisemitic violence:

• Roma and Sinti face violent hate crimes and a myriad of other forms of public and
  
  private discrimination throughout Europe. Violence is employed in many parts of
  
  Europe to cause immediate harm to Roma families and to physically expel Roma from
  
  towns and villages;
• Bias-motivated violence against Muslims has become increasingly pervasive and
  
  extreme in western and central Europe, taking the form of personal assaults on the
  
  streets and attacks on places of worship and on immigrant-run businesses.
• In the former Soviet Union in particular, violent expressions of religious hatred toward
  
  “nontraditional” religions—including Baptists, Catholics, and the Jehovah’s
  
  Witnesses—prevent entire communities from freely practicing their religions.
  
  Cemeteries, churches, and religious schools are subjected to vandalism and arson
  
  attacks. In some cases, official government policies create a hostile atmosphere that
  
  encourages private acts of violence motivated by religious hatred.
• Continuing violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity bias, though still
  
  largely unseen, is an intimidating day-to-day reality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
  
  transgender (LGBT) individuals, as well as others who are targeted because they do not
  
  conform to stereotypes of gender identity or simply advocate for LGBT rights.

The shared nature of the problem of bias-motivated violence underscores the need for

governments to adopt comprehensive approaches to the full range of forms of hate crime.

Strong government responses that show hate crimes will be prosecuted to the full extent of the

law send an unequivocal signal that such incidents will not be tolerated by society. They also

reassure members of communities under threat that their right to security is guaranteed and

non-negotiable.

Likewise in the non-governmental sphere, the shared nature of the problem calls for a

coordinated response. The promise of work towards common solutions is perhaps best

illustrated by the cross-community cooperation that has emerged in recent years among civil

society groups, both in the United States and abroad. In the United States, the Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, of which Human Rights First is a proud member, is

perhaps the best expression of this unified effort. Working together has enormously

strengthened our capacity to raise awareness both within the United States and internationally

of the threat posed by antisemitic and other hate crimes and to work with governments for

change. Unfortunately, this type of cooperation is sorely lacking in many countries where bias

motivated violence persists, where government action to combat it has been weak, and where

communities are working in isolation from one another.

THE ROLE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Intergovernmental bodies have an important role to play in providing oversight of the

fulfillment of state commitments to combat antisemitic and other hate crimes. They can also

provide technical assistance to states and other nongovernmental actors to help them meet this

challenge. The record of responses by intergovernmental bodies to antisemitism, however, has

also been uneven.

The OSCE has led the field: adopting commitments on hate crime, establishing mechanisms

to monitor implementation of those commitments, engaging in activities to raise political and

public awareness, and developing programs to train police and civil society groups in dealing

with hate crime. The OSCE’s special programs to deal with antisemitism have led the way in

its broader work to combat hate violence.

Most recently, in December 2009, foreign ministers of the 56 states of the OSCE adopted a

special decision on hate crime. Governments made commitments to combat hate crime by

enacting laws that acknowledge hate crimes as particularly serious crimes; establishing

systems for the collection of reliable statistics on incidents, investigations, and prosecutions;

training law enforcement and criminal justice officials; and conducting awareness raising

campaigns. This is an important reaffirmation of past commitments and must be followed by

effective action for implementation within the OSCE region.

Yet, many states are demonstrating a certain “fatigue” with OSCE commitments to combat

hate crimes and antisemitism in particular. In order to ensure the important work of the OSCE

continues, the United States needs to reinforce its political support for the implementation of

commitments to combat antisemitism and other hate crimes.

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT’S ROLE

The strong global role for the United States in combating antisemitism starts at home, where

antisemitic and other hate crime remain a serious problem. Accordingly, Human Rights First

welcomed the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention

Act, which has given renewed vigor to the efforts to combat antisemitic and other biasmotivated

violence in this country. The newly adopted legislation reaffirms the U.S. government’s commitment to developing a comprehensive response to domestic hate crime

violence, and offers an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate leadership in both

bilateral and multilateral efforts to combat the scourge of hate crime globally.

The United States has long been engaged in international efforts to confront antisemitism. In

fact, two individuals testifying at this hearing—Hannah Rosenthal and Andrew Baker—hold

mandates that reflect the importance that the United States has attached to this issue, and we

welcome their commitment and the opportunity to work closely with them. The Global

Antisemitism Review Act’s establishment of a Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat

Antisemitism is an important position through which to strengthen U.S. advocacy of policies

to address the problem around the world. Similarly, the United States, including with the

active involvement of the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe in particular,

also played a leading role in the efforts to establish and subsequently support the OSCE

Personal Representative on Combating Antisemitism in the OSCE region. Many aspects of the

OSCE’s work on this issue are models for other international structures, and the U.S.

contributed substantial efforts to creating and sustaining that model.

Below we detail three principal ways in which the executive and legislative branches of the

United States government can build on past success and advance a vigorous human rights

response to antisemitic and other violent hate crime.

First, the United States should demonstrate international leadership in the OSCE by providing

extrabudgetary contributions to specific initiatives to combat antisemitism and racism and by

encouraging the implementation of commitments.

Second, the United States should advance efforts to combat antisemitism in bilateral relations

by ensuring that the need to confront this problem is a part of regular discussions with other

governments, and by offering technical assistance and other forms of cooperation, as

appropriate.

Finally, the United States should positively contribute to the strength of civil society actors on

the ground—a key factor in promoting a vigorous government response—by ensuring that

human rights defenders advancing this cause in their countries have access to the funds and

training resources they need to succeed.

Demonstrate International Leadership at the OSCE

Encourage the implementation by participating states of tolerance and nondiscrimination

commitments, including the recently adopted Decision No 9/09 on Combating Hate

Crimes, in particular the commitments to collect hate crime data, to report that data to the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), and to enact

tailored legislation to combat hate crimes.

Lead efforts to ensure the effective organization of the proposed Conference on Tolerance

and Nondiscrimination in June 2010. The United States should work to ensure:

• The adoption of an agenda that focuses on the states’ implementation of their
  
  commitments to combat hate crime and other forms of intolerance, as well as best
  
  practices for addressing these concerns. The agenda should include targeted
  
  discussions focusing on the unique problem of antisemitism.
• A high-level of participation from states by individuals directly involved in the
  
  implementation of tolerance and non-discrimination commitments, including those
  
  adopted in December 2009 to combat hate crime. High-level participation by U.S.
  
  officials from the Department of Justice and other relevant agencies would support this
  
  effort.
• The organization of a civil society preparatory meeting that would result in
  
  recommendations to be presented to the conference participants. This would require
  
  sufficient logistical support, including by ODIHR as appropriate, to ensure full
  
  participation by civil society organizations.

An active role for civil society representatives in the conference itself.

• Providing for extrabudgetary contributions, secondment of personnel, and other in-kind
  
  support for OSCE programs to combat violent hate crimes, including by making available
  
  its law enforcement expertise.

Advocate in Bilateral Relationships and Offer Technical Assistance

Promote stronger government responses to antisemitic and other violent hate crime through

U.S. human rights reporting as well as through bilateral relationships of the United States, by:

• Maintaining strong and inclusive State Department monitoring and public reporting on
  
  antisemitic, racist and xenophobic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Roma, and other biasmotivated violence. In doing so, the government should consult with civil society groups while providing appropriate training for human rights officers and other relevant missionstaff abroad.
• Raising incidents of antisemitic violence with representatives of foreign governments and
  
  encouraging vigorous responses. Share concrete recommendations, such as those
  
  articulated in HRF’s Ten-Point plan for combating hate crime (attached below).
• Offering 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. Moreover, the FBI’s International Law
  
  Enforcement Academy should include a hate crime component in its training of law
  
  enforcement personnel in emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
  
  Union.
• Organizing International Visitors Programs on combating bias-motivated violence for
  
  representatives of law enforcement, victim communities, human rights groups, and legal
  
  advocates.

Support Civil Society Organizations

Expand funding and other support to build the capacity of civil society groups in the OSCE

region to combat antisemitic and other forms of violent hate crimes, by:

• Providing extrabudgetary support to expand OSCE’s civil society training program on
  
  combating hate crimes.
• 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.
• Congressional establishment of a long-term funding program at the State Department,
  
  USAID or an outside agency to provide financial support for civil society groups to
  
  monitor and report on violent hate crime, to advocate more effective laws and policies and
  
  stronger official responses to hate crime incidents, to provide services to victims, and to
  
  develop and implement programs to prevent and respond to hate crime.

Human Rights First’s 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, interagency 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 under recording 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.