The FBI in December 2014 published the latest hate crime statistics which are released annually. The latest survey covers 2013.
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
The FBI has a detailed overview online of their methodology which can be found here. It is too long to discuss in depth here but here is an excerpt from the introduction.
The Hate Crime Statistics Program of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program collects data regarding criminal offenses that were motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, gender, gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and were committed against persons, property, or society. (See below for information concerning new bias types, such as gender and gender identity, and other changes to the hate crime data collection.) Because motivation is subjective, it is sometimes difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime.
Single bias hate crimes
Single bias hate crime statistics – Source FBI
These have been summarized for this post for reasons of brevity. A more detailed breakdown can be found here.
In 2013, there were 3,563 victims of racially motivated hate crime.
- 66.5 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Black or African American bias.
- 21.2 percent were victims of anti-White bias.
- 4.6 percent were victims of anti-Asian bias.
- 4.5 percent were victims of anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias.
1,461 victims were targeted due to sexual-orientation bias.
- 60.9 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-gay (male) bias.
- 22.5 percent were victims of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (mixed group) bias.
- 13.1 percent were victims of anti-lesbian bias.
There were 1,223 victims of anti-religious hate crimes.
- 60.3 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
- 13.7 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias.
- 6.1 percent were victims of anti-Catholic bias.
- 4.3 percent were victims of bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
- 3.8 percent were victims of anti-Protestant bias.
The race of known hate crime offenders
In 2013 the FBI reports that there were 5814 known hate crime offenders. The breakdown of the race of these offenders is as follows.
- 52.4 percent were White.
- 24.3 percent were Black or African American.
- 7.0 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (Group of Multiple Races).
- 0.8 percent (49 offenders) were American Indian or Alaska Native.
- 0.7 percent (40 offenders) were Asian.
- 0.1 percent (3 offenders) were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.
- 14.8 percent were unknown.
There are some revealing statistics here including:
1. Anti black/African American bias is significant factor in racial crimes.
2. Gay hate crimes (male) are much more prevalent than transgender, lesbian, or bisexual hate crimes.
3. Anti-Jewish hate crimes are much more common in the USA than those against Muslims.
The good news is according the FBI hate crimes are down from 2012.
It would be interesting to see a geographic breakdown of where these hate crimes are being committed.
[UPDATE]: Added a section to the post on FBI data of the race of known hate crime offenders in 2013.Tags: FBI, hate crimes
TO be honest, I didn’t really think much about “freedom of speech” until I found myself the subject of three “hate speech” complaints in Canada in 2007.
I mean I was philosophically in favour of it, and I’d been consistently opposed to the Dominion’s ghastly “human rights” commissions and their equivalents elsewhere my entire adult life, and from time to time when an especially choice example of politically correct enforcement came up I’d whack it around for a column or two.
But I don’t think I really understood how advanced the Left’s assault on this core Western liberty actually was. In 2008, shortly before my writing was put on trial for “flagrant Islamophobia” in British Columbia, several National Review readers e-mailed from the US to query what the big deal was. C’mon, lighten up, what could some “human rights” pseudo-court do? And I replied that the statutory penalty under the British Columbia “Human Rights” Code was that Maclean’s, Canada’s biggest-selling news weekly, and by extension any other publication, would be forbidden henceforth to publish anything by me about Islam, Europe, terrorism, demography, welfare, multiculturalism, and various related subjects. And that this prohibition would last forever, and was deemed to have the force of a supreme-court decision. I would in effect be rendered unpublishable in the land of my birth.
This is why we must resist any so called hate speech laws in New Zealand. The threshold for intervention against speech should and must be very high – such as directly advocating violence.
Fourteen-year-old Codie Stott asked her teacher at Harrop Fold High School whether she could sit with another group to do her science project as in hers the other five pupils spoke Urdu and she didn’t understand what they were saying. The teacher called the police, who took her to the station, photographed her, fingerprinted her, took DNA samples, removed her jewelry and shoelaces, put her in a cell for three and a half hours, and questioned her on suspicion of committing a Section Five “racial public-order offence.” “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark,” declared the headmaster, Antony Edkins. The school would “not stand for racism in any form.” In a statement, Greater Manchester Police said they took “hate crime” very seriously, and their treatment of Miss Stott was in line with “normal procedure.”
I thought this must be made up. But sadly it is true.
The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal was interviewed on the BBC and expressed the view that homosexuality was “immoral,” was “not acceptable,” “spreads disease,” and “damaged the very foundations of society.” A gay group complained and Sir Iqbal was investigated by Scotland Yard’s “community safety unit” for “hate crimes” and “homophobia.”
Independently but simultaneously, the magazine of GALHA (the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) called Islam a “barmy doctrine” growing “like a canker” and deeply “homophobic.” In return, the London Race Hate Crime Forum asked Scotland Yard to investigate GALHA for “Islamophobia.”
Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for Islamophobia.
Two men say exactly the same thing and they’re investigated for different hate crimes.
I encourage people to ask candidates and parties where they stand on introducing hate crimes legislation in New Zealand. Don’t think there are not groups lobbying for them, because there are.Tags: free speech, hate crimes, Mark Steyn