VZCZCXRO9217
RR RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0180/01 1981327
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 161327Z JUL 08
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5828
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE

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