Study to support the preparation of the European Commission’s initiative to extend the list of EU crimes ... to hate speech and hate crime. Annex VII, Analysis and synthesis of all the information and quantitative and qualitative data collected.
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: crime against individuals, data collection, fight against crime, hate speech, legislative initiative

Study to support the preparation of 
the European Commission’s 
initiative to extend the list of EU 
crimes in Article 83 of the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the EU to hate 
speech and hate crime 

Annex VII – Analysis and synthesis of all the information and 
quantitative and qualitative data collected 

Written by Tipik – Spark Legal Network 
November 2021 

Justice 
And Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

This study was carried out for the European Commission by 

Patricia Ypma 
Célia Drevon 
Chloe Fulcher 
Oriana Gascon 
Network of national legal experts 

Kevin Brown 
Aleksandar Marsavelski 

Sylvie Giraudon 

DISCLAIMER 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  study  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  European  Commission.  The  European 
Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the 
European Commission nor any person acting on the European Commission’s behalf may 
be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate C — Fundamental Rights and rule of law  
Unit C.2 — Fundamental rights policy  

E-mail: 

JUST-NO-HATE@ec.europa.eu    

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE AND 
QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Study to support the preparation of 
the European Commission’s 
initiative to extend the list of EU 
crimes in Article 83 of the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the EU to hate 
speech and hate crime 

Annex VII – Analysis and synthesis of all the information and 
quantitative and qualitative data collected 

2021 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Manuscript completed in November 2021 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the 
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the 
European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-76-44640-8 

doi: 10.2838/204274 

DS-08-21-366-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of 
licence 
this  document 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any 
changes are indicated. 

is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 

(CC-BY  4.0) 

International 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought 
directly from the respective rightholders.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Table of contents 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................... 10 

2.  Hate speech ................................................................................................... 10 

2.1. 

Scale .................................................................................................. 10 

2.1.1.  General considerations................................................................................ 10 
2.1.2.  Specific considerations with regard to grounds ............................................ 16 

2.2. 

Developments .................................................................................... 24 

2.2.1.  General considerations................................................................................ 24 
2.2.2.  Specific considerations with regard to grounds ............................................ 26 

2.3. 

Harmful Impact ................................................................................... 30 

2.3.1.  Harmful impact on victims and other relevant individuals ............................. 30 
2.3.1.1.  General considerations ................................................................ 30 
2.3.1.2.  Specific considerations with regard to grounds ............................ 33 
2.3.2.  Harmful impact on wider society .................................................................. 37 
2.3.2.1.  General considerations ................................................................ 37 
2.3.2.2.  Specific considerations with regard to grounds ............................ 41 

2.4. 

Cross-border nature and impact ......................................................... 43 

2.4.1.  Cross-border impact and nature of hate speech online ............................... 43 
2.4.1.1.  General considerations ................................................................ 43 
2.4.1.2.  Specific considerations with regard to grounds ............................ 46 
2.4.2.  Cross-border impact of hate speech offline ................................................. 48 
2.4.2.1.  General considerations ................................................................ 48 
2.4.2.2.  Specific considerations with regard to ground of sex and gender . 50 

3.  Hate Crime ..................................................................................................... 51 

3.1. 

Scale .................................................................................................. 51 

3.1.1.  General considerations................................................................................ 51 
3.1.2.  Specific considerations with regard to grounds ............................................ 54 

3.2. 

Developments .................................................................................... 64 

3.2.1.  General considerations................................................................................ 64 
3.2.2.  Specific considerations with regard to grounds ............................................ 68 

3.3. 

Harmful Impact ................................................................................... 69 

3.3.1.  Harmful impact on victims and other relevant individuals ............................. 69 
3.3.1.1.  General considerations ................................................................ 69 
3.3.1.2.  Specific considerations with regard to grounds ............................ 71 
3.3.2.  Harmful impact on wider society .................................................................. 74 
3.3.2.1.  General considerations ................................................................ 74 
3.3.2.2.  Specific considerations with regard to grounds ............................ 76 

3.4. 

Cross-border impact ........................................................................... 78 

3.4.1.  General considerations................................................................................ 78 
3.4.2.  Specific considerations with regard to the ground of sex and gender .......... 81 

6 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Table of Tables 

Table 1 - Latest available data on hate speech incidents from the Member States .......... 11 

Table 2 – Member States where online hate speech is increasing, according to the ECRI 
Monitoring Reports .......................................................................................................... 14 

Table 3 – The scale of hate speech on the ground of sex/gender in the Member States, 
recorded in terms of cases reported, investigated, and convictions .................................. 16 

Table 4 - The scale of hate speech on the ground of gender identity/sex characteristics in 
the Member States, recording in terms of cases reported, investigated, and convictions . 18 

Table  5  –  The  scale  of  hate  speech  on  the  ground  of  sexual  orientation  in  the  Member 
States, recording in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions ........... 19 

Table  6  -  The  scale  of  hate  speech  on  the  ground  of  disability  in  the  Member  States, 
recording in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions ....................... 21 

Table  7  –  Average  annual  hate  speech  rates  on  grounds  covered  by  the  Framework 
Decision  (race,  colour,  descent,  or  national  or  ethnic  origin)  based  on the data collected 
from stakeholders on the annual number of cases in EU Member states (2015-2020) ..... 23 

Table  8  –  Development  of  hate  speech  incidence  in  recent  years,  recorded  in  terms  of 
reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions ........................................................ 24 

Table 9 – The scale of hate crimes in the Member States, recorded in terms of reported 
cases, investigated cases, and convictions ...................................................................... 51 

Table 10 – The divergent methods of data collection in a handful of Member States ....... 53 

Table 11 – The scale of hate crime on the ground of sex/gender, in the Member States, 
recorded in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions ....................... 54 

Table 12 - The scale of hate crime on the ground of gender identity/sex characteristics in 
the Member States, recording in terms of cases reported, investigated, and convictions . 55 

Table  13  –  The  scale  of  hate  crime  on  the  ground  of  sexual  orientation  in  the  Member 
States, recording in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions ........... 57 

Table  14  -  The  scale  of  hate  crime  on  the  ground  of  disability  in  the  Member  States, 
recording in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions ....................... 61 

Table 15 - OSCE collated data on hate crimes reported to the police in 2019 .................. 62 

Table 16 - Hate crimes recorded by police in England and Wales by monitored bias motive 
- year ending March 2016 to year ending March 2020 ..................................................... 62 

Table 17 - Average annual hate crime rates on Framework Decision grounds (race, colour, 
descent, or national or ethnic origin) based on the data collected from stakeholders on the 
annual number of cases in EU Member states (2015-2020)............................................. 63 

Table 18 - The development of hate crime incidence in recent years ............................... 65 

Table  19  –  Examples  of  Member  State  policies  to  counter  hate  crime  more  effectively, 
according to the FRA ‘Fundamental Rights Report’ of 2019 ............................................. 67 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Table of Figures 

Figure  1  –  Number  of  stakeholder  responses  to  ‘in  your  view,  do  official  statistics  on 
incidents reported to and/or recorded by law enforcement (or other authorities) reflect the 
real number of incidents on hate speech and/or hate crime occurring in the Member State(s) 
you are familiar with? ....................................................................................................... 11 

Figure  2  –  Stakeholder  responses  to  ‘in  your  view,  what  would  be  the  main  reasons  for 
underreporting?’ ............................................................................................................... 12 

Figure 3 – Stakeholder responses to ‘in your view is there an increase of the phenomena 
of hate speech and hate crime?’ ...................................................................................... 24 

Figure 4 – Number of stakeholder responses to 'in your view, does hate speech/hate crime 
cause harm to' concerning victims and other relevant individuals .................................... 30 

Figure 5 – Number of stakeholder responses to 'in your view, what are the harmful impacts 
of hate speech/hate crime on the individual victims’ ......................................................... 31 

Figure 6 – Number of respondents who avoid certain places or locations for fear of being 
assaulted, threatened, or harassed because they are trans or intersex, as according to the 
2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to go for LGBTI equality’ (%) ............................................ 34 

Figure 7 – Number of respondents who avoid certain places or locations for fear of being 
assaulted, threatened, or harassed because they are LGB, as according to the 2020 FRA 
survey, ‘A long way to go for LGBTI equality’ (%) ............................................................ 35 

Figure 8 – Number of stakeholder responses to 'in your view, does hate speech/hate crime 
cause harm to', concerning wider society. ........................................................................ 38 

Figure 9 – Number of stakeholder responses to ‘in your view, what are the harmful impacts 
of hate speech/the crime on society as a whole’ .............................................................. 39 

Figure 10 – Stakeholder responses to ‘can hate speech perpetrated online have a spillover 
effect across national borders’ ......................................................................................... 43 

Figure 11 – Number of stakeholder responses to 'in what ways can [online] hate speech 
committed in one Member State lead to instances in another?'........................................ 44 

Figure  12  –  Stakeholder  responses  to  'in  your  view,  can  hate  speech  [offline]  have  a 
spillover impact across borders' ....................................................................................... 48 

Figure 13 – Number of stakeholder responses to ‘in what ways can hate speech committed 
[offline] in one Member State lead to instances in another’ .............................................. 49 

Figure 14 – Number of respondents who experienced a physical and/or sexual attack for 
being trans or intersex, in the five years before the 2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to go for 
LGBTI equality’ (%) .......................................................................................................... 56 

Figure  15  –  Number  of  Trans  and  Intersex  persons  experienced  harassment,  in  the  12 
months  before  the  survey,  as  according  to  the  2020  FRA  survey,  ‘A  long  way  to  go  for 
LGBTI equality’ ................................................................................................................ 56 

Figure  16–  Number  of  Trans  and  Intersex  respondents  who  reported  their  most  recent 
incident of discrimination, as according to the 2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to go for LGBTI 
equality’ ........................................................................................................................... 56 

Figure 17 – Number of respondents who experienced harassment due to being LGB, in the 
12 months before the 2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to go for LGBTI equality’ ................ 59 

Figure 18 – Number of respondents who experienced a physical and/or sexual attack for 
being  LGB,  in  the  five  years  before  the  2020  FRA  survey,  ‘A  long  way  to  go  for  LGBTI 
equality’ (%) ..................................................................................................................... 59 

8 

 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Figure 19 – Stakeholder responses to ‘in your view, is there an increase of the phenomena 
of hate speech and hate crime?’ ...................................................................................... 65 

Figure 20 - Stakeholder responses to 'in your view, can hate crime have a spillover impact 
across borders?' .............................................................................................................. 78 

Figure 21 - Number of stakeholder responses to 'in your view, in what ways can hate crimes 
committed  in  one  Member  State  lead  to  instances  of  hate  crimes  in  (an)other  Member 
State?' ............................................................................................................................. 79 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

1. Introduction  

The present Annex provides a detailed evidence base about the scale, nature and impact 
of hate speech and hate crime. This evidence base has been developed in order to assess 
whether hate speech and hate crime meet the criteria referred to in Article 83(1) TFEU, i.e. 
whether  these  types  of  crime  are  particularly  serious  crimes  which  have  a  cross-border 
dimension, and whether there are ‘developments in crime’ that justify their inclusion in the 
list of EU crimes. The Study Team analysed and synthesised all the information, data and 
views collected in relation to the scale and development of hate speech and hate crime, 
their harmful impact on victims, other individuals, and wider society, as well as their cross-
border nature and impact. This information has been gathered for hate speech and hate 
crime generally, as well as under specific grounds, namely the grounds of sex and gender, 
sexual  orientation,  gender  identity  and  sex  characteristics,  age,  disability  and  grounds 
covered  under  the  Framework  Decision.  Moreover,  information,  data,  and  views  were 
collected from the following sources:  

  Targeted consultation launched by the European Commission; 
  Feedback  to  the  Commission’s  Roadmap  on  ‘Hate  speech  &  hate  crime  – 

inclusion on list of EU crimes’; 

  National country fiches prepared by the network of national legal experts; and 
  Other sources, including literature, surveys and reports. 

Section 2 describes all the sources that constitute the evidence base regarding the scale, 
development,  harmful  impact,  and  cross-border  nature  and  impact  of  hate  speech  and 
Section 3 includes the detailed description of the evidence base gathered in relation to hate 
crime. 

2. Hate speech  

2.1. Scale 

2.1.1.  General considerations  

Within  this  subsection,  data  gathered  from  the  stakeholder  consultation  as  well  as  other 
sources is presented.  

The  number  of  hate  speech  cases  reported,  cases  investigated  and  convictions,  as 
gathered from the stakeholder consultation, is outlined in Table 1 below. It should be noted 
that  the  data  presented  is  not  harmonised  and,  therefore,  it  is  not  comparable.  This  is 
because it is from a variety of sources1 and the methods used to collect such data vary from 
country  to  country  and  stakeholder  to  stakeholder.  Thus,  the  size  of  each  country  is  a 
relevant factor, as the data is not presented per number of inhabitants. 

During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  stakeholders  were  asked  ‘in  your  view,  do  official 
statistics on incidents reported to and/or recorded by law enforcement (or other authorities) 
reflect  the  real  number  of  incidents  on  hate  speech  and/or  hate  crime  occuring  in  the 
Member State(s) that you are familiar with?’. 78.6% of stakeholders (66 out of 84) reported 

1 For example, national authorities, civil society organisations. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

that they did not consider that the number of reported cases corresponded to the number 
of incidents that occurred. 

Figure 1 – Number of stakeholder responses to ‘in your view, do official statistics on 
incidents  reported  to  and/or  recorded  by  law  enforcement  (or  other  authorities) 
reflect the real number of incidents on hate speech and/or hate crime occurring in 
the Member State(s) you are familiar with? 

2
Yes

66

No

Number of stakeholders

16

Don't know

Subsequently, the data presented in Table 1 below represents the latest available data from 
the Member States. Not all Member States have data available for 2020, in which case data 
from 2019 is used. 

Table 1 - Latest available data on hate speech incidents from the Member States 

Country 

Austria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Germany4 

Hungary 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta8 

Netherlands9 

Romania 

Slovenia10 

Spain 

Year of 
data 

Cases 
reported 

Cases investigated  Convictions 

2019 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2019 

2019 

2020 

2020 

2019 

125 

21 

22 

1648 

15465 

3 

47 

3569 

15 

28 

20411 

6602 

21 

22 

1648 

2 

86 

8 

204 

303 

18 

2 

102 

37 

49 

3 

2 Data from Country Fiche for AT (Source: Safety reports of the Federal Ministry of the Interior). 
3 Ibid. 
4 Data from the Public Prosecutor General Munich (Generalstsaatsanwaltschaft München). Additional data was submitted by jugendschutz.net 
(1037 cases reported in 2020) and FSM - Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter e.V. (80 cases reported and investigated in 
2020). 
5 Data from the Office of the Inspector of Journalists’ Ethics. 
6 Data from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. 
7 Ibid. 
8 Data from Country Fiche for MT (Source: Human Rights Directorate Malta). 
9 Data from Country Fiche for NL and includes data registered to police. The Public Prosecution Service has registered 138 cases reported in 
2020 and 113 cases reported in 2019. 
10 Data from Country Fiche for SI (Joint Annual Report on the work of State Prosecution Offices for 2020 by the Supreme State Prosecution 
Office of the Republic of Slovenia). 
11 For ES, 950 cases were reported to the organisation OBERAXE. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

During the targeted stakeholder consultation, 13 Member States provided aggregated data 
on hate speech cases reported, investigated, and convictions. Of those 13 Member States, 
the number of convictions was only reported by six Member States and the number of cases 
investigated was reported for seven Member States. The data for seven Member States, as 
indicated in footnotes, was gathered from the country fiches collated by the National Legal 
Experts. 

As identified in the stakeholder consultation, stakeholders consider that the main reasons 
for underreporting are: (i) fear of stigmatisation; (ii) fear of secondary victimisation; (ii) lack 
of trust in police; (iv) the burden of proof; (v) loss of evidence; (vi) all of the above; and (vii) 
other. 

Figure 2 – Stakeholder responses to ‘in your view, what would be the main reasons 
for underreporting?’  

56

55

55

43

31

23

Fear of
stigmatisation

Fear of secondary
victimisation

Lack of trust in
police

The burden of
proof

Loss of evidence

Other

These data indicate that underreporting is mainly attributed to these reasons, and support 
the claim that the actual prevalence of hate speech crimes is difficult to establish. 

Other  sources  –  those  from  the  roadmap  and  the  literature  collected  –  indicate  that  the 
increase  in  the  scale  of  hate  crime  is  a  concern  in  many  Member  States.  This  was 
acknowledged  by  the  ECRI;  the  European  Parliament,  Directorate-General  for  Internal 
Policies,  Policy  Department  for  Citizens’  Rights  and  Constitutional  Affairs  (‘European 
Parliament’s Policy Department’); and the European Regional Forum. 

The ECRI in 2015 recognised the increasing concerns among Member States and other 
organisations about the use of hate speech in Europe. The ECRI particularly noted that the 
use of hate speech was increasing, especially through ‘electronic forms of communication 
which magnify its impact’.12 The actual extent of hate speech remains uncertain, however, 
it appears to be commonplace. The ECRI further recognised that there is a lack of systemic 
monitoring of all fora where hate speech might be used; however, it noted that the use of 
hate  speech  is  more  visible  and  more  readily  spread  as  a  result  of  the  widespread 
availability of electronic forms of communication.13 

The European Parliament’s Policy Department also noted that hate speech and hate crime 
have been steadily rising during the past decade, and stated that hate speech is becoming 
prevalent due to, and within, social media where any political actor or citizen may express 
their thoughts without inhibition.14  

In its Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, the UN highlights that ‘social media and 
other forms  of communication  are  being  exploited  as platforms for  bigotry’,  where public 

12  ECRI,  General  policy  recommendation  no.  15:  On  Combatting  Hate  Speech,  2015,  available  at:  https://rm.coe.int/ecri-general-policy-
recommendation-no-15-on-combating-hate-speech/16808b5b01 (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 4. 
13 Ibid.  
14 Ibid. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

discourse  is  weaponised  for  political  gain,  stigmatising  and  dehumanising  minorities, 
migrants, refugees, women and ‘any so-called “other”’.15 The UN Human Rights Office has 
further stated that hate speech ‘hurts, diminishes, humiliates and incites to hostility or even 
violence’.16 

Online hate speech 

According  to  the  literature  collected,  online  hate  speech  is  an  EU-wide  problem  that  is 
increasing  in  scale.  This  is  according  to  the  Parliamentary  Assembly  of  the  Council  of 
Europe  and  the  ECRI.  Furthermore,  this  phenomenon  is  supported  by  the  transparency 
reports of large media platforms which indicate the widespread nature of hate speech.  

In 2017, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe remarked that ‘online hate is 
not an isolated phenomenon […] but a pan-European problem’.17 

To this end, it is useful to consider the scale of online hate speech. Large media platforms 
publish transparency  reports  in which  they  outline  the  scale of  hate speech incidents  on 
their platforms in the last year. While this data is not limited to the EU, it is nevertheless 
useful in observing the scale of hate speech generally. 

Facebook defines hate speech as ‘violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, 
calls  for  exclusion,  or  segregation  based  on  protected  characteristics  or  slurs’.18  The 
platform notes that the estimated percentage of views violating content for hate speech was 
0.05-0.06% in the first quarter of 2021, meaning that for every 10 000 content views, 5-6 
would contain hate speech. This is a decrease from the fourth quarter of 2020 (0.07-0.08%) 
and  shows  that  it  has  taken  action  on  25.2  million  hate  speech  contents.  According  to 
Facebook, taking action could include ‘removing a piece of content […], covering photos or 
videos  that  may  be  disturbing  to  audiences  with  a  warning,  or  disabling  accounts.’19  A 
general  increase  in  online  hate  speech  can  be  observed  based  on  the  amount  of  hate 
speech content that has been actioned, from only 2.5 million contents at the beginning of 
2018, to 9.5 million contents at the end of 2019, and ultimately 25.2 million contents between 
January and March 2021. Instagram, by comparison, has actioned 6.3 million hate speech 
contents using the same definition for the concept.20  

From July to December 2020, LinkedIn removed 13,815 pieces of content that were ‘hateful 
or  derogatory’,  which  was  a  marked  increase  from  the  2,588  pieces  of  content  removed 
January to June 2020.21 LinkedIn defined ‘hateful or derogatory’ as any content ‘attacking 
or  disparaging  people  because  of  their  race,  ethnicity,  national  origin,  gender,  gender 
identity,  immigration  status,  sexual  orientation,  religious  affiliation,  or  mental,  medical  or 
physical condition.’22 It is worth noting that in 2020, LinkedIn changed the way it organises 
content violations, notably by changing the way ‘re-shared content’ is reported. Re-shared 
content  is  now  categorised  under  the  respective  content  violation  category,  rather  than 
simply being considered ‘spam and scam’. Whilst it is not known how much of the 13,815 
contents removed for being ‘hateful and derogatory’ can be attributed to re-sharing, it may 

and 

Social 

Media 

Speech, 

15 UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, ‘United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech’, available 
at: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/hate-speech-strategy.shtml (last accessed 7 July 2021), p. 1.  
16 Birgit Van Hout, Regional Representative for Europe, UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR), ‘Opening remarks at European Regional Forum on 
Hate 
at: 
https://europe.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=2586&LangID=E (last accessed 28 September 2021). 
17  Council  of  Europe  Parliamentary  Assembly,  ‘Recommendation  2098:  Ending  cyberdiscrimination  and  online  hate’,  2017,  available  at: 
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=23457&lang=en (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
18 These characteristics include race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and 
serious  disability  or  disease,  Facebook  Transparency  Centre,  ‘Hate  Speech’,  available  at:  https://transparency.fb.com/data/community-
standards-enforcement/hate-speech/facebook (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
19 Facebook Transparency Centre, ‘Content actioned’, available at: https://transparency.fb.com/policies/improving/content-actioned-metric/ (last 
accessed 19 August 2021). 
20 Facebook Transparency Centre, ‘Hate Speech’, see footnote 18.  
21  Linkedin  Transparency,  ‘Community  Report’,  available  at:  https://about.linkedin.com/transparency/community-report#content-violations-
2020-jul-dec (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
22 Ibid. 

Minorities’, 

available 

2020, 

13 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

serve as an explanation for the steep increase in removals, illustrating how easily hateful 
content can be shared and distributed. 

Last year, TikTok changed its policy from ‘hate speech’ to ‘hateful behaviour’, with the aim 
of taking a more ‘comprehensive approach to combatting hateful ideologies and off-platform 
activities’.23 TikTok defines hate speech or hateful behaviour as any content that ‘attacks, 
threatens, incites violence against, or otherwise dehumanizes an individual or a group’.24 
Of the videos removed on the platform in the second half of 2020 (a total of 89 132 938 
videos), 2% of the videos violated the hateful behaviour policy, up from 0.8% in the first half 
of  2020.  Finally,  between  January  and  March  2021,  85  237  videos  were  removed  from 
YouTube for expressing hate speech.25 YouTube states that hate speech is not allowed on 
the  platform  and  it  removes  ‘content  promoting  violence  or  hatred  against  individuals  or 
groups  based  on  any  of  the  following  attributes:  age,  caste,  disability,  ethnicity,  gender 
identify and expression, nationality, race, immigration status, religion, sex/gender, sexual 
orientation, victims of a major violent event and their kin and veteran status’.26 

Interestingly, the ECRI monitoring reports have identified country-specific aspects of online 
hate  speech.  For  context,  these  monitoring  reports  outline  the  findings  of  and  provide 
recommendations for countries. This is in relation to the themes of effective equality and 
access to rights, hate speech and hate motivated violence and integration and inclusion. It 
can  be  seen from  the following  monitoring report  that the  scale of  online  hate speech  is 
increasing in these Member States: 

Table 2 – Member States where online hate speech is increasing, according to the 
ECRI Monitoring Reports 

Austria 

Germany 

Unofficial data on racist incidents gathered by the NGO CIVIL Courage and Anti-
Racism Work (ZARA) revealed that in 2017, out of 1162 reported racist incidents, 
44%  of  these  concerned  online  hate  speech,  which  was  a  significant  increase 
from 31% in 2016. In 2018, three out of five incidents (1164 out of 1920) recorded 
that year took place on the internet, and on Facebook in particular.27  

In  2017,28  2270  of  the  7913  registered  hate  crimes  were  hate  postings  on  the 
internet.29 In 2018, social network companies published transparency reports in 
Germany  under  the  Network  Enforcement  Act.  These  state  that  in  the  first 
semester  of  2019,  Google  was  requested  to  remove  304  425  contents  from 
YouTube, of these 95 950 concerned hate speech or political extremism. 88% of 
these were removed or blocked within 24 hours.30 

Netherlands 

According  to  the  joint  2017  Report  on  Discrimination  Figures,  the  Hotline  for 
Discrimination on the internet (MiND) registered 1367 cases. Of the 1367 cases 
registered by MiND, 37% concerned social media, 18% blogs and opinion sites 
and 37% other websites.31 Furthermore, in the Netherlands, it was observed by 

23  TikTok,  ‘TikTok  Transparency  Report’,  available  at:  https://www.tiktok.com/safety/resources/transparency-report-2020-2?lang=en  (last 
accessed 19 August 2021). 
24 TikTok, ‘Community Guidelines – Hateful Behavior’, available at: https://www.tiktok.com/community-guidelines?lang=en#38 (last accessed 
19 August 2021). 
25  Google,  ‘Google  Transparency  Report  –  Featured  Policies  –  Hate  Speech’,  available  at:  https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-
policy/featured-policies/hate-speech?hl=en&policy_removals=period:2020Q4&lu=policy_removals (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
26 YouTube, ‘Hate speech policy’, available at: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939 (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
27 ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), 2020, available at: https://rm.coe.int/report-on-austria-6th-monitoring-cycle-/16809e826f (last 
accessed 19 August 2021), p.17. 
28 As of 1st January 2019, German police authorities only recorded cases of ‘hate postings on the internet’ within their hate crime statistics, but 
ECRI did not receive information as to whether these statistics were connected to those of the police and allow retrieving cases from the initial 
investigation up to sentencing. See: ECRI report on Germany (sixth monitoring cycle), March 2020, available at: https://rm.coe.int/ecri-report-
on-germany-sixth-monitoring-cycle-/16809ce4be (last accessed 19 August 2021), p.17. 
29 Ibid. 
30 Ibid. 
31 ECRI report on the Netherlands (fifth monitoring cycle), June 2019, available at: https://rm.coe.int/fifth-report-on-the-netherlands/168094c577 
(last accessed 19 August 2021), p.16. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

ECRI  that  there  are  waves  of  online  hate  speech,  and  large  amounts  of  hate 
speech remain online over long periods of time.32 

Underreporting 

As previously mentioned, it is clear from the other sources collected that the real extent of 
hate  speech  remains  uncertain.  The  principal  reasons  for  this  are  the  absence  of 
comprehensive  and  comparable  data  regarding  hate  speech,  the  lack  of  reporting  in 
general, the lack of available support for victims, and society’s lack of awareness as to the 
concept of hate speech.33  

The ECRI supports that the uncertainty surrounding the scale of hate speech stems from 
the absence of ‘comprehensive and comparable data regarding complaints about the use 
of hate speech, resulting from complaints either not being recorded or the varying criteria 
by which Member States regard such use as having occurred.’34 For instance, in Romania, 
there  is  no  coherent  and  systematic  data  collection  on  hate  speech  and  hate  motivated 
violence.35  Furthermore,  the  ECRI’s  ‘General  policy  recommendation  no.  15’  further 
explains  that  victims  of  hate  speech  do  not  always  report  it,  often  due  to  the  lack  of 
confidence in the justice system, as complaints do not always appear to be investigated, or 
for fear of action being taken against them.36 

Similarly,  the  FRA  has  reported  that  ‘only  a fraction  of  victims  report  hate-motivated 
harassment and violence to the police’. Even when victims report incidents, police officers 
do  not  always  flag  them  as  hate  motivated  and  may  not  recognise  certain  incidents  as 
stemming from  prejudice. Others may  simply  lack the  necessary  practical  tools,  such  as 
incident reporting forms, which allow motivation to be recorded – or the inclination to provide 
non-obligatory information.37 In Malta, for example, it has been observed that prosecution 
rates and arrests do not reflect the perception that hate speech is commonplace. Moreover, 
cases  taken  to  court  on  grounds  of  ‘hate’  are  not  generally  prosecuted  as  such,  whilst 
professionals and other first responders have been reported to seem ill-equipped to deal 
with hate crimes.38 

In the Netherlands, the Second EU Minorities and Discrimination Survey (MIDIS II survey) 
of 201739 highlighted a high degree of underreporting.40 A large proportion of respondents 
from discriminated groups (close to 70%) were not aware of any organisations that would 
offer support or advice to them. Moreover, a lack of confidence in authorities was reported, 
as victims of hate speech (including journalists) often did not report cases to authorities as 
they considered that nothing would come of it. Authorities additionally stated that reported 
cases of online hate speech constituted only the ‘tip of the iceberg’.41 

FRA, 

‘Hate 

crime 

recording 

32 Ibid. 
33 These points are acknowledged by the ECRI and FRA and supported by Member State examples as provided by the ECRI, Julie A. Dilmaç 
et al., Article 19, and EMore.  
34 ECRI, General policy recommendation no. 15: On Combatting Hate Speech, see footnote 12, p. 20. 
35 ECRI report on Romania (fifth monitoring cycle), 2019, available at: https://rm.coe.int/fifth-report-on-romania/168094c9e5 (last accessed 19 
August 2021), p. 9. 
36 ECRI, General policy recommendation no. 15: On Combatting Hate Speech, see footnote 12, p. 20. 
37 
and 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-hate-crime-recording_en.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 3. 
38 EMore, ‘National Report on Hate Speech and Hate Crime in Malta’, 2016, available at: http://www.sosmalta.org/file.aspx?f=903 (last accessed 
19 August 2021), p. 17. 
39 
available 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-eu-midis-ii-main-results_en.pdf (last accessed 27 September 2021), p. 42. 
40 FRA, ‘Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey: Netherlands’, 2017, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-
and-resources/data-and-maps/survey-data-explorer-second-eu-minorities-discrimination-
survey?locale=EN&dataSource=EUMIDIS&media=png&width=740&topic=1.+Discrimination&question=pw_dis12overall10&subset=AllSubset
&country=NL&superSubset=02--Turkey,03--North-Africa&plot=inCountry&M2V=inCountry  (last  accessed 19 August  2021); also  available at: 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-eu-midis-ii-summary-results-country-sheet-netherlands_en.pdf  (last  accessed  27 
September 2021), p. 3. 
41 Ibid. 

Discrimination 

European 

Minorities 

collection 

available 

‘Second 

Survey’, 

practice 

across 

Union 

2018, 

2017, 

FRA, 

data 

EU’, 

and 

the 

at: 

at: 

15 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

The  lack  of  available  support  for  victims  has  been  cited  as  another  reason  for 
underreporting.42 In Austria, none of the relevant actors is tasked with systematic collection 
and  documentation  of  the  forms  and  roots  of  ‘hate  speech’,  nor  with  providing  effective 
assistance  to  victims  of  ‘hate  speech’.43  Furthermore,  as  a  response  to the  ECRI’s  2018 
recommendation to ensure a mechanism for collecting disaggregated data on hate crimes 
(including hate speech) in Malta, the Hate Crime and Speech Unit was established in 2019 
to  address  issues  of  hate  speech  and  hate  crime  and  to  support  victims  through  the 
provision of free therapeutic and legal services.44 

Finally,  a  lack  of  awareness  about  the  concept  of  hate  speech  can  be  identified  within 
society  and  among  professionals.  In  Spain,  the  lack  of  awareness  among  members  of 
vulnerable  groups  that  hate  speech  is  punishable  is  cited  as  one  of  the  reasons  for 
underreporting in the country.45 Similarly, in Cyprus, public perception indicates that hate 
speech  is  not  common  in  Cyprus.  However,  reports  have  identified  intercommunal, 
xenophobic  and  inter-gender  hate  speech  on  the  island.46  As  such,  the  lack  of 
understanding and awareness regarding hate speech has resulted in underreporting of hate 
speech incidents.47 

2.1.2. Specific considerations with regard to grounds 

Within this subsection, data gathered from the stakeholder consultation and other sources 
will be presented. From the stakeholder consultation, the number of hate speech incidents 
on  the  ground  of  sex/gender,  sexual  orientation,  gender  identity  and  sex  characteristics, 
disability and grounds covered by the Framework Decision will be outlined; this is recorded 
in terms of cases reported, investigated, and convictions. As mentioned in subsection 2.1.1, 
the data presented is not harmonised and, therefore, is not comparable. This is because it 
represents  data  from  a  variety  of  sources,  such  as  national  authorities  and  civil  society 
organisations,  and  the methods  used  to  collect  such  data  varies from country  to  country 
and between stakeholders within the same country.  

Sex and gender 

On the grounds of sex and gender, there is limited data on the number of cases of hate 
speech  offences  provided  by the  stakeholder  consultation  in the  period 2015-2020. Only 
stakeholders from three Member States48 provided data on reported cases.  

Table 3 – The scale of hate speech on the ground of sex/gender in the Member 
States, recorded in terms of cases reported, investigated, and convictions 

Country 

Year of data 

Cases reported  Cases 

Convictions 

investigated 

crime 

visible 

victims’ 

‘Making  hate 

the  European  Union:  acknowledging 

42  FRA, 
in 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2012_hate-crime.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 7. 
43  Article  19,  ‘Austria:  Responding  to  ‘hate  speech’,  2018,  available  at:  https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Austria-
Responding-to-Hate-Speech-.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 4. 
44 ECRI conclusions on the implementation of the recommendations in respect of Malta, CRI(2021)17, 2021, available at: https://rm.coe.int/ecri-
conclusions-on-the-implementation-of-the-recommendations-in-respe/1680a27d87 (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 5.   
45  ECRI  report  on  Spain  (fifth  monitoring  cycle),  CRI(2018)2,  2018,  available  at:  https://rm.coe.int/fifth-report-on-spain/16808b56c9  (last 
accessed 19 August 2021), p.18. 
46 Julie A. Dilmaç, Özker Kocadal and Orestis Tringides, ‘Public Discourses of Hate Speech in Cyprus: Awareness, Policies and Prevention’, 
2021, available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/zypern/17404.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p.2. 
47 Ινστιτούτο Ερευνών ΠΡΟΜΗΘΕΑΣ, ‘Έκθεση: Ρητορική, Συμπεριφορές και Εγκλήματα Μίσους στην Κύπρο’ (Study on Rhetoric, Behaviours 
and 
https://5206784b-d25e-477a-852f-
676027ef6ef0.filesusr.com/ugd/7cbaed_a2d0426850654797b64a4ee50e01403c.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 220. 
48 IE, MT, ES. 

rights’,  2012,  available  at: 

available 

Cyprus), 

Crimes 

2015, 

Hate 

at: 

in 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Ireland 

Malta 

Spain 

2019 

2019 

2015-2019 

449 

2 

34 

34 

In its stakeholder response, Equinet cited a study by the Danish Institute for Human Rights, 
which includes findings that women are more often targeted by gender-based hate speech 
than men. This provides that online hate speech directed at gender makes up 15% of all 
the hateful comments analysed, and 58% of the hateful comments in this category are about 
women, with 39% of comments being about men, 1% about transgender individuals, and 
1% about other.50 

Other  sources  –  those  from  the  roadmap  and  the  literature  collected  –  indicate  that  the 
increase  in  the  scale  of  hate  speech  disproportionately  impacts  women  and  girls,  both 
online  and  offline,  and  regardless  of  status.  This  was  acknowledged  by  the  Council  of 
Europe, FRA, Plan International, the European Parliament’s Policy Department, and Louise 
Richardson-Self in ‘Women-Hating: On Misogyny, Sexism, and Hate Speech’.51  

Sexist hate speech is one of the problems which receives special attention from the Council 
of  Europe.  This  is  because  ‘[s]exist  hate  speech  is  rampant  in  Europe  and  women  are 
disproportionally targeted’.52 The Council of Europe’s publications suggest that sexist hate 
speech is ‘a daily phenomenon for many women that is only beginning to be addressed’.53 
Furthermore, they highlight that sexist hate speech takes place online and offline and in all 
forms of social interaction  – this could be at school, in the family, in social circles, in the 
public  space,  at  work,  via  emails,  websites  and  social  media.54  All  women  could  be  a 
potential  target  of  sexist  hate  speech,  although  some  groups  of  women  are  particularly 
targeted, such as young women, women in the media, and women politicians.55 

Another  important  finding  in  the  Council  of  Europe’s  reports  and  studies  is  that  the 
increasing  accessibility  of  the  internet  and  social  platforms  has  contributed  to  further 
occurrences of sex-based hate speech.56 Hate speech is one of the frequent forms of online 
violence that targets women and girls.57 In recent years, it has particularly acquired a new 
dimension with the rising popularity of social media platforms.58 Already in 2014, the FRA 
found in its study on violence against women that cyber harassment and cyberstalking were 
particular problems for young women because they are more likely to use online media and 
networks59.  In  2021,  a  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service  study  on  combating 
gender-based  cyber  violence  found  that  since  the  use  of  ICT  has  increased,  forms  of 
gender-based  online  violence  can  be  expected  to  increase  as  well.60  Furthermore,  other 
studies have shown that women may not be in a position to easily stand up to abuses that 

in 

Institute 

‘Hate  Speech 

for  Human  Rights, 

‘Woman-Hating:  On  Misogyny,  Sexism,  and  Hate  Speech’,  Hypatia  33(2),  2018,  available  at: 

the  Public  Online  Debate’,  2017,  available  at: 
(last 

49  Data  collected  from  Country  Fiche  for  IE  (Source:  An  Garda  Síochána  and  ODIHR,  ‘Hate  crime  reporting’,  available  at: 
https://hatecrime.osce.org/ireland (last accessed 19 August 2021)).  
50  The  Danish 
https://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.dk/files/media/migrated/hate_speech_in_the_public_online_debate_eng_2017.pdf 
accessed 19 July 2021), p. 71.  
51  Louise  Richardson-Self, 
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/womanhating-on-misogyny-sexism-and-hate-
speech/430BD708652C2A13A501C08C7AED4A5D (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
52 Council of Europe, ‘Combating Sexist Hate Speech’, 2016, available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680651592 (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 2. 
53 Ibid.  
54 Ibid.  
55 Ibid. 
56 Ibid. 
57  Council  of  Europe,  Cybercrime  Convention  Committee,  ‘Mapping  study  on  cyberviolence’,  T0CY(2017)10,  2018,  available  at: 
https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2017-10-cbg-study-provisional/16808c4914 (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 7. 
58 Council of Europe, ‘Speak up against sexist hate speech’, 2019, available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/speak-up-against-
sexist-hate-speech (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
59 FRA, ‘Violence against women: an EU-wide survey: Main results’, 2015, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-
2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf (last accessed 26 October 2021), p. 93. 
60  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service, 
‘Combating  gender-based  violence:  Cyber  violence’,  2021,  available  at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662621/EPRS_STU(2021)662621_EN.pdf  (last  accessed 17 September  2021), 
p. 68. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

occur in the form of sexual threats, biases and hate in the form of misogyny.61 According to 
Plan  International’s  study,  63%  of  girls  in  Europe  reported  that  they  have  personally 
experienced some form of online harassment on social media platforms.62 

Furthermore, one of the concerns in the literature is that not all gender-based speech, for 
example  ‘patriarchy-enforcing  speech’,  falls  under  the  concept  of  hate  speech  as  it  is 
generally defined, while only sex-based speech with a bias motive is considered ‘real’ hate 
speech on grounds of sex.63  

Moreover,  according  to  the  study  commissioned  by  the  European  Parliament’s  Policy 
Department,  in  five  selected  EU  countries,  ‘gender’  is  not  one  of  the  most  frequently 
attacked protected characteristics in the context of hate speech.64 However, the reason for 
this survey outcome could be the failure to recognise ‘gender’ as ‘sex’ by the respondents 
or the fact that the study did not cover all forms of gendered online violence.  

Gender identity and sex characteristics  

As previously mentioned, underreporting is the major problem in collecting data about the 
incidents  of  hate  speech  or  hate  crime.  This  can  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  79%  of 
stakeholders responded that such incidents are under-reported. 

The number of recorded cases of hate crime offences on the ground of gender identity and 
sex characteristics identified by the stakeholders from Member States, over the period of 
2015-2020, is significantly limited. Stakeholders in three Member States65 provided data on 
reported cases, while the data on investigated cases and convictions is rudimentary. Even 
in this category, only two stakeholders66 provided data for the entire period of 2015-2020 as 
requested  in  the  questionnaire.  The  additional  statistics  for  two  Member  States67  were 
collected as part of the national Country Fiches. However, it is worth noting that for both of 
these, gender identity and/or sex characteristics are included alongside sexual orientation.  

Table 4 - The scale of hate speech on the ground of gender identity/sex 
characteristics in the Member States, recording in terms of cases reported, 
investigated, and convictions 

Country 

Year of data 

Cases reported 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

Finland 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Malta 

2019 
2015-2020 
2019 
2015-2020 
2020 

668 
1 
3569 
7 
1 

61 FRA, ‘Violence against women: an EU-wide survey: Main results’, see footnote 65, p. 93. 
62  Plan  International,  ‘Free  to  be  online?  Girls’  and  young  women’s  experiences  of  online  harassment’,  2020,  available  at:  https://plan-
international.org/file/46061/download?token=pH3r4scC (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 16. 
63 Louise Richardson-Self, ‘Woman-Hating: On Misogyny, Sexism, and Hate Speech’, see footnote 57, p. 257. 
64 Judit Bayer and Petra Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, European 
Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, July 2020, available at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/655135/IPOL_STU(2020)655135_EN.pdf (last accessed 30 September 2021), p. 
64.  
65 HU, IT, MT. 
66 HU, IT. 
67 FI, IE. 
68 Data from Country Fiche for  FI (Source:  Jenita Rauta, ‘Poliisin tietoon tullut viharikollisuus Suomessa 2019’, 2020, The Police University 
College 
at: 
Finland, 
https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/345708/Polamk_katsaus_16_Viharikos_B5_web.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y  (last  accessed 
18 November 2021). This includes sexual orientation alongside gender identity and sex characteristics.  
69 Data collected from Country Fiche for IE (Source: An Garda Síochána and ODIHR, ‘Hate crime reporting’, see footnote 49). This includes 
sexual orientation, alongside gender identity.  

available 

of 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Furthermore, according to a study in selected EU countries, sexual minorities, along with 
migrants, are the hardest hit by discriminatory political rhetoric.70 Gender identity is one of 
the frequently  or  very frequently  attacked  protected  characteristics  in  the  context  of  hate 
speech.71  

A quantitative study of trans people’s experience of hate speech in the EU Member states 
has  found  that  the  most  common  forms  of  transphobic  harassment  were  (unsolicited) 
comments (44%) and verbal abuse (27%).72 The same study suggests that trans people are 
three times more likely to experience a hate incident than persons who are lesbian, gay or 
bisexual (LGB).73 

Sexual orientation 

The  statistical  data  gathered  from  the  stakeholder  consultation  on  the  ground  of  sexual 
orientation is limited in many aspects. Stakeholders in just six Member States74 provided 
data on hate speech reported cases, while the data on investigated cases and convictions 
is rudimentary. Even in this category, only stakeholders in two Member States75 provided 
data for the entire period of 2015-2020 as requested in the questionnaire. The additional 
statistics for five Member States,76 as indicated in footnotes, were collected as part of the 
national Country Fiches.  

Table 5 – The scale of hate speech on the ground of sexual orientation in the 
Member States, recording in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and 
convictions 

Country 

Year of data 

Cases reported 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

Belgium 

Finland 

France 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2015-2020 

2019 

2015-2020 

2019 

2019 

2020 

5477 

6 

1 87078 

2 

3580 

55 

6 

3582 

1479 

108 

1281 

70 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 70, p. 114. 
71 Ibid., p. 64. 
72  Lewis  Turner,  Stephen  Whittle,  Ryan  Combs,  ‘Transphobic  hate  crime  in  the  European  Union’,  2009,  available  at:  https://www.ilga-
europe.org/sites/default/files/transphobic_hate_crime_in_the_european_union_0.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 1. (Italian respondents 
reported the highest percentage of comments (51%); Greek, German and British/UK respondents reported the highest levels of verbal abuse 
(25%)). 
73 Ibid. 
74 FI, HU, IT, MT, RO, ES. 
75 HU, IT. 
76 BE, FR, IE, LT, NL. 
77 Data from Country Fiche for BE (Source: UNIA 2019). 
78  Data  from  Country  Fiche  for  FR  (Source:  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  National  Action  Plan  to  Promote  and  Combat  Anti-LGBTI+  Hatred  and 
Discrimination 2020-2023).  
79 As of the year 2020.  
80  Data from Country  Fiche  for  IE  (Source: An Garda Síochána and  ODIHR, ‘Hate crime reporting’, see footnote  49). Please note that the 
numbers provided here include those on the ground of gender identity, as well as sexual orientation.  
81 Data from Country Fiche for LT (Source: Information Technology and Communication Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the 
Republic of Lithuania).   
82  Data  from  Country  Fiche  for  NL  (Source:  Inflow  PPS,  available  at:  https://www.om.nl/documenten/publicaties/discriminatie/lecd/cijfers-in-
beeld/cijfers-in-beeld-2021 (last accessed 18 November 2021). Please note that this are provided as percentages and as a result, this is an 
approximate figure.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Romania 

Spain 

2018-2020 

2019 

4 

5 

4 

5 

The stakeholders often indicated that underreporting is common, in particular by citing the 
FRA 2020 EU-LGBTI II survey, which shows that just 2-5% of lesbian, gay and bisexuals 
(LGB) reported their most recent experience of harassment to the police.83  

Finally,  stakeholders  from  two  Member  States,  Bulgaria  and  Lithuania,  stated  that 
ratification of the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women 
and domestic violence generated, inter alia, homophobic hate speech. 

According to a study in five selected EU countries, sexual orientation is one of the frequently 
or very frequently attacked protected characteristics in the context of hate speech.84 The 
same  study  reports  that  sexual  minorities,  along  with  migrants,  are  the  hardest  hit  by 
discriminatory political rhetoric.85 

According  to  the  FRA,  underreporting  and  a lack  of  statistics  about  hate  speech  on  the 
grounds of sexual orientation remains a problem across the EU Member States.86 The main 
reason for underreporting is the victims’ lack of trust in the efficiency of law enforcement 
authorities.87  

Age 

Available data on the level of age-related hate speech is limited. Member States that include 
age as a protected characteristic when it comes to hate speech do not appear to publish 
data  on  the  number  of  cases  under  this  protected  characteristic.88  According  to  AGE 
Platform Europe, ‘the lack of recognition of age as a ground that incites hate speech and 
crime  and  the  lack  of  sanctions  for  related  offences  leads  to  lower  reporting  and  lack  of 
information on the extent of hate speech and hate crime against older persons.’89 This is a 
recurring causality dilemma. A failure to legislate to protect a particular characteristic leads 
to evidence, that would support such legislation, not being gathered.  

A  lack  of  data  on  levels  of  elder  abuse  in  Europe  further  complicates  the  process  of 
identifying the level of age-related hate speech. According to AGE Platform Europe, ‘[e]lder 
abuse, a category that can cover both hate speech and hate crime towards older people, 
remains a hidden reality despite the worrying levels of prevalence across Europe.’90 The 
failure to accurately capture the levels and different types of elder abuse is, according to 
AGE Platform Europe, due to ageism which ‘leads to overlooking the consequences it has 
on older people and not addressing it with the same level of seriousness and determination 
as other forms of crime and human rights violations.’91  

Prejudice and discriminatory attitudes are a motivator for hate speech across the different 
protected  characteristics.  The  2019  Eurobarometer  Report  on  Discrimination  in  the  EU 
found  age  discrimination  to  be  the  most  experienced  form  of  discrimination  alongside 

83 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', 2020, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2020-lgbti-
equality-1_en.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 47. 
84 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p. 64.  
85 Ibid. p. 114. 
86 FRA, ‘Protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics in the EU, Comparative legal 
analysis’, 2015, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/protection_against_discrimination_legal_update_2015.pdf (last 
accessed 19 August 2021), p. 9. 
87 Ibid., p. 64. 
88 This is according to an analysis of the completed national legal research questionnaires. 
89 AGE Platform Europe, Feedback on the Roadmap, p. 4.  
90 Ibid, p. 1. 
91 Ibid. 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

gender discrimination.92 Over 40% of individuals that participated in the barometer survey 
believe that age discrimination is widespread in their country. 

The  prevalence  of  elder  abuse  within  our  societies  is  another  indicator  of  the  levels  of 
prejudice and hostility towards the older population. A recent meta-analysis of 52 published 
studies  from  across  28  countries  found  that  the  global  prevalence  of  elder  abuse  in 
community settings was 15.7% or about one in six of the older population.93 

Disability  

The  data  on  the  number  of  recorded  cases  of  hate  speech  offences  on  the  ground  of 
disability provided by the stakeholders from Member States for the period of 2015-2020 is 
restrained. Stakeholders in five Member States94 provided data on reported cases, while 
the data on investigated cases and convictions is rudimentary. Even in this category, only 
one  stakeholder95  provided  data  for  the  entire  period  of  2015-2020  as  requested  in  the 
questionnaire.  

Table 6 - The scale of hate speech on the ground of disability in the Member States, 
recording in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions 

Country 

Year of data 

Cases reported 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

Finland 

Germany 

Italy 

Romania 

Spain 

2018 

2019 

2015-2020 

2018-2020 

2019 

1 

53 

10 

4 

5 

4 

5 

The above data shows rather low levels of hate speech in the Member States. However, as 
much as this seems the case, a common theme in hate speech and hate crime  cases is 
underreporting. It is, therefore, likely that the extent of this phenomenon goes far beyond 
the data provided above. 

As per other sources, ‘disability hate speech is manifested in many different types of hateful, 
harassing,  predatory,  or  otherwise  hostile  forms  of  online  utterances.’96  There  are  no 
comprehensive  regular  statistics  published  on  hate  speech  offences  carried  out  against 
those  with  disabilities.  Hate  crime  statistics  discussed  later  in  this  annex  encompass 
offending which could, in particularly serious cases, be classified as hate speech. According 
to Soorenian, ‘disability hate speech as an important strand of disability hate crime remains 
largely invisible […]. Its existence is frequently denied and disabled victims who report it are 
routinely  ignored  or  are dismissed  outright  as unreliable  witnesses.  Consequently,  those 
who offend via disability hate speech often go unpunished and public awareness of these 
incidents  remains  low.’97  A  lack  of  understanding  is  seen  as  severely  limiting  disabled 
people's human rights in being afforded a secure, safe, public space. Moreover, ‘writing and 
evidence on disablist hate speech is not legally, academically or publicly as yet as extensive 

in 

‘Special 

Commission, 

Eurobarometer 

493:  Discrimination 

92 
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2251 (last accessed 17 September 2021).  
93 Yongjie Yon et al, ‘Elder abuse prevalence in community settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, The Lancet 5: e147-156, 2017, 
available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(17)30006-2/fulltext (last accessed 13 August 2021), p.152. 
94 FI, DE, IT, RO, ES. 
95 IT. 
96 Mark Sherry, ‘Disablist hate speech online’ in M. Sherry, T. Olsen, J. S. Vedeler and J. Eriksen, ‘Disability Hate Speech: Social, Cultural and 
Political Contexts’, 2019, available at: https://www.routledge.com/Disability-Hate-Speech-Social-Cultural-and-Political-Contexts/Sherry-Olsen-
Vedeler-Eriksen/p/book/9781032086057 (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 42. 
97  Armineh Soorenian, ‘Disability  hate speech: ‘They think they can  call me  anything’  in  M. Sherry, T.  Olsen, J. S.  Vedeler  and J. Eriksen, 
‘Disability Hate Speech: Social, Cultural and Political Contexts’, 2019, available at: https://www.routledge.com/Disability-Hate-Speech-Social-
Cultural-and-Political-Contexts/Sherry-Olsen-Vedeler-Eriksen/p/book/9781032086057 (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 98. 

European 

available 

Union’, 

2019, 

the 

at: 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

–  reflecting  both  the  relatively  recent  recognition  of  disablist  hate  speech  [….]  and  the 
absence of key policy endeavours linked to specific disablist hate-motivated incidences.’98 

A 2016 study in Norway found that of 947 respondents to a survey of those with disabilities, 
361 or 38% had experienced some form of hate speech in the last twelve months.99 The 
researchers concluded that ‘disabled people very often encounter hate speech in their daily 
life and in public discourse, but the conceptualisation of this phenomenon as a large-scale 
social issue requiring additional protections and responses is new.’100 

According to EDF, ‘persons with disabilities are at higher risk of facing hate speech, violence 
and abuse online.’101 In their response to the consultation, the EDF point to research from 
England and Wales that has shown that reports of images and hateful comments online has 
increased by 33% between 2016/17 and 2017/18.102  

The European Union of the Deaf highlighted in their consultation submission that ‘crime is 
often not disaggregated by disability type, so we cannot declare precisely how many deaf 
people were the victims of hate speech/hate crime.’103  

Most Member States that include disability as a protected characteristic under hate speech 
legislation do not publish data on the number of cases under this protected characteristic, 
according  to  the  completed  national  legal  research  questionnaires.  The  umbrella  term 
‘disability’ covers a wide spectrum of physical and mental disabilities so having such data 
would be useful in developing strategies to respond to disability related hate crime and hate 
speech. 

Grounds covered by the Framework Decision  

The  statistical  data  on  the  number  of  recorded  cases  of  hate  speech  offences  on  the 
grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin provided by the stakeholders 
between  2015-2020  has  certain  limitations.  First  is  the  problem  of  overlap  between  the 
grounds. Stakeholders frequently presented data of two or more protected characteristics 
combined, which makes disaggregation difficult. Thus, the only way to analyse the collected 
data  was  to  add  them  together  (unless  the  same  data  was  presented  under  different 
grounds).  Stakeholders  from  nine  Member  States104  provided  data  on  reported  cases  of 
hate  speech  on  the  grounds  covered  by  the  Framework  Decision.  Of  these,  only  a  few 
provided data on cases investigated or convictions, so available data rely on the number of 
reported cases. Even in this category, not all stakeholders provided data for the entire period 
of 2015-2020 as requested in the questionnaire. The data was first used to calculate the 
average annual number of cases per Member State and then to calculate the crime rates 
i.e. number of average annual reported cases per 100,000 people. According to Table 7 
below, the average annual rates of hate speech on Framework Decision grounds reported 
in  certain  Member  States  were  unrealistically  low,  especially  Italy,  Spain,  and  Romania, 
which had by far the lowest rates (below 0.1). Thus, it is likely that states with higher rates 
of reported cases, among which the highest were Malta (3.89) and Germany (2.33), are not 
necessarily countries with higher number of cases of hate speech on grounds covered by 

98 Ibid.  
99 Tarje Olsen, Janikke Solstad Vedeler, and John Eriksen, ‘Hate speech as an expression of disablism: An examination of reported hate speech 
experiences and consequences’ in  M.  Sherry, T. Olsen, J. S. Vedeler and J. Eriksen, ‘Disability Hate Speech: Social, Cultural and Political 
Contexts’, 2019, available at: https://www.routledge.com/Disability-Hate-Speech-Social-Cultural-and-Political-Contexts/Sherry-Olsen-Vedeler-
Eriksen/p/book/9781032086057 (last accessed 19 August 2021), pp. 234-247. 
100 Ibid. p. 245.   
101  EDFEDF  Recommendations  on  EU 
Initiatives  on  Hate  Speech  and  Hate  Crime,  2021,  available  at:  https://www.edf-
feph.org/content/uploads/2021/04/EDF-position-and-recommendation-on-hate-speech-and-hate-crime.pdf  (last accessed  19 August  2021) p. 
9. 
102  Leonard  Cheshire  Charity,  ‘Online  disability  hate  crimes  soar  33%’,  2019,  available  at:  https://www.leonardcheshire.org/about-us/our-
news/press-releases/online-disability-hate-crimes-soar-33 (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
103 European Union of the Deaf, Feedback on the Roadmap. 
104 MT, DE, CY, FR, FI, HR, IT, ES, RO. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

the  Framework  Decision,  but  they  have  a  better  system  of  reporting  and  tracking  such 
cases. 

Table 7 – Average annual hate speech rates on grounds covered by the Framework 
Decision (race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin) based on the data 
collected from stakeholders on the annual number of cases in EU Member states 
(2015-2020) 

EU Member State 

Hate speech rate on grounds covered by the Framework 
Decision 

Malta 

Germany 

Cyprus 

France 

Finland 

Croatia 

Italy 

Spain 

Romania 

3.89 

2.33 

1.37 

1.32 

1.0 

0.29 

0.08 

0.08 

0.05 

According  to  the  literature  and  stakeholders,  across  the  Member  States,  the  particular 
categories of minorities most likely to be targeted by hate speech on the grounds covered 
by the Framework Decision are as follows: the Roma population,105 Muslims,106 migrants,107 
and Jews.108  

According to the stakeholders and the literature, hate speech is exacerbated against people 
living at the intersection of two or more protected characteristics. For example, according 
to one study, black women are more targeted by online hate speech, being 84% more likely 
than white women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets.109  

An  EU  study  of  five  Member  States  shows  that  almost  all  of  the  Framework  Decision 
protected characteristics were among the frequently or very frequently attacked grounds in 
almost all of the studied countries.110 According to the same study, hate speech is prevalent 
among the  political  elite in four  examined  states,  whereas  in the fifth  state incidences  of 
hate speech came from the far-right opposition party only. The content of this hate speech 
concerned asylum seekers and migrants, as well as racial, ethnic and sexual minorities.111 

a 

to 

‘A 

as 

and 

FRA, 

2018, 

Roma 

barrier 

concern: 

available 

persisting 

inclusion', 

discrimination 

‘Islamophobia 

anti-Gypsyism 

105 
at: 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-anti-gypsyism-barrier-roma-inclusion_en.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p.10. 
106 See FRA, ‘Database 2012-2020 on anti-Muslim hatred’, 2021, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/databases/anti-muslim-hatred/home (last 
accessed  19  August  2021);  Egert  Rünne,  Liina  Laanpere, 
in  Estonia,  National  Report’,  2019,  available  at: 
https://www.islamophobiaeurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2019eir-ESTONIA.pdf  (last  accessed  19  August  2021),  pp.253-257; 
Jogchum Vrielink, ‘Islamophobia’ and the law: Belgian hate speech legislation and the wilful destruction of the Koran’, 2014, International journal 
of 
at: 
https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal%3A203347/datastream/PDF_01/view (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
107 For example, Komal Florio, Valerio Basile, Mirko Lai, Viviana Patti, ‘Leveraging Hate Speech Detection to Investigate Immigration-related 
Phenomena in Italy’, 2019, available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8925079 (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
108 FRA, ‘Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews’, 2018, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2017/second-fra-
survey-discrimination-and-hate-crime-against-jews  (last  accessed  19  August  2021),  pp.24-29;  FRA,  ‘Antisemitism:  Overview  of  antisemitic 
incidents  recorded  in  the  European  Union  2009-2019’,  2020,  available  at:  https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/experiences-and-
perceptions-antisemitism-second-survey-discrimination-and-hate (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
109  Amnesty  International, ‘Troll  Patrol  Findings: Using Crowdsourcing, Data Science &  Machine  Learning to  Measure Violence and Abuse 
against Women on Twitter’, 2018, available at: https://decoders.amnesty.org/projects/troll-patrol/findings (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
110 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 70, p. 64. 
111 Ibid, p. 74. 

2014-03, 

available 

Vol.14 

law, 

(1), 

the 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

2.2. Developments 

2.2.1.  General considerations 

During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  when  asked  whether  stakeholders  considered  that 
there was an increase of the phenomenon of hate speech and hate crime in the years 2018-
2020, as compared to the incidence in 2015-2017, 63.29% (50 out of 79) of stakeholders 
consulted answered positively. 

Figure  3  –  Stakeholder  responses  to  ‘in  your  view  is  there  an  increase  of  the 
phenomena of hate speech and hate crime?’ 

50

Yes

6

No

Number of stakeholders

23

Don't know

The subsequent table presents available data from 13 Member States. For nine of these 
countries,112 the data originates from the stakeholder consultation, whilst the data for four 
countries113 has been extracted from the country fiches.  

Table 8 – Development of hate speech incidence in recent years, recorded in terms 
of reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions 

Country 

Development
: Increase / 
Decrease in 
No. of cases 

Austria 

Decrease 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Uncertain 
Development 

Uncertain 
Development 

Finland114 

Decrease 

Year of data 

Cases 
reported 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

2019 
2017 
2015 
2020 
2018 
2016 
2020 
2018 
2016 
2019 
2018 
2017 

125 
302 
395 
21 
33 
28 
22 
24 
13 
111 
36 
155 

21 
81 
65 
22 
24 
13 

18 
7 
6 
2 

34 
36 
16 

112 AT, BE, CY, CZ, ES, HR, LI, RO, SI. 
113 DK, FI, IE, NL. 
114  Data  from  Country  Fiche  for  FI  (Source:  for  cases  reported  the  data  comes  from  Hate  crime  reported  to  Police  in  Finland  in  2018;  the 
prosecuted cases and convictions are based on statistics of Statistics Finland). 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Ireland115 

Decrease 

Lithuania116 

Increase 

Netherlands
120 

Uncertain 
Development 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Uncertain 
Development 

Uncertain 
Development 

Uncertain 
Development 

2019 
2018 
2020 
2019 
2018 
2019 
2018 
2017 
2020 
2018 
2016 
2020 
2017 
2015 
2019 
2017 
2015 

251 
368 
1546117 
903 
648 
3569 
3269 
3673 
15 
12 
24 
28121 
13 
20 
204 
156 
204 

8118 
3 
14 

8 
1 
4 

21 
32 
204 
156 
117 

3119 
9 
11 
49 
38 
63 

3122 
1 

Based on these data, it is difficult to conclude a definite increase or decrease in hate speech 
incidence over the years. Whilst a decrease can be noted in three countries123 and a definite 
increase is observed in one country124, the development for six countries125 is uncertain and 
changes appear marginal. Trends seem to point in both directions.126 

During  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation,  stakeholders  were  asked  to  offer  further 
information on the increase of the phenomena of hate speech and hate crime. Stakeholders 
identified numerous reasons in this instance. Firstly, increased immigration127 appears to 
influence  the  increase  in  hate  speech  and  hate  crime  incidents;  for  example,  anti-
immigration  campaigning  used  by  actors  (such  as  politicians)  to  further  their  narratives. 
Secondly, numerous economic and social crises (including the COVID-19 pandemic) were 
identified  as giving  rise to  right  wing  trends  and conspiracy  theories.128  One  stakeholder 
expressed that more representation  of  ultra-nationalist  and populist  parties  in  parliament 
and government has led to stigmatisation of ethnic minorities. Thirdly, and closely related 
to the second reason, the internet and social networks have proliferated the increase in hate 
speech and hate crime.129 The accessibility of information to any user and the use of social 
networks  has  resulted  in  the  rapid  dissemination  of  content,  which  may  often  be  fake, 
promote radicalisation and spread disinformation. The shift of society to digital solutions for 
democratic  discourse,  public  life  and  general  services  has  also  resulted  in  increased 
visibility for vulnerable groups (e.g. LGBT, minorities) and therefore increased instances of 
hate speech against these groups. 

As mentioned in subsection 2.1.1. in relation to the scale of hate speech, hate speech has 
been increasing significantly in recent years. This has been substantiated by the ECRI and 
the No Hate Speech campaign.  

115 Data from the Country Fiche for IE (Source: An Garda Síochána and ODIHR, ‘Hate crime reporting’, see footnote 49). 
116 Sum of data submitted by the Office of the Inspector of Journalists’ Ethics and the Ministry of Justice. 
117 Data on reported cases comes from the Office of the Inspector of Journalists’ Ethics. 
118 Data for cases investigated comes from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. 
119 Data for convictions comes from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. 
120 Data from Country Fiche for NL and includes data registered to police. The Public Prosecution Service has registered 138 cases reported in 
2020, 113 cases reported in 2019, 73 cases reported in 2018 and 142 cases reported in 2017. 
121 Data from the Country Fiche for SI (Source: Joint Annual Report on the work of State Prosecution Offices for 2020 by the Supreme State 
Prosecution Office of the Republic of Slovenia). 
122 Ibid. 
123 AT, FI, IE. 
124 LT. 
125 CY, HR, ES, SI, RO, NL.  
126 As in ES, FI and CY, for example. 
127 This reasoning was identified in IT, HU, HR and by stakeholders at European level. 
128 This reasoning was identified in BG and by stakeholders at European level. 
129 This reasoning was identified in BE, SE, PL, IT and by stakeholders at European level. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Furthermore, the ECRI Annual Report for 2019 remarked that various election campaigns 
taking  place  in  2019  also  showed  that  ultra-nationalistic,  xenophobic,  racist  and  homo-
/transphobic hate speech was on the rise and increasingly permeates, and often sets the 
tone in, social media networks.130 As a response to the increase in hate speech occurrence, 
more  recording  mechanisms  for  hate  speech  have  been  observed  in  various  Member 
States.  German  police  authorities,  for  instance,  recorded  cases  of  ‘hate  postings  on  the 
internet’ within their hate crime statistics in 2019.131 In Malta, the Hate Crime and Speech 
Unit was established in 2019, which works to address issues of hate speech and hate crime 
in  Malta,  and  to  support  victims  through  the  provision  of  free  therapeutic  and  legal 
services.132  In  Austria,  authorities  have  worked  closely  with  civil  society  to  improve  the 
detection and recording of online hate and to provide support to victims of such incidents.133  

Moreover, campaigns to counter hate speech, such as the ‘No Hate Speech Movement’ led 
by the Council of Europe Youth Department in 2013-2018,134 have been launched all across 
Europe.  Austria,  for  example,  has  taken  several  initiatives  to  thwart  hate  speech  by 
developing a counter-narrative. Notably in 2018, the National Committee for the ‘No Hate 
Speech’  campaign,  in  cooperation  with  the  public  prosecutor’s  office,  initiated  the 
programme  ‘Dialog  statt  Hass’  (Dialog  instead  of  Hatred);  this  aimed  to  develop  a 
constructive  response  to  hate  speech  by  creating  a  sense  of  wrongdoing  and  reflection 
among offenders.135 

2.2.2. Specific considerations with regard to grounds 

Sex and gender 

Some stakeholders elaborated on why sexist hate speech has increased in the EU. This 
included  the  European  Women’s  Lobby  and  CEPOL.  The  European  Women’s  Lobby 
highlighted  that there  has  been  a notable  increase of male violence against  women and 
girls in many areas,136 evidenced through nationally available data and attested to by their 
members.  They  highlighted  the  findings  of  the  civil  society  organisation  Glitch  UK  which 
reported that almost 1 in 3 (29%) of those who had experienced online hate speech prior to 
the pandemic reported it being worse during the pandemic. More broadly, but also similarly, 
CEPOL stated that  increased migration  and  terrorist  attacks,  economic  and  social crises 
and the COVID-19 pandemic have influenced the increase of sexist hate speech incidents, 
because of the rise of right-wing trends, conspiracy theories, disinformation and fake news 
that promote radicalisation.  

Gender-based hate speech online is often accompanied by other forms of gender-based 
online violence such as doxing, cyberstalking and image based sexual abuse. According to 
some  stakeholders  and  the  literature,  women  and  girls  are  27  times  more  likely  to 
experience violence in online spaces,137 with a significant increase as a result of the COVID-

130  ECRI,  ‘Annual  Report  on  ECRI’s  Activities  covering  the  period  from  1  January  to  31  December  2019’,  2019,  available  at: 
https://rm.coe.int/ecri-annual-report-2019/16809ca3e1 (last accessed 19 August 2021),p. 8.  
131 However, statistics on hate speech in other fields were not registered; ECRI report on Germany (sixth monitoring cycle), see footnote 28, p. 
17. 
132 ECRI conclusions on the implementation of the recommendations in respect of Malta, see footnote 44, p. 5. 
133 ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), see footnote 27, p. 7. 
134 Council of Europe, ‘No Hate Speech Youth Campaign’, available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/no-hate-campaign/home (last accessed 19 
August 2021).  
135 ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), see footnote 27, p. 19. 
136 It should be noted that this does not necessarily imply that a hate crime has taken place. 
137 Broadband Commission for Digital Development, ' Combatting Cyber Violence Against Women & Girls: A Worldwide Wake-up Call', 2015, 
available 
at: 
https://www.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2015/cyber_violence_gender%20report.pdf?v=1&d
=20150924T154259 (last accessed 29 September 2021), p. 2. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

19 pandemic.138 Gender-based hate speech is also a form of gender-based violence against 
women in general. Such violence can take place online or offline, and victims experiencing 
offline  violence  are  commonly  targeted  online  as  well.  Gender-based  violence  against 
women refers to violence targeting women on grounds of their gender or targeting women 
disproportionately. 

Gender identity and sex characteristics 

Some  NGO  stakeholders  representing  the  LGBTIQ  community  also  indicated  that  hate 
speech against these persons is increasing. According to FRA, demonstrations that involve 
explicit transphobic hate speech continuously take place in EU Member States.139  

While  intersex  people  also  suffer  from  hate  speech  that  targets  an  individual's  gender 
identity, NGO reports show that intersex people and their bodies have become a specific 
target for hate speech in the past years.140  

Sexual orientation 

In its stakeholder response, the FRA stated that hate speech is on the rise, but that ‘[t]he 
state of data collection in most Member States does not allow for trends analyses’. Some 
NGO  stakeholders  representing  the  LGBTIQ  community  also  indicated  that  hate  speech 
against this category is increasing.141  

NGO  stakeholders  indicate  that  the  visibility  of  LGBTIQ  people,  including  through  the 
organisation of LGBTIQ Pride marches and events, increased dramatically.142 Many towns 
across Europe saw Pride marches organised for the first time. In some cases, the marches 
were met with violent protests, often inspired by political and religious leaders. The FRA 
also  reported  that  demonstrations  that  involve  explicit  homophobic  hate  speech 
continuously take place in EU Member States.143 The NGO respondents also indicate an 
increasing  tendency  among people who  survived  a homophobic  or  transphobic  attack to 
share their experiences of victimisation on social media in order to raise awareness of the 
problem.144 

Age 

The  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  'increased  ageism  and  intergenerational 
tension, worldwide’145. It has brought ‘a resurgence of hostile messages on social media, 
even classifying as hate speech, that exhibit ageism against older adults.’146 Research by 
Meisner  found  extensive  use  of  terminology  to  describe  COVID-19  which  glorified  the 
susceptibility of older people to the disease. This included referring to the virus as ‘Boomer 
Doomer’, ‘Senior Deleter’, ‘Elder Repeller’ and ‘Boomer Remover’.147 The latter term was a 
trending topic and hashtag on Twitter in March 2020.148 Meisner referred to this terminology 
as embracing a discourse of 'population cleansing' which involve 'ageist ideas' which are 

138 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p. 16. 
139 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83, p. 52. 
140 For example, Organisation Intersex International Europe e.V. (OII Europe). 
141 For example, EL*C - Eurocentralasian Lesbian* Community, ILGA-Europe, Organisation Intersex International Europe e.V. (OII Europe) etc. 
142 Birmingham City University and Organisation Intersex International Europe e.V. (OII Europe). 
143 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83, p. 52. 
144 Birmingham City University. 
145  Liat  Ayalon,  ‘There  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun:  ageism  and  intergenerational  tension  in  the  age  of  the  COVID-19  outbreak’,  2020, 
International  Psychogeriatrics  32(10):  1221-1224,  available  at:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184144/  (last  accessed  13 
August 2021), p. 1221.  
146 Brad A. Meisner, ‘Are You OK, Boomer? Intensification of Ageism and Intergenerational Tensions on Social Media Amid COVID-19’, 2020, 
Leisure Sciences, 43:1-2, available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490400.2020.1773983 (last accessed 13 August 2021), 
p. 56. 
147 Ibid. 
148 Ibid, p. 58.  

27 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

‘blatantly discriminatory’ and promote ‘taking away the rights, privileges, and lives of one 
social  group  to  benefit’  another  which  ‘is  a  human  rights  violation  and  characterises 
genocide  based  on  age.’149  During  the  pandemic,  prominent  politicians  opposed  to 
lockdowns have called for older people to effectively sacrifice themselves for the good of 
the  economy  and  younger  generations,  with  this  based  on  an  inherent  bias  that  older 
people's lives are worthless.150  

Furthermore,  the  above  is  supported  by  AGE  Platform  Europe’s  submission  to  the 
Roadmap which states that: ‘Since the outbreak of the COVID-19, we have witnessed an 
unprecedented amount of ageism and hate speech.’151 They refer to research that found 
that  almost  a  quarter  of  Twitter  posts  concerning  older  people  and  the  pandemic  were 
ageist, including calls ‘to remove or cull older people’ and others welcoming the virus as a 
‘remover’ of older persons.152 

COVID-19 has been the most visible example of intergenerational tensions in recent years, 
but it is not the only one. As the global population ages, conflicts over resource allocation 
and opportunities across the generations have become more apparent. Another issue that 
has  caused  increased  hostility  towards  older  people  in  social  media  across  the  EU  was 
Brexit, with older people blamed for supporting the referendum favouring the UK leaving the 
EU.153 UN Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons, Rosa 
Kornfeld-Matte, stated that ‘ageism is the root of the marginalisation, social exclusion and 
isolation of older persons. It is also intimately linked to violence and abuse against them in 
public  and  private  spheres  as  scapegoating,  and  stereotyping  nourish  subconscious 
motives.’154 

Disability 

Developments  both  in  technology  and  the  political  discourse  are  facilitating  increases  in 
disablist  hate  speech.  Recent  research  by  Burch  explored  the  relationship  between  the 
politics of austerity following the economic crash of 2008 and online disablist hate speech.155 
Birch's  analysis  of  online  bulletin  board  Reddit’s  threads  and comments found  extensive 
othering  and  dehumanisation of  disabled  people  revealing that  ‘contextualised  within the 
wider context of austerity, hate speech is suggested to be part of a process of self-validation, 
which transgresses to the explicit dehumanisation of others.’156 Importantly, disablist hate 
speech  ‘functions  to  preserve  ableist  relations  in  a  climate  of austerity,  by  driving  up  the 
ontological  security  of  the  “hardworking  taxpayer”  and  simultaneously  branding  disabled 
people with scars of austerity’.157 

Another  research  study  found  that  a  recent  development  is  the  targeting  of  those  with 
disabilities  using  pictorial  or  photographic  forms  of  online  hate  speech,  including  the 
distribution of memes designed to spread hate. According to Sherry, the sharing of these 
photographs ‘highlights a unique element of online disablist hate speech: the fact that the 
photo itself is considered proof of a person's lack of dignity and humanity.’158 Photos are 
often turned into a memes (misrepresenting themselves as speaking from the voice of the 

UN 

149 Ibid, p. 59.  
150 Ayalon, ‘There is nothing new under the sun: ageism and intergenerational tension in the age of the COVID-19 outbreak’, see footnote 145, 
p. 1222.  
151 AGE Platform Europe, Feedback on the Roadmap. 
152  Maria Renee Jimenez-Sotomayor et al, ‘Coronavirus, Ageism, and Twitter: An Evaluation of Tweets about Older Adults and COVID-19’, 
2020, available at: https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jgs.16508 (last accessed 27 September 2021), p. 1661.  
153 
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20241 (last accessed 19 August 2021).   
154 Ibid. 
155 Leah Burch, ‘You are a parasite on the productive classes’: online disablist hate speech in austere times’, Disability & Society, 33:3, 392-
415, 2018, available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687599.2017.1411250 (last accessed 16 August 2021), p. 392. 
156 Ibid.  
157 Ibid. 
158 Sherry, ’Disablist hate speech online’, see footnote 96, p. 42. 

Deplores 

available 

Sparked 

Attacks 

Human 

Expert 

Rights 

Brexit, 

Ageist 

2016, 

at: 

by 

28 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

disabled  person)  saying  ‘Kill  me’.  These  are  usually  aimed  at  women  with  intellectual 
disabilities  and  ‘when  posted  among  a  community  of  like-minded  people,  they  elicit 
comments condemning the person as unworthy of life and a burden on others’, receiving 
replies  with  additional  pictures  of  disabled  people  whose  appearance  is  seen  enough to 
‘warrant derision, mockery, demeaning comments, and hate.’ The victim’s image may also 
be accompanied by their name.159 

Grounds covered by the Framework Decision  

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Asian people or persons of Asian descent were particularly 
targeted  by  hate  speech  while  being  blamed  for  the  pandemic.160  Moreover,  the  Roma 
community were labelled ‘as a threat to public health’, as were migrants.161 It appears that 
the pandemic has been used to advance biased agendas and discriminate against these 
individuals. In some countries, there was a rise in hate speech against citizens repatriating 
from abroad (e.g. Latvians).162 

Moreover, it has become evident that social media in recent years is a hub for racist speech. 
This can be seen through platforms’ ‘covert tactics’ such as the ‘weaponization of memes’163 
and  use  of  fake  identities  to  ‘incite  racist  hatred’164.165  Social  media  platforms’  specific 
designs and policies ‘play a key role in shaping racism and hate speech online,’166 as they 
contribute to reshaping of ‘racist dynamics through their affordances, policies, algorithms 
and corporate decisions.’167 

In the case of Erbakan v. Turkey,168 which concerned the former Prime Minister of Turkey 
who  made  a  hostile  speech  concerning  religion  and  race,  the  ECtHR  pointed  out  that 
combatting all forms of intolerance was an integral part of human rights protection and that 
it was crucially important that, in their speeches politicians should avoid comments likely to 
foster such intolerance. 

In 2018 Members of the European Parliament saw the need to adopt a resolution on neo-
fascist violence in Europe, which condemned, inter alia, hate speech and scapegoating by 
politicians and public officials fostering hatred and violence in society, targeting minorities 
based on race and descent, in particular.169  

159 Ibid. 
160 European Network Against Racism, ‘Impact of COVID-19 on radicalised communities: Key findings’, 2020, available at: https://www.enar-
eu.org/IMG/pdf/key_findings_of_the_map.pdf (last accessed 29 September 2021), p. 4.  
161 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p. 17. 
162 Ibid. 
163 Nicole Lamerichs et al, ‘Elite Male Bodies: The Circulation of Alt-Right Memes and the Framing of Politicians on Social Media’, 2018, available 
at: https://www.participations.org/Volume%2015/Issue%201/11.pdf (last accessed 30 September 2021), p. 182. 
164  Johan  Farkas  et  al,  ‘Cloaked  Facebook  Pages:  Exploring  Fake  Islamist  Propaganda  in  Social  Media’,  2018,  available  at: 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444817707759 (last accessed 30 September 2021), p. 1850. 
165  Ariadna  Matamoros-Fernández  and  John  Farkas,  ‘Racism,  Hate  Speech  and  Social  Media:  A  systematic  Review  and  Critique’,  2021, 
available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1527476420982230 (last accessed 29 September 2021), p.2. 
166  Jessica  Pater  et  al,  ‘Characterizations  of  Online  Harassment:  Comparing  Policies  Across  Social  Media  Platform’,  2016,  available  at: 
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2957276.2957297  (last  accessed  30  September  2021),  p.  369;  Sofia  Umoja  Noble,  ‘Algorithms  of 
Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism’, 2018. 
167  Ariadna  Matamoros-Fernández,  ‘Inciting  Anger  through  Facebook  Reactions  in  Belgium:  The  Use  of  Emoji  and  Related  Vernacular 
Expressions in Racist Discourse’, 2018, available at: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/9405 (last accessed 30 September 
2021), p. 933.  
168 ECtHR, No. 59405/00, Erbakan v. Turkey, 6 July 2006, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-76232%22]} 
(last accessed 19 August 2021). 
169 European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2018 on the rise of neo-fascist violence in Europe’  (2018/2869(RSP)), 2018, available at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0428_EN.html (last accessed 28 September 2021). 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

2.3. Harmful Impact 

2.3.1. Harmful impact on victims and other relevant individuals 

2.3.1.1 General considerations 

At the inception, it is worth noting that the following data in this subsection, with regard to 
the stakeholder consultations, refer to both hate speech and hate crime. Those questions 
asked  of  the  stakeholders  concerning  the  harmful  impact  on  victims  and  other  relevant 
individuals were: ‘[i]n your view, does hate speech/hate crime cause harm to’ and ‘[i]n your 
view, what are the harmful impacts of hate speech/hate crime on individual victims’. Other 
sources pertaining to the harmful impact on victims and other individuals are also outlined 
in this subsection. 

Does hate speech/hate crime cause harm to?  

The  stakeholders  were  to  provide  whether  they  thought  hate  speech/hate  crime  caused 
harm to the individual victims, groups sharing protected characteristics, society as a whole, 
and/or other. For the purposes of this question, only those responses concerning individual 
victims,  the  perpetrator,  and  ‘other’  will  be  observed.  Those  concerning  groups  sharing 
protected  characteristics  and  society  as  a  whole  will  be  covered  in  the  subsequent 
subsection.  

Figure 4 – Number of stakeholder responses to 'in your view, does hate speech/hate 
crime cause harm to' concerning victims and other relevant individuals 

77

Individual Victim

4
Other

Number of stakeholder responses

The  above  graph  indicates  that  there  is  almost  unanimous  consensus  amongst  the 
stakeholders (77 out of 83 stakeholders) that hate speech/hate crime harms the individual 
victims themselves.  

What are the harmful impacts of hate speech/hate crime on the individual victims? 

As to the type of harmful impacts that hate speech/hate crimes can have on these individual 
victims,  the  stakeholders  were  asked  if  hate  speech/hate  crime  could  harm  individual 
victims by the following: 

 

 

 

 

It affects their identity;  

It provokes behavioural changes; provoking fear that the victim might be attacked 
again because of their personal characteristics; 

It causes psychological distress;  

It prompts secondary victimisation; and/or  

30 

 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

 

‘Other’.  

It was only those stakeholders who did not select ‘all of the above’ or ‘I don’t know’ for the 
previous question170 who had the opportunity to answer this question and, therefore, there 
were only 65 respondents to this question, rather than 83 as per the previous question. 

Figure 5 – Number of stakeholder responses to 'in your view, what are the harmful 
impacts of hate speech/hate crime on the individual victims’ 

55

52

58

58

44

Affects their
identity

Provokes
behavioural
changes

Provokes fear that
the victim might be
attacked again
because of their
personal
characteristics

Causes
psychological
distress

Prompts secondary
victimisation

6

Other

Number of stakeholder responses

Consequently,  it  can  be  inferred  from  these  findings  that  the  psychological  impact  is 
perceived to be the most harmful, for example, the causing of psychological distress and 
the fear of a further attack. 

Similarly, the other sources – those from the roadmap and the literature collected – indicate 
that the principal harm caused by hate speech is that of a negative psychological effect. 
This includes the secondary victimisation that may be experienced by the victims of hate 
speech. 

The EU High Level Group, the ECRI, the European Parliament’s Policy Department, and 
Paul Iganski for Hate No More all provide that victims of hate speech in general are more 
vulnerable to negative psychological impacts. A similar outcome was reached by SELMA 
Hacking  Hate  and  the  Centre  for  Internet  and  Human  Rights  with  regard  to  online  hate 
speech.  

With regard to hate speech in general, the EU High Level Group171 emphasises that when 
gathering proof of the impact of the crime, reference should be made to the psychological 
impact of the victim. Furthermore, the EU High Level Group172 emphasises that when a bias 
or discriminatory crime has occurred, it is important to take into account the measures to 
protect victims and their family members against the risk of emotional and psychological 
harm. Moreover, ECRI in their General Policy highlight that hate speech can lead to those 
targeted by it feeling not only afraid and insecure, but also guilty or ashamed and humiliated, 
leading to a loss of self-confidence and self-esteem. They also indicate that these feelings 
can lead to symptoms such as loss of sleep and headaches and affect the everyday lives 

170 This was concerning whether hate speech/hate crime causes harm to individuals, perpetrators, groups sharing protected characteristics, 
and society as a whole. 
171 EU High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance, ‘Guidance Note on the practical application of Council 
Framework Decision 2008/913/JJHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law’, 2018, 
available at: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=55607 (last accessed 2 July 2021), p. 13.  
172 EU High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance, ‘Ensuring justice, protection and support for victims 
of 
at: 
principles’, 
speech: 
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48874 (last accessed 2 July 2021).  

December 

available 

guiding 

2017, 

crime 

hate 

hate 

and 

key 

10 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

of those concerned.173 In the same vein, No More Hate174 indicated that the physical and 
psychological consequences of hate speech tend to be serious. Moreover, victims of hate 
speech  experience  higher  levels  of  anxiety  and  distress;  loss  of  trust  and  feeling  of 
vulnerability; difficulties in concentration; increased sleep difficulties; anger; and fear and 
reduction of feeling of safety.175 

Similarly, with regard to online hate speech, SELMA Hacking Hate sheds light on the effect 
of online hate speech on individuals’ psychological well-being. In particular, it notes that the 
consequences of hate speech are similar in form to the effects experienced by recipients of 
traumatic  experiences.176  SELMA,  by  referring  to  Keipi  et  al,177  Leets  and  Giles,178  and 
White and Crandall179 explains that victims of hate speech may show low self-esteem – they 
may feel lonely or isolated, or suffer from sleeping disorders, increased anxiety and feelings 
of fear and insecurity; their human dignity may be violated, no longer seeing themselves as 
good and appropriate. The Centre for Internet and Human Rights180 provided a variety of 
information similar to that of SELMA. For example, they highlight that the constant vigilance 
and mental preparedness that a victim must deal with translates into chronically elevated 
levels  of  stress,  which  can  lead  to  adverse  health  outcomes,  such  as  depression  or 
anxiety.181 Furthermore, the following types of hate speech harms experiences by targeted 
individuals have been listed by the Centre for Internet and Human Rights, quoting Gelber 
and McNamara182: ‘unfairly ranking target persons as inferior, silencing the victims, distress, 
risk  of  destruction  to  one’s  self-esteem,  restrictions  on  freedom  of  movement  and 
association, harms to dignity, maintenance of power imbalances within social hierarchies of 
race, making onlookers to believe negative stereotypes that lead them to engage in harmful 
conduct,  normalization  of  expressing  negative  stereotypes  and  discriminatory  behaviour 
and encouraging the public to imitate the hateful behaviour’.183 

These negative psychological effects include the fear of secondary victimisation. Secondary 
victimisation occurs ‘when the victim suffers further harm not as a direct result of the criminal 
act but due to the manner in which institutions and other individuals deal with the victim’.184 
For  instance,  this  could  be  caused  ‘by  related  exposure  of  the  victim  to  the  perpetrator, 
repeated  interrogation  about  the  same  facts,  or  the  use  of  inappropriate  language  or 
insensitive comments made by those who come into contact with victims.’185 The issue of 

at: 

Yearbook’, 

‘Communication 

for  Educators’,  2019,  available  at: 

‘Hacking  Online  Hate:  Building  an  Evidence  Base 

173 ECRI, General policy recommendation no. 15: On Combatting Hate Speech, see footnote 12, p. 40.  
174 Paul Iganski, ‘Understanding the needs of persons who experience homophobic or transphobic violence or harassment’ (Hate No More), 
2016, available at: https://www.lgl.lt/en/files/The-Impact-of-Hate-Crime.pdf (last accessed 7 July 2021).  
175  See  also:  Gregory  Herek  et  al,  ‘Psychological  sequelae  of  hate-crime  victimization  among  lesbian,  gay,  and  bisexual  adults.  Journal  of 
Consulting  and  Clinical  Psychology’,  67(6),  945–951,  1999,  available  at:  https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-01811-012  (last  accessed  16 
August 2021).  
176  SELMA  Hacking  Hate, 
https://hackinghate.eu/assets/documents/hacking-online-hate-research-report-1.pdf (last accessed 6 July 2021), p. 32.  
177 Teo Keipi, Matti Näsi, Atte Oksanen, Pekka Räsänen, ‘Online hate and harmful content: Cross-national perspectives’ (Routledge, 2017), 
available 
https://www.routledge.com/Online-Hate-and-Harmful-Content-Cross-National-Perspectives/Keipi-Nasi-Oksanen-
Rasanen/p/book/9780367876968?gclid=Cj0KCQjwwY-LBhD6ARIsACvT72OcC6ioKMFLY19Z4u7Bx4-wMnLZCTav2t7CaDqNa52-
DKPwDSJS-hIaAvphEALw_wcB (last accessed 18 November 2021), pp. 75-88.  
178 Laura Leets, Howard Giles, ‘Harmful speech in intergroup encounters: An organisational framework for communication research’ in Michael 
Roloff, 
at: 
22, 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23808985.1999.11678960 (last accessed 18 November 2021), p. 91.  
179  Mark White,  Christian  Crandall,  ‘Freedom  of  racist  speech:  Ego  and  expressive  threats’,  Journal  of  Personality  and  Social  Psychology, 
113(3), 413-429, available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000095 (last accessed 27 September 2021), p. 413.  
180 Dr. Katarzyna Bojarska, ‘The Dynamics of Hate Speech and Counter Speech in the Social Media: Summary of Scientific Research’ (Centre 
for  Internet  and  Human  Rights  2019),  available  at:  https://cihr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-dynamics-of-hate-speech-and-counter-
speech-in-the-social-media_English-1.pdf (last accessed 6 July 2021), p.4. 
181  Ibid;  See  also:  Ilan  Meyer, ‘Prejudice,  social stress, and mental  health in lesbian, gay and  bisexual  populations:  Conceptual  issues and 
research evidence’, 2003, Volume 129(5) Psychological Bulletin 674-697, available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/ 
(last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 685. 
182 Katharine Gelber and Luke McNamara, ‘Evidencing the harms of hate speech’ (2016) Vol. 22(3) Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and 
Culture 324-341, available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2015.1128810 (last accessed 6 July 2021).  
183 Bojarska, ‘The Dynamics of Hate Speech and Counter Speech in the Social Media: Summary of Scientific Research’, see footnote 180, p. 
5.  
184  EIGE,  Glossary  &  Thesaurus,  ‘Secondary  victimisation’,  available  at:  https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1358  (last  accessed  27 
September 2021). 
185 Ibid; Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec(2006)8 of the Committee of Ministers to the Member States on assistance to crime victims 
(Adopted  by 
the  Ministers’  Deputies),  available  at: 
https://rm.coe.int/16805afa5c (last accessed 2 July 2021).  

the  Committee  of  Ministers  on  14  June  2006  at 

the  967th  meeting  of 

Publications, 

available 

91-37, 

1999, 

Sage 

Vol. 

pp. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

secondary victimisation is highlighted by Equinet, Victim Support Europe, the EU High Level 
Group, and the European Parliament’s Policy Department, as follows. According to Equinet, 
victims  of  hate  speech  are  often  exposed  to  secondary  victimisation.186  Victim  Support 
Europe emphasises that the Victims’ Rights Directive recognises victims of hate crime as 
‘particularly  vulnerable  victims’  at  high  risk  of  experiencing  secondary  and  repeat 
victimisation.187  The  EU  High  Level  Group188  stresses  that  it  is  necessary  to  identify 
measures  to  protect  victims  and  their  family  members  from  secondary  and  repeat 
victimisation. The European Parliament’s Policy Department189 cites that the reasoning for 
the  issue  in  reporting  and  investigation  stems  from  the  fear  of  re-victimisation,  such  as 
retaliation by perpetrators if the victims report the crime, and fear of secondary victimisation 
during  the  criminal  justice  process.  All  of  this  shows  that  re-victimisation  and  secondary 
victimisation  are  issues  that  plague  victims  of  hate  crime,  especially  in  the  reporting, 
investigation,  and  criminal  justice  processes.  Re-victimisation  differs  from  secondary 
victimisation in the sense that it refers to a pattern wherein the victim of abuse and/or crime 
has a statistically higher tendency to be victimised again,190 and does not concern the way 
in which institutions and other individuals deal with the victim. 

2.3.1.2 Specific considerations with regard to grounds 

Sex and gender 

According to the victim support organisations, victims of hate speech on grounds of gender 
and sex often experience considerable emotional burden and symptoms such as anxiety, 
depression,  sleeping  disorders,  panic  attacks,  and  anger.  Some  NGOs  report  on  the 
spillover  effect  of  online  hate  speech  into  the  offline  world.  This  relates  to  incidents  of 
perpetrators who first expressed their sexist views through hate speech on social media, 
music  and  other  ways,  and  then  committed  hate  crimes.191  NGOs  also  report  that 
intimidation  of  women  online  puts  their  safety  and  their  freedom  of  expression  at  risk.192 
Young  women  and  girls  suffer  the  most  from  gender-based  harassment  online.  Plan 
International reports that of the girls who have been harassed, 19 per cent reduced the use 
of social media platforms and 12 per cent just stopped using them.193 Some stakeholder 
respondents indicated that politically engaged women and women in visible positions, such 
as  women  journalists,  influencers,  advocates  and  human  rights  defenders,  as  well  as 
women from intersectional backgrounds are at further risk of victimisation. 

Gender identity and sex characteristics 

Intersex individuals, due to their distinct sexual characteristics, may be vulnerable to hate 
speech ‘in instances in which they either disclose their intersex status or if their behaviour 
and/or outer appearance do not match stereotypical notions of male and female norms’.194 

186 Equinet, Feedback on the Roadmap. 
187 Victim Support Europe, Feedback on the Roadmap.  
188 EU High Level Group, ‘Ensuring justice, protection and support for victims of hate crime and hate speech: 10 key guiding principles’, see 
footnote 172.  
189 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64. 
190 The term ‘re-victimisation is often used in discussing child abuse – however, it fits the experience of victims of hate speech and hate crime. 
The definition used can be found in David Finkelhor, Richard Ormrod, Heather Turner, ‘Revictimization patterns in a national longitudinal sample 
of children and youth’, 2007, available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.361.3226 (last accessed 7 July 2021).  
191 For example, Terre des femmes, Menschenrechte für die Frau e.V, Feedback on the Roadmap; See also: Centre for Digital Youth Care ‚‘The 
https://cfdp.dk/wp-
equality, 
angry 
content/uploads/2020/11/CFDP_the_angry_internet_ISSUE.pdf (last accessed 27 September 2021), p. 40.  
192 For example, End FGM European Network, Terre des femmes, Menschenrechte für die Frau e.V, Feedback on the Roadmap.  
193 Plan International, ‘Free to be online? Girls’ and young women’s experiences of online harassment’, see footnote 62, p. 31. 
194  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights,  Human  rights  and  intersex  people:  Issue  Paper,  Council  of  Europe,  2017,  available  at: 
https://rm.coe.int/16806da5d4 (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 43. 

democracy  &  well-being‘, 

internet:  A 

available 

gender 

threat 

2020, 

at: 

to 

33 

 
 
  
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

A significant number of trans and intersex respondents to the FRA 2020 EU-LGBTI II survey 
reported  that  they  ‘often’  or  ‘always’  avoid  certain  places  or  locations  for  fear  of  being 
assaulted, threatened or harassed due to their sex characteristics or gender identity.195 

Figure 6 – Number of respondents who avoid certain places or locations for fear of 
being  assaulted,  threatened,  or  harassed  because  they  are  trans  or  intersex,  as 
according to the 2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to go for LGBTI equality’ (%) 

Intersex

36

Trans

EU-28

28

31

23

34

36

23

18

25

22

12

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never

Rarely

Often

Always

The above figure shows that 37 to 41% of intersex and trans persons reported they ‘often’ 
or  ‘always’  avoid  certain  places  or  locations  for  fear  of  being  assaulted,  threatened  or 
harassed because they are trans or intersex. 

Furthermore,  it  can  be  seen  from  the  FRA  2020  EU-LGBTI  II  survey  report  that  28%  of 
intersex and 32% of trans respondents did not report the most recent physical or sexual 
attack due to being trans or intersex to the police, out of fear of a transphobic reaction.196 

According to a quantitative study of trans people’s experience of hate crime (including hate 
speech) in the EU Member states, the vast majority of respondents were not confident that 
they  would  be  treated  appropriately  by  members  of  the  police  service  as  their 
preferred/acquired  gender,  which  has  a  negative  impact  on  transphobic  incidents  being 
reported in the first place.197 

Sexual orientation 

The ECtHR stressed, in the context of an applicant who distributed homophobic leaflets to 
secondary  school  students,  that  such  ‘discrimination  based  on  sexual  orientation  is  as 
serious  as  discrimination  based  on  race,  origin  or  colour’.198  It  is  worth  noting  that  race, 
origin, and colour are already among the hate speech bias grounds under the Framework 
Decision. Furthermore, the Court has ruled that homophobic hate speech can amount to 
inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the ECHR),199 and that failure to investigate 
and prosecute online hate speech and threats on grounds of sexual orientation constitutes 
discrimination (Article 14 of the ECHR) in the context of the right to private and family life 
(Article 8), and a violation of the right to effective legal remedy (Article 13 of the ECHR).200 

195 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83, p. 50. 
196 Ibid., p. 49 
197 Turner, Whittle, Combs, ‘Transphobic hate crime in the European Union’, see footnote 72, p. 2. 
198 ECtHR, No. 1813/07, Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, 9 February 2012, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/001-
109046?TID=vzwfrqcipf (last accessed 19 August 2021), paragraph 42. 
199 
and  Others 
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-154400%22]} (last accessed 19 August 2021), paragraph 65. 
200 
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-200344%22]} (last accessed 19 August 2021), paragraph 195.  

ECtHR,  No. 

v.  Georgia, 

12  May 

73235/12, 

41288/15, 

Lithuania, 

available 

available 

Levickas 

Identoba 

Beizaras 

January 

ECtHR, 

2020, 

2015, 

para. 

and 

No. 

81, 

14 

v. 

at: 

at: 

34 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

According to the FRA 2020 EU-LGBTI II survey,201 a significant amount of lesbian, gay and 
bisexual  (LGB)  persons  avoid  certain  places  or  locations  for  fear  of  being  assaulted, 
threatened, or harassed. The below figure depicts the widespread nature of this aspect:  

Figure 7 – Number of respondents who avoid certain places or locations for fear of 
being assaulted, threatened, or harassed because they are LGB, as according to the 
2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to go for LGBTI equality’ (%) 

Bisexual men

Bisexual women

Gay

Lesbian

EU-28

42

39

26

25

31

27

37

37

51

36

17

13

18

5

22

25

22

14

8

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never

Rarely

Often

Always

The above figure shows that 24 to 37% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (‘LGB’) respondents 
reported they ‘often’ or ‘always’ avoid certain places or locations for fear of being assaulted, 
threatened or harassed due to being LGB. This emphasises that these persons experience 
a significant amount of fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed due to their social 
identity. 

Age 

As other groups subject to hate speech, older people can develop negative self-perceptions 
based  on  ageist  stereotypes.202  Of  particular  relevance  for  older  people  is  perceiving 
themselves as a burden on others. The phenomenon of burden is well documented in the 
academic literature on gerontology.203 Studies have shown older people are as likely to hold 
such stereotypes as younger people. This phenomenon that can be labelled a form of self‐
stereotyping.204  Perceiving  oneself  as  burdensome  is  harmful  to  one's  self-worth  as  it 
involves seeing  oneself as a  drain  on the time  and  resources  of  others, whether  that  be 
family members or society. The current context of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated 
lockdowns have encouraged the view that all older people are a burden on society. 

Another aspect of negative self-perception that is particularly relevant to older people is that 
victims may tolerate the abuse because they see themselves partly at fault or not worthy of 
protection.  In  such  cases,  victims  are  less  likely  to  report  crimes  to  the  authorities  or  to 
cooperate with the authorities in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.205 

201 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83. 
202 Herek et al, ‘Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 
Psychology’, see footnote 175.  
203 Victor Minichiello et al, ‘Perceptions and Consequences of Ageism: Views of Older People’, 2000, Ageing & Society 20(3):253‐278, available 
at: 
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ageing-and-society/article/abs/perceptions-and-consequences-of-ageism-views-of-older-
people/0F607565509B9999B82B3A0FF4F8AADE (last accessed 13 August 2021); Hannah J. Swift et al, ‘The Perception Of Ageing And Age 
Discrimination: Growing  Older  In The  UK’,  British  Medical  Association, 2016, available at:  https://kar.kent.ac.uk/57834/1/Age-discrimination-
and-the-perception-of-ageing.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2021).  
204 Ibid. 
205 Marguerite DeLiema, et al, ‘Voices from the frontlines: Examining elder abuse from multiple professional perspectives’, Health & Social Work, 
40(2), e15–e24, 2015, available at: https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/voices-from-the-frontlines-examining-elder-abuse-from-multiple-pr 
(last accessed 13 August 2021). 

35 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

A  significant  public  health  concern  when  it  comes  to  older  people  is  social  isolation  and 
loneliness.206 Hate speech that causes older people to feel rejected by society is likely to 
exacerbate such problems. 

Furthermore, according to AGE Platform Europe ‘older persons suffering abuse experience 
a  decline  in  physical  and  mental  capacities  and  can  develop  feelings  of  rejection  and 
exclusion. In the most serious cases, abuse and maltreatment can also lead to death’.207 
The WHO has found that in Europe, older people are at risk from interpersonal violence, 
with 8,500 people aged 60 and older dying from homicide annually. Elder abuse is the cause 
of one-third (2,500) of annual homicides among old people.208 

Disability 

A 2016 study carried out in Norway demonstrates the breadth of the effects hate speech 
has on those with disabilities. The study asked individuals with disabilities about the impact 
of hate speech on their lives.209 Respondents were asked to list restrictions that impacted 
their ‘barriers for doing’ and ‘barriers to being’. The research found that the restrictions on 
everyday life (‘barriers to doing’) that were reported were: avoid certain places or situations 
(63%);  stay  at  home  (48%);  avoiding  raising  their  opinion  or  getting  involved  in  public 
debates (38%); stop doing activities they used to do before (34%); avoid going out in the 
evening and night (30%); don’t see friends (19%); avoid public transport (16%); had to move 
house  (12%);  don’t  go  to  school  (9%);  don’t  go  to  work/day  centre  (9%).  The  psycho-
emotional undermining of well-being (‘barriers to being’) that were reported, were: affects 
self-confidence (66%); worry about certain situations (65%); become depressed and sad 
(62%); feel more uncertain in everyday life (58%); reduced life quality (58%); become more 
introverted  (54%);  reduced  self-realisation  (46%);  afraid  of  going  certain  places  alone 
(42%). 

In addition, the EDF, in its response to the consultation, highlighted harms that are caused 
by  disability  hate  speech  and  hate  crime  against  persons  with  disabilities,  ranging  from 
anxiety, fear to trauma and hindering their inclusion in society. Failing to report incidents, 
recognise them as a crime or an offence, and not holding perpetrators accountable, means 
that  victims  are  at  risk  of  repeat  victimisation  and  bias-motivated  harassment.  Repeat 
incidents  may  lead  to  internalised  oppression  and  marginalisation  of  persons  with 
disabilities, ‘imposing the label of vulnerable victim on persons with disabilities may result 
in  further  exclusion  and  restrictions  on  their  lives’.  The  experience  of  persons  with 
disabilities  tends  to  be  restricted  due  to  labelling  them  as  ‘vulnerable’  and  in  need  of 
professional decision-making to ‘protect them’.210 

In addition, according to the submission from the European Union of the Deaf, hate speech 
and hate crimes against all persons with disabilities, ‘can create serious trauma and hinder 
their inclusion in society.’ If incidents are not reported, recognised as crimes or offences, 
and perpetrators are not held accountable, victims are at a high risk of repeat victimisation 
and bias-motivated harassment.211 

206 Lena Dahlberg et al, ‘Lonelier than ever? Loneliness of older people over two decades’, 2018, Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 75, 
96-103, available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29220739/ (last accessed 13 August 2021); Barbara Barbosa Neves et al, It's the worst 
bloody feeling in the  world: Experiences of loneliness and social isolation among older people living in care homes’, 2019, Journal of aging 
studies, 49,  74-84,  available  at:  https://bbneves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/its-the-worst-bloody-feeling-in-the-world.pdf  (last  accessed 
13 August 2021). 
207 AGE Platform Europe, Feedback on the Roadmap, p. 1. 
208 
https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/144676/e95110.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3l6TDacSeGco5FCOu2f0z_KUMJ-
1v9rRNzsbk8ndKViKqlLIeYEnEWvas (last accessed 26 October 2021), p. vii. 
209  Olsen,  Vedeler,  and  Eriksen,  ‘Hate  speech  as  an  expression  of  disablism:  An  examination  of  reported  hate  speech  experiences  and 
consequences’, see footnote 99, pp. 234-247. 
210 EDF, EDF Recommendations on EU Initiatives on Hate Speech and Hate Crime, see footnote 101.  
211 European Union of the Deaf, Feedback on the Roadmap. 

maltreatment’, 

preventing 

‘European 

available 

WHO, 

report 

2011, 

elder 

on 

at: 

36 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Finally,  according  to  Hall,  ‘the  transformative  power  of  the  internet  for  disabled  people's 
lives is what gives online hate speech a distinct significance for disabled people that differs 
from the experience of online hate speech by other marginalised social groups. The greater 
practical reliance of some physically and mentally disabled people on online communication 
increased their vulnerability as hate speech targets’.212 

Grounds covered by the Framework Decision 

Some studies indicate a relationship between online hate speech and offline hate crime on 
the grounds of race, ethnicity and national origin.213 Furthermore, evidence suggests that 
incidents  of  bias-motivated  harassment  are  a recurrent  experience for many  people.  For 
example,  49%  of  Roma  persons  interviewed  for  EU-MIDIS  II  who  had  experienced 
harassment because of their Roma background in the five years preceding the survey had 
experienced such harassment six or more times, including in some cases ‘all the time’. More 
specifically, 36% had experienced it two to five times and 15% had experienced it once.214 

Hate speech on the grounds similar to those provided in the Framework Decision can also 
be found in the ECtHR jurisprudence. In the case of R.B. v. Hungary,215 the Court linked the 
duty to investigate a possible racist motivation to Article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for 
private  and  family  life).  This  case  concerned  marches  organised  by  two  right-wing 
paramilitary  groups  and  a  Civil  Guard  Association  in  a  neighbourhood,  in  the  course  of 
which a woman of Roma origin with her child was subjected to racist insults and threats.216 
The Court found that, since the abuse suffered was directed against the applicant for her 
belonging to an ethnic minority, this conduct affected her private life in the sense of ethnic 
identity, in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.217 

In some Member States, distrust in the police by vulnerable minorities is a serious concern: 
not only citizens do not trust that the police would tackle the incident, but they have a major 
distrust in the police, and consider that the police exhibit racist behaviours.218  

2.3.2.  Harmful impact on wider society  

2.3.2.1 General considerations 

Similar  to  above,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  following  data  in  this  subsection  on  the 
stakeholder consultations  refer to both hate speech  and hate crime. This  subsection  will 
look exclusively at the harmful impact of hate speech on the wider society, including the 
groups of persons sharing the same protected characteristics of the victim. Those questions 
asked to the stakeholders concerning the harmful impact on the wider society were: ‘in your 
view, does hate speech/hate crime cause harm to’ and ‘in your view, what are the harmful 

International  Conference  on  Web  and  Social  Media, 

212  Philippa  Hall,  ‘Disability  Hate  Speech:  Interrogating  the  Online/Offline  Distinction’  in  K.  Lumsde.and  E.  Harmer  (eds)  ‘Online  Othering. 
Palgrave Studies in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity’, 2019, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12633-9_13  (last  accessed  19 
August 2021). 
213 For example, Kunal Relia et al, ‘Race, Ethnicity and National Origin-based Discrimination in Social Media and Hate Crimes Across 100 U.S. 
IC  WSM  2019,  Munich,  Germany,  available  at: 
Cities’  at  13th 
(last 
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2019/june/hate-speech-on-twitter-predicts-frequency-of-real-life-hate-crim.html 
accessed 19 August 2021); Matthew L Williams et al, ‘Hate in the Machine: Anti-Black and Anti-Muslim Social Media Posts as Predictors of 
Offline Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime’, 2020, 60(1) The British Journal of Criminology 93, available at: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/124470/ 
(last accessed 19 August 2021); Karen Müller and Carlo Schwarz, ‘Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and Hate Crime’, 2017, available 
at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972 (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
214  FRA, 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2021-hate-crime-reporting_en.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 23. 
215 
v. 
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22r.b.%20v.%20hungary%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%2
2,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-161983%22]} (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
216 Ibid. 
217 Ibid. 
218 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p. 73. 

‘Encouraging  Hate  Crime  Reporting:  The  Role  of  Law  Enforcement  and  Other  Authorities’,  2021,  available  at: 

64602/12, 

Hungary, 

available 

ECtHR, 

2016., 

April 

R.B. 

No. 

at: 

12 

37 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

impacts of hate speech/hate crime on society as a whole’. Other sources pertaining to the 
harmful impact on wider society are also outlined in this subsection. 

Does hate speech/hate crime cause harm to? 

The  stakeholders  were  asked  to  provide  their  views  on  whether  they  thought  hate 
speech/hate  crime  caused  harm  to  individuals,  perpetrators,  groups  sharing  protected 
characteristics, society as a whole and/or ‘other’. For the purposes of this subsection, only 
groups sharing protected characteristics, society as a whole, and ‘other’ responses will be 
considered.  

Figure 8 – Number of stakeholder responses to 'in your view, does hate speech/hate 
crime cause harm to', concerning wider society. 

76

76

The group sharing protected
characteristics of the victim

Society as a whole

Number of stakeholder responses

4
Other

There  is  almost  unanimity,  amongst  the  stakeholders  consulted,  as  to  the  fact  that  hate 
speech/hate crime impacts society as a whole and groups sharing protected characteristics, 
not just the victims. Therefore, this indicates that hate speech goes beyond those directly 
involved and there is a spillover effect onto those persons who are not directly involved.  

What are the harmful impacts of hate speech/hate crime on society as a whole? 

Like the harmful impact on individuals or other relevant individuals, the stakeholders were 
asked to select what they perceived as the harmful impacts of hate speech/hate crime on 
society as a whole. The following options were provided: 

  Polarisation of society, creation of social conflicts;  

  Creation of a climate of fear with a chilling effect on freedom of expression and 

engagement in democratic debate (both online and offline) for persons belonging 
to groups sharing protected characteristics;  

  Creation of a climate of fear with a chilling effect on freedom of expression and 
engagement in democratic debate (both online and offline) for journalists and 
politicians;  

  Creation of a climate of fear with a chilling effect on freedom of expression and 
engagement in democratic debate (both online and offline) for the public in 
general; 

  Chilling effect on the willingness of citizens to engage in politics and to exercise 

official functions (such as mayors, politicians); and/or 

38 

 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

  Other.219 

Furthermore, it is worth noting only those stakeholders who did not select ‘all of the above’ 
or ‘I don’t know’ for the previous question had the opportunity to answer this question and, 
therefore,  there  were  only  65  respondents  to  this  question,  rather  than  83  as  per  the 
previous question.  

Figure 9 – Number of stakeholder responses to ‘in your view, what are the harmful 
impacts of hate speech/the crime on society as a whole’ 

57

54

39

43

40

,
y
t
e
i
c
o
s
e
h
t

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
r
a
o
P

l

s
t
c
i
l
f
n
o
c

l

a
i
c
o
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
e
r
c

g
n

i
l
l
i

h
c
a
h
t
i

w

r
a
e
f

f
o
e
t
a
m

i
l
c
A

n
o
i
s
s
e
r
p
x
e
f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
f
n
o
t
c
e
f
f
e

c
i
t
a
r
c
o
m
e
d
n

i

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
g
n
e
d
n
a

)
e
n

i
l
f
f
o
d
n
a
e
n

i
l

n
o
h
t
o
b
(
e
t
a
b
e
d

i

s
p
u
o
r
g
o
t
g
n
g
n
o
e
b
s
n
o
s
r
e
p
r
o
f

l

s
c
i
t
s
i
r
e
t
c
a
r
a
h
c
d
e
t
c
e
t
o
r
p
g
n
i
r
a
h
s

g
n

i
l
l
i

h
c
a
h
t
i

w

r
a
e
f

f
o
e
t
a
m

i
l
c
A

n
o
i
s
s
e
r
p
x
e
f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
f
n
o
t
c
e
f
f
e

c
i
t
a
r
c
o
m
e
d
n

i

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
g
n
e
d
n
a

)
e
n

i
l
f
f
o
d
n
a
e
n

i
l

n
o
h
t
o
b
(
e
t
a
b
e
d

s
n
a
i
c
i
t
i
l

o
p
d
n
a
s
t
s
i
l

a
n
r
u
o

j

r
o
f

g
n

i
l
l
i

h
c
a
h
t
i

w

r
a
e
f

f
o
e
t
a
m

i
l
c
A

n
o
i
s
s
e
r
p
x
e
f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
f
n
o
t
c
e
f
f
e

c
i
t
a
r
c
o
m
e
d
n

i

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
g
n
e
d
n
a

)
e
n

i
l
f
f
o
d
n
a
e
n

i
l

n
o
h
t
o
b
(
e
t
a
b
e
d

l

a
r
e
n
e
g
n

i

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
h
t

r
o
f

2

r
e
h
t
O

s
c
i
t
i
l

o
p
n

i

e
g
a
g
n
e
o
t

s
n
e
z
i
t
i
c

f
o

s
n
o
i
t
c
n
u
f

l

a
i
c
i
f
f
o
e
s
i
c
r
e
x
e
o
t
d
n
a

s
s
e
n
g
n

i
l
l
i

w
e
h
t
n
o
t
c
e
f
f
e
g
n

i
l
l
i

h
C

Number of stakeholder responses

In  general,  the  stakeholders  perceive  polarisation  and  creation  of  social  conflict  as  the 
biggest impact that hate speech has on the wider society, followed by the chilling effect on 
the freedom of expression and engagement in democratic debate for persons belonging to 
groups sharing protected characteristics.  

The stirring up of social tensions and increased polarisation of society 

The most harmful impact of hate speech on wider society seems to be the stirring up of 
social tensions.220  

The EU High Level Group221 maintains that hate speech is a particularly serious offence 
due to the impact that these crimes have on the community or group to which the victim 
belongs or is perceived to belong, as well as on the victim. This is because hate speech 
can  lead  to  an  exacerbation  of  social  divisions  and  intergroup  or  interethnic  tensions. 
Similarly, Equinet222 provided that hate speech creates a context of tension, division and 

219 According to the ODHIR: genocide is preceded by individual instances of hate crime, and by wide-spread hateful narratives, otherwise it 
does not happen; Hate crimes escalate. If not stopped, they grow in numbers and intensity; .The polarization can also have the form of violent 
retaliation and inter-group conflict; if unaddressed, hate crimes have led groups to arm themselves and take the law into their own hands; if 
unaddressed, hate crimes can make groups to emigrate or seclude (in ghettos); As per the Institute for Criminal-Law Ethics and Criminology: 
Chilling effect on civic participation and political engagement on the side persons belonging to groups sharing protected characteristics. 
220 This is according to Equinet, EU High Level Group, the European Parliament’s Policy Department, and Article 19. 
221 EU High Level  Group, ‘Guidance Note on the practical  application of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JJHA on combating certain 
forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law’, see footnote 171.  
222 Equinet, Feedback on Roadmap. 

39 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

stereotyping that motivates higher levels of discrimination and, therefore, it does not just 
affect  the  individual,  but  also  has  consequences  for  the  group  to  which  the  individual 
belongs or with which the individual identifies. Article 19 in their article ‘Responding to ‘hate 
speech’:223  Comparative  overview  of  six  EU  countries’  provides  an  example  of  this 
stereotyping that the traditional media, by portraying minorities, migrants and refugees in a 
negative light and scapegoating them for various problems in society, expand the reach of 
audience  for  those  who  wish  to  sow  divisions  and  hatred  in  society.  Hate  speech,  in 
particular  online,  can  further  contribute  to  process  of  radicalisation  and  promote  violent 
extremist ideology and actions.  

If  this  stereotyping  and  social  tension  is  not  tackled,  polarisation  may  occur  as  well  as 
desensitisation  towards  hate  speech.  This  links  in  with  another  statement  from  the 
European Parliament’s Policy Department highlighting that populism is not only part of the 
problem  but  also  a  symptom;  this  is  because  it  implies  that  the  more  widespread  and 
tolerated  hate  speech  is,  the  more  polarisation  and  populism  prevail.  As  highlighted  by 
Article  19  in  their  article  ‘Responding  to  ‘hate  speech’:  Comparative  overview  of  six  EU 
countries’224, the traditional media play a role in exaggerating differences in and contributing 
towards the polarisation of political opinion. This highlights that the type of speech allowed 
to  circulate  impacts  the  political  dynamic,  as  can  be  seen  through  the  polarisation  and 
flourishing  of  populism  which  has  been  enabled  by  the  wider  circulation  of  hate  speech, 
whether offline or online.  

The link between hate speech and hate crime/genocide/terrorism  

Some of the other sources collected highlight the link between hate speech and hate crime, 
hate  speech  and  genocide,  and  hate  speech  and  terrorism.  Both  ECRI,  the  UN,  and 
Matthew Williams have highlighted that there is a link between hate speech and hate crime, 
while  the  UN  has  made explicit  reference to  the fact that genocide  is  often  preceded  by 
increased levels of hate speech.225 

The ECRI226 highlights that there is a dangerous link between hate speech and violence. 
Furthermore,  if  unaddressed,  hate  speech can  lead to acts  of  violence and conflict  on  a 
wide  scale.  This  is  also  the  view  of  Matthew  Williams227  who  found  that  there  was  a 
correlation  between  increased  online  hate  speech  and  a  spike  in  hate  crimes  in  London 
around the time of the Brexit vote. This causal link with Brexit has been concurred by other 
sources,  such  as  by  E.  Tendayi  Achiume,228  and  the  UN  Special  Rapporteur  on  racism, 
xenophobia  and  intolerance229.  E.  Tendayi  Achiume  found  that  the  ‘anti-migrant,  anti-
foreigner  rhetoric,  developed  around  the  campaign  in  favour  of  Brexit  had  become 
widespread in society, going as far as to add that a hateful and stigmatising discourse had 
become “normalised”’. Another example of the link between hate speech and hate crime 
from  Matthew  Williams  concerns  the  656%  increase  in  anti-Asian  hate  tweets  following 
Donald Trump’s reference to COVID-19 as the ‘Chinese Virus’. Furthermore, the UN230 has 
referred to hate speech as a precursor to atrocity crimes, including genocide. In particular 
Williams  highlights  the  Rwandan,  Bosnian,  and  Cambodian  genocides  as  involving  hate 

223  Article  19,  ‘Responding  to  ‘hate  speech’:  Comparative  overview  of  six  EU  Countries’,  2018,  available  at:  https://www.article19.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/ECA-hate-speech-compilation-report_March-2018.pdf (last accessed 2 July 2021), p. 6. 
224 Ibid. 
225 UN, ‘Genocide Victims Often Early Targets of Hate Speech, Violence, Secretary-General Says in Message for International Day, Stressing 
Prevention Involves Everyone’, 2020, available at: https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sgsm20482.doc.htm (last accessed 27 September 2021); 
UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, see footnote 15. 
226  ECRI,  ‘Hate  speech  and  violence’,  available  at:  https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/hate-
speech-and-violence (last accessed 7 July 2021).  
227  Williams  et  al.,  ‘Hate  in  the  Machine:  Anti-Black  and  Anti-Muslim  Social  Media  Posts  as  Predictors  of  Offline  Racially  and  Religiously 
Aggravated Crime’, see footnote 213. 
228  UN  expert  warns  of 
‘stark 
https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/05/1009542 (last accessed 7 July 2021).  
229 Ibid.   
230 UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, see footnote 15.   

in  hate  crimes  across  UK,  post-Brexit  vote,  UN  News,  2018,  available  at: 

increase’ 

40 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

speech as a precursor.231 These findings seem to emphasise the danger of hate speech in 
the  sense  that  it  can  result  in  increased  hate  crime  towards  groups  sharing  protected 
characteristics and in extreme cases, to genocide.  

2.3.2.2 Specific considerations with regard to grounds 

Sex and gender 

The harmful impact of sexist hate speech on wider society has been elaborated by various 
sources. The Council of Europe, for example, has emphasised that ‘[s]exist hate speech is 
a  form  of  violence  against  women  and  girls  that  perpetuates  and  exacerbates  gender 
inequality’.232 In particular, the Commission’s Gender Equality Strategy stipulates that many 
people  ‘still  violate  the  principle  of  gender  equality  through  sexist  hate  speech  and  by 
blocking action against gender-based violence and gender stereotypes.’233 

Furthermore, the Council of Europe has highlighted, in its Gender Equality Strategy, that 
sexist hate speech is often treated as ‘a harmless and non-serious issue and women are 
explicitly or implicitly told to bear with it’.234 However, the Strategy further elaborates that 
sexist hate speech undermines not just women’s freedom of speech, but its psychological, 
emotional  and  physical  impacts  are  real  and  severe;  this  is  because  it  humiliates  and 
objectifies women, undervalues their skills and opinions, destroys their reputation, makes 
them  feel  vulnerable  and  fearful,  and  silences  and  puts  limitations  on  their  activities.235 
Consequently, this creates a climate of fear and having a negative psychological impact on 
women as a whole.  

According to victim support organisations, hate speech on grounds of sex and gender also 
affect  victims’  communities  and  their  social  relations.  Repeated  incidences  also  foster  a 
social climate of discrimination and trivialisation of hate speech as well as a discriminatory 
attitude towards women. Furthermore, in their responses, they stated that the increase of 
online hate speech against women also reflects the danger of such crimes being treated as 
‘petty affairs’, thus bearing the danger of creating an attitude in society that such incidents 
are  ‘normal’.  Some  NGOs  suggested  that  when  no  action  is  taken  against  sexist  hate 
speech, there is a real danger of silencing female activists, politicians, journalists and other 
publicly  engaged  women  as  well  as  women’s  withdrawal  from  the  digital  sphere.236  This 
also affects other women, especially those living with intersecting forms of discrimination 
who are at further risk.  

Sexual orientation 

Hate speech, particularly on the ground of sexual orientation, has a wide negative impact 
on  the  society.  One  of  the  views  expressed  in  the  literature  is  that  ‘hate  crimes  mirror 
prevailing  attitudes  within  society,  meaning  that  “accepted”  media  discourse,  typified  by 

Equality: 

231 Matthew L Williams, ‘The Science of Hate: How prejudice becomes hate and what we can do to stop it’, Faber & Faber, 2021, available at: 
https://www.faber.co.uk/9780571357062-the-science-of-hate.htm (last accessed 19 November 2021).  
232 Council of Europe, ‘Combating Sexist Hate Speech’, see footnote 52, p. 2. 
233 Communication From the Commission To the European Parliament, the Council, the EESC, and the Committee Of The Regions, ‘A Union 
of 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0152 (last accessed 28 September 2021). 
234 
‘Gender 
https://edoc.coe.int/en/module/ec_addformat/download?cle=d8567273b20e64233b575a130159a15d&k=83d31aa0209abed888deca52042c5
5eb (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 5. 
235 Ibid. 
236 For example, Terre des Femmes, Menschenrechte für die Frau e.V., End FGM European Network, Feedback on Roadmap. 

2020-2025’, 

Strategy’, 

available 

Strategy’ 

available 

Strategy 

Equality 

Equality 

Equality 

Europe, 

Gender 

Gender 

Council 

2016, 

2020, 

at: 

at: 

of 

41 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

pervasive  heterosexism  for  example,  can  serve  to  marginalize  “outgroups”  such  as  gay 
populations while reinforcing the dominant position of majority, heterosexual populations’.237  

Age 

Older age is a characteristic that the vast majority of the population will share at some point. 
In that respect, it is different from the other characteristics that are protected or considered 
for protection under hate speech and hate crime legislation. If we fail to protect against the 
proliferation of hate speech based on age, we are as a society encouraging heightened fear 
and anxieties around the natural process of ageing.238 

In response to a recent consultation in England and Wales on adding age as a protected 
characteristic  to  hate  crime  legislation,  Age  UK,  the  leading  older  age charity  in the  UK, 
highlighted how the Covid-19 pandemic had increased the vocalisation of ageist attitudes 
and  hostility  towards  older  people.  Age  UK  state  that  they  believe  ‘such  expressions  of 
ageism and hostility foster an environment in which crimes against older people and in some 
circumstances,  ageist  hate  crimes  become  more  permissible  and  contribute  to  the 
“dehumanising” of our older citizens, possibly leading to behaviour such as physical abuse 
in care homes.’239 They further argued that the criminal justice system needs to recognise 
the ‘direct and indirect discrimination that older people face at a societal level, as a result of 
stereotyping and […] attaching lesser value to them as human beings’, in order to reinforce 
the  message  that  violence  against  older  people,  based  on  hatred  or  their  presumed 
vulnerability, is ‘wholly unacceptable’.240 

The ideologies and prejudices underpinning ageist hate speech undermine social solidarity 
and threaten the dignity and worth of those groups perceived as not contributing to society’s 
economic  well-being.  Such  warped  logic,  often  emanating  from  the  far  right,  can  also 
encourage  the  targeting  of  other  vulnerable  groups  in  society,  including  those  with 
disabilities, the homeless, the unemployed and asylum seekers.241  

Disability 

‘[I]ntensified online hate can also limit the opportunities for social media disability activists 
to communicate with the wider disabled community.’242 According to Soorenian, ‘disabled 
people often rely on social media to feel less isolated and to join virtual communities.’243 In 
spite  of  this,  the  ‘advancement  in  digital  communication  facilitated  through  virtual 
environments  has  created  and  reinforced  an  online  context  for  disablist  vulnerable 
situations.’244 

Grounds covered by the Framework Decision  

The  first  recital  of  the  Framework  Decision  observes  that  ‘[r]acism  and  xenophobia  are 
direct  violations  of  the  principles  of  liberty,  democracy,  respect  for  human  rights  and 

of 

9(1), 

Union’, 

European 

European 

Criminology, 

237 Jon Garland, Neil Chakraborti, ‘Divided by a common concept? Assessing the implications of different conceptualizations of hate crime in 
the 
at: 
Journal 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477370811421645?casa_token=xiZwKnf5B6sAAAAA:PxeOoIk-
SomaytGlWvL4ojmsx6VX1tG9_7M_qnce-2oxwp0BeSMZE1sJZmttZWw2_QIk82_-7FGb (last accessed 19 November 2021). 
238  Michael  D.  Barnett,  Cassidy  M. Adams, ‘Ageism  and aging anxiety among  young adults: Relationships  with  contact, knowledge, fear of 
death,  and  optimism’,  2018, Educational  Gerontology 44(11):  693-700,  available  at:  https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-06626-003  (last 
accessed 16 August 2021). 
239  AgeUK,  Law  Commission, 
laws:  a  consultation’,  2020,  available  at:  https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-
uk/documents/reports-and-publications/consultation-responses-and-submissions/equality-and-human-rights/law-commission-consultation-on-
hate-crime_-age-uk-response-jan-2020-.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 2. 
240 Ibid, p. 9. 
241 Gerard Delanty, ‘Fear of others: Social exclusion and the European crisis of solidarity’, 2008, Social Policy & Administration, 42(6), 676-690, 
available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2008.00631.x (last accessed 16 August 2021). 
242 Hall, ‘Disability Hate Speech: Interrogating the Online/Offline Distinction’, see footnote 212. 
243 Soorenian, ‘Disability hate speech: ‘They think they can call me anything’, see footnote 97.  
244 Ibid. 

‘Hate  crime 

available 

38–51, 

2012, 

42 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles upon which the EU is founded and 
which are common to the Member States.’ According to the Parliamentary Assembly of the 
Council of Europe, racism, hatred and intolerance create divides in society, affecting human 
rights and social cohesion.245 The preamble to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on 
Cybercrime,  concerning  the  criminalisation  of  acts  of  a  racist  and  xenophobic  nature 
committed through computer systems, states that ‘acts of a racist and xenophobic nature 
constitute  a  violation  of  human  rights  and  a  threat  to  the  rule  of  law  and  democratic 
stability’.246  

2.4. Cross-border nature and impact 

2.4.1.  Cross-border impact and nature of hate speech online  

2.4.1.1 General considerations 

As  part  of the  targeted  consultation,  with regard to online  hate speech, the  stakeholders 
were  requested  to  answer  the  questions:  ‘can  hate  speech  perpetrated  online  have  a 
spillover  effect  across  national  borders’  and  ‘in  what  ways  can  [online]  hate  speech 
committed in one Member State lead to instances in another’.  

Can hate speech perpetrated online have a spillover effect across national borders? 

Figure  10  –  Stakeholder  responses  to  ‘can  hate  speech  perpetrated  online  have  a 
spillover effect across national borders’ 

1

5

76

Yes

I don't know

No

Most stakeholders (93%) believe that online hate speech could originate in one Member 
State  and  spillover  to  another. This  illustrates  an  almost  unanimous  agreement  amongst 
stakeholders that  hate  speech  perpetrated  online  has  a  cross-border  impact,  with only  1 
stakeholder (constituting 0.01%) maintaining that this could not occur.  

In what ways can hate speech committed in one Member State lead to instances in 
another? 

of 

Council 

Europe, 

245 
https://assembly.coe.int/LifeRay/EGA/NoHate/RacismIntoleranceHateSpeech-EN.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 9.  
246 Council of Europe, ‘Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic 
nature committed through computer systems’, 28/1/2003, European Treaty Series No. 189, 2003, available at:  https://rm.coe.int/168008160f 
(last accessed 19 August 2021), p.1. 

Parliamentary 

intolerance, 

Assembly, 

available 

‘Racism, 

speech’, 

2020, 

hate 

at: 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Figure  11  –  Number  of  stakeholder  responses  to  'in  what  ways  can  [online]  hate 
speech committed in one Member State lead to instances in another?' 

75

68

Through the increasing use of social
media, people across the EU are
exposed to similar online content,
including the same hateful rhetoric

Hateful ideologies even when rooted
in one location and related to the local
context, can spread across borders
through online platforms and the
media

Number of responses

2
Other

Overall, it should be noted that the stakeholders perceive online hate speech as more likely 
to  have  a  cross-border  nature  and  impact  than  offline  hate  speech.  As  described  in 
subsection  2.4.2  below,  85%  of  the  stakeholders  believe  that  offline  hate  speech  could 
originate in one Member State and spillover to another, compared to 93% of stakeholders 
for  online  hate  speech.  For  more  information  with  regard  to  offline  hate  speech  and  the 
responses  from  stakeholders  concerning  the  cross-border  nature  and  impact  of  this 
phenomenon, please see subsection 2.4.2. 

The further elaboration by stakeholders of the spillover effect of online hate speech 

Furthermore, the stakeholders were asked if they could provide further elaboration of this 
spillover effect. Over 50% of responses (16 out of 29) provided further elaboration on the 
spillover  effect  of  hate  speech  by  mentioning  either  the  internet  or  social  media.247  The 
consideration  of  the  internet  and  social  media  as  an  example  of  a  spillover  effect 
emphasises further that this is widely considered among the stakeholders to be the most 
likely way for hate speech to spread across borders.  

In relation to other sources, there are not many direct mentions of cross-border impact of 
online hate speech. The references are mainly implied by its nature that it is so widespread, 
accessible, and easy to use to disseminate information.  

The lack of limitations on the dissemination of hate speech online 

With regard to the  phenomenon  of  hate  speech,  the  literature  highlights that  online  hate 
speech  has  a  cross-border  impact  because  the  internet  has  a  lack  of  limitations  for  its 
dissemination.248 In particular, the literature emphasises that social media and the internet 

247 Ministry of Justice (BE); Cyprus Police (CY); FSM - Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter e.V. (DE); Ministry of Justice (FI); 
French Ministerial Statistical Department (FR); French Ministry of Justice (FR); Office central de lutte contre les crimes contre l'humanité et les 
crimes de haine (OCLCH) / French Ministerial Statistical Department for Internal Security (SSMSI) / French Ministry of Justice (Directorate for 
Criminal Affairs and Pardons) (FR); Office of the Ombudswoman (HR); Ministero della Giustizia (IT); Observatory for Security Against Acts of 
discrimination - Ministry of Interior – Department of Public Security (IT); Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid (NL); Directorate-General for Justice 
Policy (PT); General Inspectorate of Romanian Police (RO); CEJI - A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe (EU); EIGE (EU); and European 
Women's Lobby (EU).  
It is worth noting that this includes 2 responses that mentioned the QAnon Conspiracy page, 2 responses that mentioned the death of George 
Floyd in the United States and the Black Lives Matter movement,247 and 1 response that mentioned the issue of manipulated news and the 
easier translation and distribution of videos and images via the internet. 
248 This is the view of the Italian Ministry of Justice, Victim Support Europe, the European Evangelical Alliance, César Arroyo López and Roberto 
Moreno López in ‘Online Hate Speech’, PRISM, Institute for Social Dialogue, and SELMA Hacking Hate. 

44 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

have widened the reach of every individual to express their opinion and find an audience 
for these views.249  

Other sources refer briefly to the widespread development of social media platforms and 
how these enable hate speech. For example, the Italian Ministry of Justice250 refer to them 
as a new arena for the dissemination of hate speech; Victim Support Europe251 provide that 
the  continued  development  of  online  social  platforms  is  an  increasingly  enabling 
environment  for  hate  speech;  the  European  Evangelical  Alliance252  highlights  that  the 
modern means of communication have resulted in borders losing some of their significance; 
César Arroyo López and Roberto Moreno López in ‘Online Hate Speech’253 emphasise that 
the  internet  provides  users  with  the  capacity  to  express  their  views  and  communicate 
without limits; and PRISM254 provides that social media gives every individual connected to 
such media the ability to express their opinion. This shows that there is a general consensus 
that the development of the internet has led to a reduction of limitations on the dissemination 
of hate speech online.  

Furthermore, two other sources elaborated on this continued development and wider arena 
for hate speech. This includes SELMA Hacking Hate255 which emphasised that those aiming 
to express hate speech can do so more easily in the digital world. Furthermore, the Institute 
for  Social  Dialogue256  explored  this  further  via  a  case  study  illustrating  how  widespread 
online  hate  speech  is.  They  used  social  listening  software  to  gather  data  related  to  the 
hashtag ‘#DefendEurope’ and discovered that financial contributions for the Defend Europe 
team came from the UK, Austria, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy 
and the USA, while the location of tweets in support of the campaign showed that 18% of 
tweets came from France, 18% from Germany, 15% from the USA, 10% from the UK, 6% 
from Italy, 5% from Spain, 4% from Switzerland, and the remainder from a range of other 
European  and  North  American  countries.  This  illustrates  the  simplicity  of  spreading  hate 
speech via the internet and finding persons who sympathise with this kind of speech.  

The ability social media gives to hate groups to widen their audiences  

Additionally, another point of interest is that the internet and social media embolden hate 
groups  by  widening  their  audiences.  This  was  maintained  by  SELMA  Hacking  Hate,  the 
European  Evangelical  Alliance,  the  Council  of  Europe,  Anti-Defamation  League,  and 
Matthew Williams.  

SELMA  Hacking  Hate257  emphasises 
‘historically,  hate  groups  have  been 
that 
technologically sophisticated and often know earlier and better than the authorities or the 
wider public how to use technology in their favour’. Matthew Williams258 specifies that, in 
particular, the far right was quick to use the internet and that the internet has emboldened 
domestic  hate  groups  in  many  countries,  including  the  USA,  the  UK,  Germany,  the 
Netherlands,  Italy  and  Sweden.  An  example  of  this  can  be  seen  from  the  Stormfront 
website, the web’s first major racial hate site which was created in 1996, when less than 

‘Online  Hate  Speech 

249 Ibid. 
250 Ministero della Giustizia, Feedback on Roadmap.  
251 Victim Support Europe, Feedback on Roadmap. 
252 European Evangelical Alliance, Feedback on Roadmap.  
253 César Arroyo López and Roberto Moreno López, ‘Hate Speech in the Online Setting’ in Stavros Assimakopoulos, Fabienne H. Baider and 
Sharon  Millar, 
the  European  Union:  A  Discourse-Analytic  Perspective’,  2017,  available  at: 
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-72604-5.pdf (last accessed 2 July 2021), p. 11.  
254 PRISM, ‘Hate Crime and Hate Speech in Europe: Comprehensive Analysis  of International Law Principles, EU-wide Study and National 
Assessments’,  available  at:  https://sosracismo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Hate-Crime-and-Hate-Speech-in-Europe.-Comprehensive-
Analysis-of-International-Law-Principles-EU-wide-Study-and-National-Assessments.pdf (last accessed 2 July 2021),p. 17.  
255 SELMA Hacking Hate, ‘Hacking Online Hate: Building an Evidence Base for Educators’, see footnote 176, p. 27.  
256 Institute for Social Dialogue, ‘The Fringe Insurgency’, 2017, available at: https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-Fringe-
Insurgency-221017.pdf (last accessed 2 July 2021).  
257 SELMA Hacking Hate, ‘Hacking Online Hate: Building an Evidence Base for Educators’, see footnote 176, p. 23. 
258  Williams  et  al.,  ‘Hate  in  the  Machine:  Anti-Black  and  Anti-Muslim  Social  Media  Posts  as  Predictors  of  Offline  Racially  and  Religiously 
Aggravated Crime’, see footnote 213, p. 95.  

in 

45 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

5%  of  the  EU-27  had  internet  access259.  The  Anti-Defamation  League260  researched  the 
group Soldiers of Odin USA, a branch of the Finnish anti-refugee, vigilante group, and how 
they  have  used social  media,  members  and  supporters  to spread  the  concept to nearby 
Scandinavian and Baltic Countries, to countries who experienced terrorist attacks such as 
France and Belgium, and also to English-speaking countries such as Canada, Australia, the 
USA, the UK, and New Zealand. This research indicates the simplicity afforded by social 
media  for  hate  groups  to  widen  their  audiences  to  a  variety  of  countries  facing  similar 
political situations.   

As  to  the  question  of  why  social  media  is  such  an  effective  tool  for  disseminating  hate 
speech, the Council of Europe261 has emphasised that the anonymity emboldens people to 
be more outrageous, obnoxious, or hateful than how they  would be in real life, while the 
European  Evangelical  Alliance262  maintains  that  the  social  media  algorithms,  and  their 
reported preference for more extreme messages, impact the likelihood of causing harm. In 
general, these seem to indicate that the continued development of the internet and social 
media has resulted in the increase of online hate speech, as the forum has emboldened 
hate groups to widen their audiences and persons wanting to disseminate hate speech in 
general. 

2.4.1.2 Specific considerations with regard to grounds 

Sex and gender  

During the stakeholder consultation, the EIGE and the European Women’s Lobby (‘EWL’) 
provided  further  information  corroborating  the  cross-border  nature  and  impact  of  hate 
speech online. Firstly, the EIGE highlighted the role played by social media in proliferating 
hate and permitting global networking amongst perpetrators. A particular example provided 
is from the Centre for Digital Youth Care263 which highlighted the emergence of the so-called 
Manosphere  and  the  Incel  community:  online  groups  have  been  providing  international 
forums for the promotion and spread of misogyny and hostility towards women as well as 
strong opposition to women’s rights. Furthermore, these groups have connections with the 
xenophobic far-right and alt-right. Secondly, the EWL referred to the Council of Europe’s 
Recommendation on sexism, which states that the ‘internet has provided a new dimension 
for the expression of sexist hate speech, which “may escalate to or incite overtly offensive 
and  threatening  acts,  including  sexual  abuse  or  violence,  rape  or  potentially  lethal 
action”’.264  Moreover,  they  referred  to  the  findings  of  the  European  Parliament’s  Policy 
Department265 which asserts that, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been 
an increase in all forms of violence against women and girls, including sexist hate speech 
and hate crime. This view aligns with that of the EWL’s members.  

The findings of the European Parliament’s Policy Department266 align with the findings of 
the EWL in mapping the increase in all forms of violence against women and girls, including 
sexist hate speech, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.267 Violence against women 

in 

‘The  effects  of  delays 

the  dissemination  and  usage  of  broadband 

259  Marcin  Gryczska, 
https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/v10031-011-0011-4 (last accessed 24 June 2021), p. 194.  
260  Anti-Defamation  League,  ‘Soldiers  of  Odin  USA:  The  Extreme  European  Anti-Refugee  Group  Comes  to  America’,  2016,  available  at: 
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Soldiers-of-Odin-USA-Report-web.pdf (last accessed 7 July 2021).  
261 Council of Europe, ‘Models of Governance of Online Hate Speech’, 2020, available at:  https://rm.coe.int/models-of-governance-of-online-
hate-speech/16809e671d (last accessed 2 July 2021), p. 43.  
262 European Evangelical Alliance, Feedback on Roadmap.  
263 Centre for Digital Youth Care‚ ‘The angry internet: A threat to gender equality, democracy & well-being‘, see footnote 191, pp. 34-47. 
264 Recommendation CM/Rec(2019)1, available at: https://rm.coe.int/cm-rec-2019-1e-sexism/1680a217ca (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 
4. 
265 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64. 
266 Ibid.  
267 European Women’s Lobby, Response to targeted consultation, 2021. 

internet’,  2011,  available  at: 

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

and girls, including gender-based hate speech, is a long-term systemic problem in Europe 
that knows no geographical boundaries. 

It has been observed that the inherent nature of the internet in connecting Member States 
culturally,  financially,  and  politically  means  that  online  sexist  hate  speech  is  also  cross-
border by nature.268 The Appendix to the Council of Europe Recommendation on preventing 
and  combating  sexism  describes  the  context  in  which  the  ‘[i]nternet  has  provided  a  new 
dimension for the expression of sexist hate speech, which ‘may escalate to or incite overtly 
offensive and threatening acts, including sexual abuse or violence, rape or potentially lethal 
action’.269  

Sexual orientation  

As  per  the  stakeholder  consultation,  stakeholders  suggested  that  through  the  increasing 
use of the internet, in particular social media, it is possible to spread hate speech on grounds 
of sexual orientation across the EU.  

Age 

The propagation online of ageist attitudes risks exacerbating the inter-generational digital 
divide, where older people across Europe are less likely to be engaged in the digital realm 
than younger adults.270 As digital literature and participation in the digital sphere improve 
in the older population, there is a heightened risk that older people will become increasingly 
exposed to harmful hate speech online. This may in turn cause older people across Europe 
to  be  more  reluctant  to  take  advantage  of  digital  tools  and  to  engage  in  the  digital 
conversation, thereby continuing to be under-represented in in the online sphere. 

Disability 

According to the Spanish Committee of Representatives of Persons with Disabilities, the 
globalisation  that  constitutes  an  ‘undeniable  reality  in  our  contemporary  society’  has  a 
‘noteworthy  impact  on  hate  speech  and  hate  crime.’  271  The  target  audience  of  online 
offences increases exponentially through their spread on online networking which does not 
stop at country borders.272 

Additionally,  the  Swedish  Disability  Rights  Federation  considers  that  ‘taking  actions  to 
extend the  protection from  hate  speech  and  hate  crime  to  disability  is  urgent.  It  must  be 
covered in the law to protect but also to have an impact on acknowledging each other and 
ourselves  as  equal  human  beings’.273  The  Federation  notes  that  ‘hate  speech  and  hate 
crime on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, age and disability may have a cross-border 
dimension’,  as  seen  through  examples  of  cross-border  harassment  linked  to  these 
grounds.274 

268 Ibid.  
269 CM/Rec(2019)1, see footnote 264, p. 9. 
270 Thomas N. Friemel, ‘The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors’, 2016, New Media & Society 18(2): 
313–331, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444814538648 (last accessed 13 August 2021); Emanuela Sala et 
al, ‘The gray digital divide in social networking site use in Europe: Results from a quantitative study’, 2020, Social Science Computer Review, 
available 
at: 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0894439320909507?casa_token=QZ_8uH_ly0cAAAAA%3At0b0bEOgGYKY9DndEIqCVS6HeZ
VOipnK8x-ofl0Ug224huklP9TUPcLwWDA29GS__CdlsC1H8lOc (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
271 The Spanish Committee of Representatives of Persons with Disabilities, Feedback on the Roadmap. 
272 Ibid.  
273 The Swedish Disability Rights Federation, Feedback on the Roadmap. 
273 Ibid. 
274 Ibid. 

47 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

2.4.2. Cross-border impact of hate speech offline   

2.4.2.1 General considerations 

As  part  of the  targeted  consultation,  with regard to offline  hate  speech, the  stakeholders 
were asked to answer the questions: ‘in your view, can hate speech perpetrated offline have 
a  spillover  impact  across  national  borders’  and  ‘in  what  ways  can  [offline]  hate  speech 
committed in one Member State lead to instances in another’.   

Can hate speech perpetrated offline have a spillover impact across borders? 

Figure 12 – Stakeholder responses to 'in your view, can hate speech [offline] have a 
spillover impact across borders' 

4

8

68

Yes

I don't know

No

The majority of stakeholders (85%) perceive the spillover impact of offline hate speech as 
a  plausible  phenomenon,  with  only  a  small  number  of  stakeholders  (5%)  perceiving  the 
opposite. Albeit, it can be seen that less stakeholders perceived offline hate speech to have 
a  cross-border  nature  and  impact  when  compared  to  that  of  online  hate  speech  (see 
subsection 2.4.1.). 

In what ways can hate speech be committed in one Member State be committed in 
another? 

This question included two options that involved online hate speech, which were covered in 
subsection 2.4.1., and three options that involved offline hate speech, which are covered in 
the current subsection 2.4.2. In total, there were 85 responses to this question, with each 
stakeholder requested to answer this question.  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Figure 13 – Number of stakeholder responses to ‘in what ways can hate speech 
committed [offline] in one Member State lead to instances in another’ 

60

65

Hateful messages developed and
propagated by networks with
members from several countries
(within or outside the EU)

The ideologies behind hate speech
messages are developed
internationally and are cross-border
phenomena

Number of responses

2
Other

Stakeholders  perceive  that  those  acts  of  offline  hate  speech  which  are  developed 
internationally,  either  via  members  or  messages,  are  more  likely  to  lead  to  cross-border 
instances of hate speech than the expression of hateful messages in the media.  

The further elaboration from stakeholders on the cross-border impact of offline hate 
speech 

Some of the stakeholders provided examples of these points. For example, one stakeholder 
emphasised that the ideology of the far-right Greek organisation ‘Golden Dawn’ has found 
sympathisers in Cyprus as well, thus, indicating the spillover effect that offline hate speech 
can  have.275  Another  example  that  was  provided  was  that  of  the  spillover  of  the  ‘Great 
Replacement Theory’ in the Member States, with the specific case of the adoption of this 
theory  by  a  political  party  in  Croatia.276  A  final  example  provided  by  two  stakeholders, 
concerned  the  hate  speech  that  occurred  as  a  result  of  the  ratification  of  the  Istanbul 
Convention and its instigation of homophobic hate speech.277  

As  regard  other  sources,  the  principal  focus  of  the  literature  with  regard  to  offline  hate 
speech relates to the dissemination of conspiracy theories, which results in larger amounts 
of offline hate speech in the Member States on this basis.  

The wide dissemination of conspiracy theories 

A  common  recurrence  within  the  literature  is  that  the  wide  dissemination  of  conspiracy 
theories  stemming  from  abroad  via  the  internet  results  in  larger  numbers  of  offline  hate 
speech in the Member States. This is a view shared by the Commission, Inach, the UN, the 
Specialised  Cyber-Activists  Network  (‘sCAN’),  and  the  Tony  Blair  Institute  for  Global 
Change. It is worth noting that these conspiracies do spread via the internet – however, the 
hate speech that these conspiracy theories facilitate occurs offline.  

The Commission278 considers that in spreading this type of propaganda, hate speech is also 
being spread. Moreover, without necessarily resorting to violence, these kinds of theories 
nevertheless  popularise  xenophobia,  authoritarianism,  scapegoating  and  conspiracism. 

275 The Office of the Commissioner for Administration and Protection of Human Rights (Ombudsman) (CY).  
276 Centre for Peace Studies (HR).  
277 Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BG) and Human Rights Monitoring Institute (LT).  
278 Francesco Farinelli, ‘Conspiracy theories and right-wing extremism – Insights and recommendations for P/CVE’, Commission, 2021, available 
at: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2021-04/ran_conspiracy_theories_and_right-wing_2021_en.pdf (last accessed 2 July 2021), 
p. 11.  

49 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

The  spread  of  propaganda  and  conspiracy  theories  can  be  implied  to  popularise  hate 
speech  and  the  dissemination  of  the  mentioned  concepts.  Inach279  have  focused  on  the 
increase of conspiracy theories and, thus, hate speech as a result of COVID-19, in particular 
through  theories  that  COVID-19  is  China’s  biological  weapon,  the  great  replacement 
theory,280 and anti-Semitic (and adjacent) conspiracy theories281. Furthermore, sCAN also 
looked at conspiracy theories, new world order and antisemitism increasing as a result of 
the  COVID-19  pandemic.282  Similarly,  the  Tony  Blair  Institute  for  Global  Change283  also 
focused on far-right movements and how these have reacted to COVID-19, emphasising 
the spike in online and offline hate incidents against certain individuals as result of these 
conspiracy  theories.  The  UN284  has  pointed  out  the  link  between  conspiracy  theories 
attributing  the  spread  of  COVID-19  to  minority  groups  and  the  resulting  fuelling  of 
discriminatory speech against such individuals. The fact that the majority of these bodies 
express/consider this idea as related to COVID-19 depicts the changing dynamic brought 
about by the pandemic with regard to the dissemination and ideas and the link this has to 
offline hate speech.  

2.4.2.2 Specific considerations with regard to ground of sex and gender 

Gender identity and sex characteristics  

It has been indicated that the visibility of the existence of intersex people has increased in 
the  past few  years.  Intersex  people have increasingly  become  the  target of  hate speech 
expressed  by  groups  that  operate  cross-nationally  and  are  part  of  the  anti-gender 
movement and/or religious fundamentalist groups.285  

279  Tamás  Berecz,  ‘COVID-19  –  A  Plague  of  Racism  and  Conspiracy  Theories’,  INACH,  2020,  available  at:  https://www.inach.net/wp-
content/uploads/COVID_paper_.pdf (last accessed 2 July 2021), pp. 2; 12-17.  
280  The  great  replacement  theory  is  a  far-right  conspiracy  theory  that  concerns  white  people  being  culturally  and  physically  pushed  out  by 
immigrants with different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. 
281 The anti-Semitic (and adjacent) conspiracy theories concerning Covid-19 relate to the idea that the virus is not real, and it is just a hoax 
created by the Jews for different purposes. Other theories believe that the virus exists, but it was deliberately created by  Jews to reach their 
malignant goals. 
282  sCAN,  ‘Hate  Speech  trends  during  the  Covid-19  pandemic  in  a  digital  and  globalised  age’,  available  at:  http://scan-project.eu/wp-
content/uploads/sCAN-Analytical-Paper-Hate-speech-trends-during-the-Covid-19-pandemic-in-a-digital-and-globalised-age.pdf (last accessed 
2 July 2021), p. 7.  
283 Cristina Ariza, ‘From the Fringes to the Forefront: How far-right movements across the globe have reacted to Covid-19’, Tony Blair Institute 
https://institute.global/sites/default/files/2020-
for 
07/Tony%20Blair%20Institute%2C%20From%20the%20Fringes%20to%20the%20Forefront%2C%20Far%20Right%20Movements%20and%
20Covid-19.pdf (last accessed 2 July 2021), p. 4.  
284  ‘United  Nations  Guidance  Note  on  Addressing  and  Countering  COVID-19  related  Hate  Speech’,  11  May  2020,  available  at: 
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Guidance%20on%20COVID-19%20related%20Hate%20Speech.pdf  (last  accessed  2 
July 2021), p. 2.  
285 For example, Organisation Intersex International Europe e.V. (OII Europe). 

available 

Change, 

Global 

2020, 

July 

at: 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

3. Hate Crime 

3.1. Scale 

3.1.1.  General considerations 

Within this subsection, data gathered from the stakeholder consultation, as well as other 
sources  will  be  presented.  For  data  gathered  within  the  stakeholder  consultation,  the 
number  of  hate  crime  cases  reported,  investigated,  and  convictions  will  be  outlined.  As 
mentioned in subsection 2.1.1., the data presented is not harmonised and, therefore, is not 
comparable. This is because it represents data from a variety of sources, such as national 
authorities and civil society organisations, and the methods used to collect such data varies 
from country to country and between stakeholders within the same country. In this regard, 
the size of each country is a relevant factor, as the data is not presented per number of 
inhabitants. The data presented in Table 9 below represents the latest available data from 
the Member States, which does not necessarily represent the same year (e.g. 2020).  

Table 9 – The scale of hate crimes in the Member States, recorded in terms of 
reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions 

Country 

Year of data 

Cases 
reported 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Estonia  
Finland286 
France 
Germany 
Greece289 
Hungary 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands291 
Poland 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia292 
Spain 
Sweden293 

2020 
2020 
2020 
2018 
2019 
2019 
2020 
2020 
2019 
2020 
2019 
2019 
2019 
2020 
2020 
2020 
2019 
2019 

87 
22 
134 
1 
1237 
1870287 
10240288 
169 

11 
42 
1918 
972 
96 
5 
122 
1502 
7092 

87 
19 

10 
4 

15 
10 

1502 

18 

52 
1 
22 
311 

2 
132290 

597 

74 

286  Data  from  Country  Fiche  for  FI  (Source:  for  cases  reported  the  data  comes  from  Hate  crime  reported  to  Police  in  Finland  in  2018;  the 
prosecuted cases and convictions are based on statistics of Statistics Finland). 
287 Data from the Country Fiche for FR (Source: National Action Plan to Promote and Combat Anti-LGBT+ Hatred and Discrimination 2020-
2023). 
288 Data from the Country Fiche for DE (Source: Federal Ministry of the Interior – politically motivated crime). 
289 Data from the Country Fiche for EL (Source: annual reports of the Racist Violence Reporting Network (RVRN) and the Greece section of 
‘Hate crime reporting’ conducted by the ODIHR). 
290 Data from the Country Fiche for HU (Source: OSCE Hate Crime Reporting (ODIHR)).  
291 Data from the Country Fiche for NL, data registered to police. The Public Prosecution Service has also registered 252 hate crime cases in 
2020 and 221 cases in 2019. 
292 Data from the Country Fiche for SK (Source: Statistical yearbook of the General prosecutor’s office). 
293 Data from the Country Fiche for SE (Source: Official statistics from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå)). 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

The data for 18 Member States294 has been submitted with regard to the scale of hate crime 
occurrence.  For  12  Member  States295,  the  data  was  gathered  during  the  targeted 
stakeholder consultation. For the remaining 6 Member States296 data was extracted from 
the country fiches completed by National Legal Experts. For 2 Member States297 data from 
the targeted stakeholder consultation was supplemented with data from the country fiches. 

According  to the  literature  collected,  hate crime is  increasing  in scale across the  EU,  as 
supported by the findings of the European Parliament’s Policy Department, the ECRI, and 
FRA.  

Much like hate speech, it has been noted by the European Parliament’s Policy Department 
that hate crime has steadily been on the rise in the past decade.298 The data collected by 
institutions such as FRA consistently show that hate crimes are a daily reality throughout 
the Member States.299 For example, the ECRI Annual Report for 2019 found that members 
of national, regional or local governments, parliamentarians and political leaders who openly 
support  marginalised  groups,  such  as  migrants  or  LGBTIQ  persons,  are  frequently 
subjected to  hate speech or  hate-motivated  violence.300  Furthermore,  FRA  surveys  have 
shown  that  the  proportions  of  Roma  and  Travellers,  Jews,  Muslims,  people  of  African 
descent, immigrants and descendants of immigrants, and LGBTIQ people across the EU 
who  experience  violations  of  their  fundamental  rights  to  non-discrimination  and  personal 
safety and integrity are continuously high.301 

Underreporting  

As previously mentioned, it is clear from the other sources that the underreporting of hate 
crime implies that the scale of the phenomenon remains uncertain. The principal reasons 
provided  for  underreporting  are  the  lack  of  visibility  of  official  statistics,  the  disparities 
between victim surveys and official statistics, the lack of trust in the authorities, and the lack 
of support for victims. These points are acknowledged by FRA, the European Parliament’s 
Policy Department, and the EU High Level Group. Furthermore, a variety of examples are 
provided by ECRI, and Lifecycle of a Hate Crime.   

While people in the EU experience hatred on a daily basis, hate crime and hate-motivated 
harassment  often  remain  invisible  in  official  statistics  and,  thus,  outside  of  the  public 
consciousness.302 FRA surveys consistently show high levels of underreporting; therefore, 
it is not surprising that annual official figures at the national level do not reflect the actual 
prevalence of hate crime.303 Moreover, there is a great degree of variation in the depth and 
breadth  of  hate  crime  recording  and  data  collection  mechanisms  in  the  Member  States, 
along  with  gaps  in  national  recording  mechanisms  which  constitute  an  obstacle  to 
comprehensively addressing hate crimes.304  

The EU High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance 
stated that proper identification and recording of hate crime is the first step in ensuring that 

294 CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK. 
295 CY, CZ, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, LT, MT, PL, RO, SI. 
296 DE, EL, FI, NL, SE, SK. 
297 HU, FR. 
298 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p. 13. 
299  FRA,  ‘Opinion  on  the  Framework  Decision  on  Racism  and  Xenophobia  –  with  special  attention  to  the  rights  of  victims  of  crime’,  2013, 
available  at:  https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-opinion-2-2013-framework-decision-racism-xenophobia_en.pdf  (last  accessed  19 
August 2021), p. 11. 
300 ECRI, ‘Annual Report on ECRI’s Activities covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2019’, see footnote 130, p. 10.  
301 FRA, ‘Encouraging hate crime reporting – The role of law enforcement and other authorities’, see footnote 214, p. 21. 
302 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-hate-crime-recording_en.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 9. 
303 Ibid.  
304  EU  High  Level  Group  on  combating  racism,  xenophobia  and  other  forms  of  intolerance,  ‘Improving  the  recording  of  hate  crime  by  law 
enforcement authorities’, 2017, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/ec-2017-key-guiding-principles-recording-hate-
crime_en.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p.4. 

collection 

available 

reporting 

practice 

across 

2018, 

crime 

‘Hate 

FRA, 

data 

EU’, 

and 

the 

at: 

52 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

offences  are  investigated,  prosecuted,  and  sanctioned.  Thus,  appropriate  mechanisms 
need to be in place to enable law enforcement officials to identify and record the potential 
bias motivation of an offence. This will also help ensuring that victims and witnesses can 
report hate crimes to law enforcement authorities with confidence.305  

Additionally, official statistics often show a small number of hate crimes if compared with 
victim  surveys,  proving  that  latency  is  high.306  Several  factors  are  attributed  to  this 
phenomenon. For example, in the reporting phase many cases are ‘lost’ where victims do 
not turn to the police, or reports are withdrawn. The reasons for this may include ‘lack of 
knowledge of how to report; lack of knowledge that the crime was a hate crime; distrust in 
the  police;  self-blame  for  the  attack;  fear  of  re-victimisation,  such  as  retaliation  by 
perpetrators  if  they  report  the  crime;  fear  of  secondary  victimisation  during  the  criminal 
justice process; feelings of shame about being victimised; unwillingness to come out as a 
member of the LGBTIQ community before state authorities; language barriers; fear of being 
deported in case of undocumented people; disabled people’s weak position in representing 
their  own  interests.’307  Furthermore,  in  the  investigation  phase,  lack  of  understanding  of 
what constitutes a hate crime; inadequate recognition of the different victim groups that may 
be targeted; lack of training in how to interview victims of hate crimes; failure of witnesses 
to come forward; and institutional discrimination may lead to exemption of perpetrators.308 

The 2017 FRA report on ‘Ensuring justice for hate crime victims: professional perspectives’ 
found that there was a lack of trust in authorities, since many interviewees were discouraged 
from  reporting  as  they  considered  that  police  would not  treat them  in  a sympathetic  and 
non-discriminatory manner. Interviewees further indicated that police and judiciary need to 
take  hate  crime  more  seriously.  Furthermore,  the  report  noted  a  lack  of  profound 
understanding of the legal concepts and categories defining the phenomenon of hate crime 
as  well  as  a  lack  of  commitment  to  identify,  prosecute  and  impose  sentences  for  hate 
crime.309  

These occurrences are observed throughout the Member States. Therefore, the following 
Table 10 outlines the data collection that occurs in selected Member States. 

Table 10 – The divergent methods of data collection in a handful of Member States 

Austria 

Bulgaria 
Finland 

Hungary 

There is no comprehensive and systematic collection of data on hate speech and 
hate-motivated  violence,  with  the  level  of  underreporting  among  vulnerable 
groups being a serious issue. Accounts of alleged practices of ethnic profiling by 
police continue to be reported.310  

There is no special system for recording or flagging hate crimes.311 
Underreporting  is  an  issue  among  vulnerable  groups  and  the  relatively  small 
number  of  prosecutions  fails  to  effectively  deter  hate  crimes.  The  level  of 
knowledge  and  expertise  among  law  enforcement  bodies  and  the  judiciary  in 
identifying  hate  speech  and  hate  crimes  does  not  always  suffice  for  proper 
identification of these crimes.312 
It is not possible to flag potential hate crimes at the moment of recording.313 

FRA, 

305 Ibid. 
306 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p.101.  
307 Ibid. 
308 Ibid.  
309 
at: 
victims: 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-ensuring-justice-hate-crime-victims-summary_en.pdf  (last  accessed  19  August 
2021), p.2. 
310 ECRI Report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), see footnote 27, p.7. 
311 FRA, ‘Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU’, see footnote 37, p.33. 
312 ECRI Report on Finland (fifth monitoring cycle), 2019, available at:  https://rm.coe.int/fifth-report-on-finland/1680972fa7 (last accessed 19 
August 2021), p. 9. 
313 FRA, ‘Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU’, see footnote 37, p.57. 

perspectives’, 

professional 

‘Ensuring 

available 

justice 

2016, 

crime 

hate 

for 

53 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Ireland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Sweden 

As regards police recording of crimes, there is a distinct lack of access to training 
or documentation on protocols for recording a discriminatory motive, resulting in 
variation and uncertainty in interpreting recording categories.314 
There  is  no  coherent  and  systematic  data  collection  on  hate  speech  and  hate 
motivated violence.315 
The ECRI report observed that many hate crimes go unreported to the authorities, 
partly because ‘victims do not trust the police, a sufficiently broad definition of the 
notion of hate crime is lacking, and investigations are not thorough enough.’316 
There  is  a  marked  difference  between  self-reported  victimisation  and  reported 
hate  crimes.  There  are  difficulties  for  the  police  to  correctly  identify  a  crime, 
leading to hate crimes being recorded as ‘ordinary’ crimes and general lack of 
reporting by victims as reasons for the difference.317 In 2017, 6,415 hate crimes 
were  recorded  by  police,  whilst  the  Swedish  crime  survey  reported  that 
‘approximately 145,000 individuals (1.9 per cent) in the population (aged 16–79) 
were victims of a total of 255,000 xenophobic hate crimes that year’.318 

Finally, another aspect impacting hate crime reporting rates is the support offered to victims. 
The  FRA  ‘Victims  of  crime  support  services’  report  shows  that  Member  States  are  less 
advanced in the field of support for victims of hate crime in comparison to other categories 
of  crimes.319  Similarly,  the  FRA  report  on  ‘Ensuring  justice  for  hate  crime  victims: 
professional perspectives’ found that ‘the fragmented and patchy nature of available support 
services emerges as a factor significantly impeding victims’ access to justice’.320  

3.1.2. Specific considerations with regard to grounds  

Sex and gender  

The statistical data on the number of recorded cases of hate crime on the ground of sex 
and gender provided by the stakeholders from Member States in the period 2015-2020 is 
very limitedin various aspects. Stakeholders in just three Member States321 provided data 
on reported cases, which corresponds to the number of investigated cases, while none of 
them  provided  data  on  convictions.  However,  even  in  this  category,  none  of  the 
stakeholders provided data for the entire period of 2015-2020 as requested in the survey.  

Table 11 – The scale of hate crime on the ground of sex/gender, in the Member 
States, recorded in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions 

Country 

Year of data 

Cases reported 

France 
Romania 
Spain 

2017 
2018-2020 
2015-2019 

162,940322 
1 
238 

1 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

The  above  table  outlines  the  data  in  France,  Romania,  and  Spain  which  appear  to  be 
unreliable.  It  can  be  inferred  that  this  is  fragmentary  data.  This  can  be  seen  from  the 

314  Amanda  Hayes,  Jennifer  Schweppe,  ‘Lifecycle  of  a  hate  crime  –  Country  report  for  Ireland’,  2017,  available  at:  https://www.iccl.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Country-Report-for-Ireland.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 22. 
315 ECRI Report on Romania (fifth monitoring cycle), see footnote 35, p. 9. 
316  ECRI  Report  on  the  Slovak  Republic  (sixth  monitoring  cycle),  2020,  available  at:  https://rm.coe.int/ecri-6th-report-on-the-slovak-
republic/1680a0a088 (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 7. 
317 Görel Granström, Karin Åström, ‘Lifecycle of a hate crime – Country report for Sweden’, Umea University, 2017, available at: http://umu.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1244821/FULLTEXT01.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 39. 
318 Ibid.  
319  FRA,  ‘Victims  of  crime  support  services  report’,  2015,  available  at:  https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2015-victims-crime-eu-
support_en_0.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 14.  
320 FRA, ‘Ensuring justice for hate crime victims: professional perspectives’, see footnote 309, p.2. 
321 FR, ES, RO. 
322 According to the targeted consultation of the French Ministerial Statistical Department for Internal Security, these are ‘victims of sexism’.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

disparities  in  the  data  –  for  example,  France  having  reported  162,940  cases,  with  a 
population  of  67  million  persons,  Spain  having  reported  238  cases,  with  a  population  of 
almost 47 million, and Romania having reported one case, with a population of 19.4 million. 
These numbers indicate that there is a clear difference in reporting techniques across these 
Member States.  

It should be considered that underreporting is a major problem in collecting data about the 
incidents  of  hate  speech  or  hate  crime.  The  stakeholder  responses  containing  empirical 
data hardly mention the occurrence of hate crime on grounds of sex; this could possibly be 
due to the dissociation of gender-based hate speech from other forms of online violence 
against women.  

At the same time, gender-based violence – violence directed against a woman because she 
is a woman or violence that affects women disproportionately – also remains underreported 
in the EU, with: 55% of women having been sexually harassed, 33% having experienced 
physical  and/or  sexual  violence,  and  22%  reporting  violence  by  an  intimate  partner.323 
Despite  underreporting,  the  stakeholders  and  the  Commission  consider  gender-based 
violence as an omnipresent phenomenon across the EU.324 Moreover, the emerging data 
shows that since the outbreak of COVID-19, violence against women has increased.325  

Gender identity and sex characteristics  

The statistical data, over the period of 2015-2020, on the number of recorded cases of hate 
crime  offences  on  the  ground  of  gender  identity  and  sex  characteristics  provided  by  the 
stakeholders  from  Member  States  is  significantly  limited.  Stakeholders  in  five  Member 
States326  provided  data  on  reported  cases,  while  the  data  on  investigated  cases  and 
convictions is rudimentary. Even in this category, only one stakeholder327 provided data for 
the entire period of 2015-2020 as requested in the questionnaire.  

Table 12 - The scale of hate crime on the ground of gender identity/sex 
characteristics in the Member States, recording in terms of cases reported, 
investigated, and convictions 

Country 

Year of data 

Cases reported 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

Croatia 
Germany 
Italy 
Malta 
Romania 

2020 
2020 
2015-2020 
2020 
2018-2020 

1 
596 
7 
5 
1 

1 

In terms of the respondents in the FRA 2020 EU-LGBTI II survey, trans (48%) and intersex 
(42%)  persons  indicated  the  highest rates  of  harassment.328  Furthermore,  in  this  survey, 
respondents were also asked whether they had experienced a physical or sexual assault in 
the past five years due to being LGBTI (Figure 14), whether intersex and trans persons had 
experiences  harassment  in  the  12  months  before  the  survey  (Figure  15),  and  whether 
intersex and trans persons had reported their most recent incident of discrimination (Figure 
16): 

323  Commission, Violence  against  women  and domestic violence: Evaluation  /  Fitness Check Roadmap  -  Ares(2020)3508282, available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12472-Violence-against-women-and-domestic-violence-fitness-check-
of-EU-legislation_en (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 1. 
324 Ibid.  
325 Ibid. 
326 HR, DE, IT, MT, RO. 
327 IT. 
328 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83, p. 38 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Figure 14 – Number of respondents who experienced a physical and/or sexual attack 
for being trans or intersex, in the five years before the 2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way 
to go for LGBTI equality’ (%) 

Intersex

Trans

EU-28

26

24

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of those who experienced a physical and/or sexual attack

Figure 15 – Number of Trans and Intersex persons experienced harassment, in the 
12 months before the survey, as according to the 2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to 
go for LGBTI equality’ 

Intersex

Trans

EU-28

0

10

20

30

42

48

38

40

50

60

Number of those who experienced harrassment (%)

Figure 16– Number of Trans and Intersex respondents who reported their most recent 
incident of discrimination, as according to the 2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to go 
for LGBTI equality’ 

Intersex

Trans

EU-28

7

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of those who reported their most recent incident of discrimination (%)

11

The  above  figures  highlight  that  physical  and  sexual  violence,  harassment  and 
discrimination  towards  trans  and  intersex  persons  is  widespread.  Furthermore,  when 
considering that the numbers of intersex and trans persons who have experienced physical 
and/or sexual attacks is way beyond the EU-28 average for LGBTIQ persons, this highlights 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

that hate crime is a common experience among these persons.329 At the same time, the 
number of respondents who reported their most recent incident of discrimination is much 
lower than the EU-28 average. 

The results of another study on gender-based hate crimes show that sexual offences are 
common  and  that  there  is  a  heightened  risk  of,  inter  alia,  targeting  individuals  with  a 
transgender identity.330 Moreover, another study suggests that trans people are three times 
more likely to experience a hate crime than lesbians and gays.331 

In addition, underreporting is a recurrent issue according to the stakeholders citing the FRA 
2020 EU-LGBTI II survey, which shows that just 16% intersex and 14% trans respondents 
reported the most recent physical or sexual attack to the police and even less in the case 
of harassment incidents.332 

Furthermore, in countries experiencing radicalisation and homophobia, hate crime laws or 
provisions  often  remain  unused  or  even  backfire  –  either  by  reducing  the  omnipresent 
phenomenon  to  non-existence  or  irrelevance,  or  by  instituting  proceedings  that  are  not 
favourable to the victims, but to the defendants.333 

Sexual orientation 

The number of recorded cases of hate crime offences on the ground of sexual orientation 
identified by the stakeholders from Member States, over the period of 2015-2020, is limited 
in  various  aspects.  Stakeholders  in  eight  Member  States334  provided  data  on  reported 
cases,  while the  data  on  investigated  cases  and convictions  is  rudimentary.  Even  in this 
category,  only  two  stakeholders335  provided  data  for  the  entire  period  of  2015-2020  as 
requested  in  the  questionnaire.  The  additional  statistics  for  six  Member  States336  were 
collected as part of the national Country Fiches.  

Table 13 – The scale of hate crime on the ground of sexual orientation in the 
Member States, recording in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and 
convictions 

Country 

Year of data 

Cases reported 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

Belgium 
Croatia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Hungary 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Malta 

2019 
2020 
2019 
2019 
2019 
2015-2020 
2015-2020 
2019 
2019 

52337 
15 
81 
1,870338 
576 
1 
108 

4 

1339 

of 

hate 

2020, 

gendered 

International 

329 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83, p. 47.  
330 Hannah Mason-Bish, Marian Duggan, ‘Some men deeply hate women, and express that hatred freely’: Examining victims’ experiences and 
perceptions 
26(1), 
crime’, 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269758019872903 (last accessed 19 November 2021), p. 113. 
331 Turner, Whittle, Combs, ‘Transphobic hate crime in the European Union’, see footnote 72, p. 1. 
332 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83, p. 47. 
333 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p. 114. 
334 HR, FI, DE, HU, IT, MT, RO, ES. 
335 HU, IT. 
336 BE, FR, LT, NL, PT, SE. 
337 Data from Country Fiche for BE (Source: UNIA 2019). 
338  Data from Country Fiche for  FR  (Source:  Ministry of the  Interior, National  Action Plan to Promote and Combat Anti-LGBTI+  Hatred  and 
Discrimination 2020-2023). 
339 Data from Country Fiche for LT (Source: Information Technology and Communication Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the 
Republic of Lithuania).   

Victimology; 

Review 

of 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Netherlands 
Romania 
Portugal 
Spain 
Sweden 

2020 
2018-2020 
2019 
2015-2020 
2018 

73340 
2 

278 
756342 

1341 

These data are fragmentary and do not seem to necessarily reflect reality. This is because 
they seems to provide the opposite result as the FRA 2020 EU-LGBTI II survey, according 
to  which  Romania  (along  with  Poland)  has  the  highest  percentage  of  responses  about 
physical or sexual attacks motivated by the victim being LGBTI (15%).343 

As  mentioned  previously,  underreporting  is  common  according  to  different  stakeholders 
citing  the  FRA  2020  EU-LGBTI  II  survey,  which  shows  that  just  8-19%  lesbian,  gay  and 
bisexuals (LGB) reported the most recent physical or sexual attack to the police.344 Please 
see subsection 2.1.2. for a breakdown of this data. Furthermore, previously FRA indicated 
underreporting and the lack of statistics on hate crimes on the grounds of sexual orientation 
and  gender  identity  as  an  issue  across  the  Member  States.345  The  main  reason  for 
underreporting is the victims’ lack of trust in the efficiency of law enforcement authorities.346 
Additionally, a 2014 EU-wide survey by FRA showed  very low levels of reporting among 
respondents who said that they were victims of violence or harassment – only 22 % of the 
most  serious  incidents  of  violence  and  6%  of  harassment  incidents,  experienced  by 
respondents  during  a  5-year  period  committed  because  of  their  sexual  orientation,  were 
brought to the attention of the police.347 

In 2020, a total of 93,079 LGBT respondents completed the questionnaire for the FRA 2020 
EU-LGBTI II survey, which included questions on their own experiences and perceptions of 
discrimination, hate crime and life as an LGBT person in Europe.  

The below figure indicates those persons who had experienced harassment due to being 
LGB, in the 12 months before the survey.  

for 

NL 

from 

Data 

Fiche 

Inflow 

Public 

Country 

(Source: 

Services, 

Prosecutor 

340 
at: 
https://www.om.nl/documenten/publicaties/discriminatie/lecd/cijfers-in-beeld/cijfers-in-beeld-2021 (last accessed 19 November 2021)). Please 
note that this are provided as percentages and as a result, this is an approximate figure. 
341  Data  from  Country  Fiche  for  PT  (Source:  Annual  Report  of  Internal  Security  (RASI)  for  Portugal  in  2020,  available  at: 
https://www.portugal.gov.pt/download-ficheiros/ficheiro.aspx?v=%3d%3dBQAAAB%2bLCAAAAAAABAAzNDQ1NAUABR26oAUAAAA%3d 
(last accessed 19 November 2021). 
342 Data from Country Fiche for SE (Source: Official statistics from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå), Report 2019:13, 
Available  at:  https://www.bra.se/download/18.bbb8316de12eace227048/1614334407813/2019_13_Hatbrott%20_2018.pdf  (last  accessed  19 
November 2021).  
343 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83, p. 47. 
344 Ibid. 
345 FRA, ‘Protection  against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics in the EU, Comparative 
legal analysis’, see footnote 86, p. 37. 
346 Ibid., p. 64. 
347 FRA, ‘European Union lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender survey’, 2014, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-eu-lgbt-
survey-main-results_tk3113640enc_1.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p.11. 

available 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Figure 17 – Number of respondents who experienced harassment due to being 
LGB, in the 12 months before the 2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to go for LGBTI 
equality’ 

Bisexual men

Bisexual women

Gay

Lesbian

EU-28

30

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of those who experienced harrassment (%)

41

38

38

40

45

The  above  figure  highlights  that  the  harassment  experienced  by  LGB  persons  is 
widespread, especially when considering that 41% (2 in 5) persons who are lesbian have 
experienced harassment in the 12 months prior to the survey. Furthermore, with the EU-28 
in  general  (please  note  this  statistic  includes  trans  and  intersex  persons),  this  is  an 
experience shared by 38% (19 in 50) persons in the past 12 months before the survey.348 

According to the OSCE ODIHR findings in 2019, sexual orientation/gender identity was the 
third  most  common  ground  for  a  hate  crime  reported.  This  was  behind  racism  and 
xenophobia and bias against Roma and Sinti persons.349 

Furthermore, according to the aforementioned FRA 2020 EU-LGBTI II survey, a significant 
amount of LGB persons experienced a physical and/or sexual attack for being LGB, in the 
five  years  before  the  survey.  The  below  figure  depicts  the  widespread  nature  of  this 
phenomenon:  

Figure 18 – Number of respondents who experienced a physical and/or sexual attack 
for being LGB, in the five years before the 2020 FRA survey, ‘A long way to go for 
LGBTI equality’ (%) 

Bisexual men

Bisexual women

Gay

Lesbian

EU-28

8

10

10

12

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of those who experienced a physical and/or sexual attack

The  above  figure  highlights  that  physical  and  sexual  violence  towards  LGB  persons  is 
widespread, especially when considering that in total for almost all these groups, just over 

349 ODIHR finding in 2019 that sexual orientation/gender identity was the third most common ground for a hate crime reported: ODIHR, ‘2019 
Hate Crime Data Now Available!’, 2019, available at: https://hatecrime.osce.org/infocus/2019-hate-crime-data-now-available (last accessed 19 
August 2021).  

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

1 in 10 LGB persons have been physically and/or sexually attacked due to their identity over 
the five years before the survey.350 

Furthermore, the same survey asked LGB persons why they did not report their most recent 
physical  or  sexual  attack  to  the  police.  19  to  26%  of  lesbian,  gay  and  bisexual  (LGB) 
respondents said they did not report the most recent physical or sexual attack out of fear of 
a homophobic and/or transphobic reaction.351 This clearly shows the underreporting issue.  

Age 

During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  only  one  stakeholder  provided  information  on  the 
number  of  cases  reported  concerning  hate  crime  on  the  ground  of  age.  This  was  the 
Spanish Public Administration who stressed that in 2019, there were nine cases reported 
concerning hate crime on the ground of age.352  

Whilst there is a paucity of studies on rates of age-motivated hate crime, there is significantly 
more data on the related concept of elder abuse. A recent meta-analysis of 52 published 
studies  from  across  28  countries  found  that  the  global  prevalence  of  elder  abuse  in 
community  settings  was  15.7%  or  about  one  out  of  six  older  adults.353  Older  men  and 
women were at similar risks of victimisation. The authors of the meta-analysis observed that 
the  ‘findings  of  this  study  strengthen  the  case  for  global  action  to  expand  efforts  for 
preventing  and  supporting  victims  of  abuse.’354  Another  systematic  meta-analysis  of  55 
published studies on levels of elder abuse in institutional settings found significantly higher 
levels than in the community setting.355 Prevalence estimates reported by older residents 
were 33.4% for psychological abuse, 14.1% for physical abuse, 13.8% for financial abuse, 
11.6% for neglect and 1.9% for sexual abuse. Higher risk of institutional based elder abuse 
was found for residents who were female, had a cognitive impairment or disability or were 
older than 74 years of age. The authors of the report recommended that ‘[g]iven the rapid 
ageing of the population, the findings of this study strengthen the case for global action to 
expand efforts in researching, preventing and supporting victims of institutional abuse.’356 

A  lack  of  data  on  levels  of  elder  abuse  in  Europe  further  complicates  the  process  of 
identifying  the  level  of  age-related  hate  crime.  As  mentioned  above,  ‘[e]lder  abuse,  a 
category that can cover both hate speech and hate crime towards older people, remains a 
hidden  reality  despite  the  worrying  levels  of  prevalence  across  Europe.’357  The  failure  to 
accurately capture the levels of abuse is, according to AGE Platform Europe, due to ageism 
which ‘leads to overlooking the consequences it has on older people and not addressing it 
with the same level of seriousness and determination as other forms of crime and human 
rights violations.’358 

According  to  AGE  Platform  Europe,  there  is  an underreporting  issue  characterising  age-
based hate crime due to engrained ageism within society and the agencies of the criminal 
justice system, as a well as a reluctance to report amongst older victims due to stigma and 
fear of negative repercussions.359 Lack of knowledge of rights and how to file a complaint, 
as well as fear of shame, loss of affection and fear of more abuse all lead to underreporting, 
especially where the perpetrator is a caregiver or someone close to the victim. Moreover, 
police and justice enforcement bodies are more likely not to take older people experiencing 

350 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83, p. 47. 
351 Ibid, p. 49. 
352 Spanish Public Administration, Response to stakeholder consultation, 2021.  
353 Yon et al, ‘Elder abuse prevalence in community settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, see footnote 93, p. e152. 
354 Ibid, p. e155. 
355 Yon et al, ‘Elder abuse prevalence in community settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, see footnote 93, p. 61.  
356 Ibid, p. 66., 
357 AGE Platform Europe, Feedback to Roadmap, p.1. 
358 Ibid. 
359 Ibid. 

60 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

violence and abuse seriously, as seen in cases where social workers fail to label a case as 
abuse  if  the  victim  is  older.  Consequently,  the  invisibility  and  lack  of  protection  of  older 
victims is exacerbated by the lack of awareness of age as a ground that might incite hate 
crimes.360 

No available data from the Member States that include age as a protected characteristic 
when it comes to hate crime were found by the national legal experts. The OSCE database 
on hate crime does not include age as a potential bias that can lead to violence, abuse, 
exploitation and other hate crimes.361 

Disability 

The statistical data, over the period of 2015-2020, on the number of recorded cases of hate 
crime offences on the ground of disability provided by the stakeholders from Member States 
is limited. Stakeholders in five Member States362 provided data on reported cases, while the 
data  on  investigated  cases  and  convictions  is  rudimentary.  Only  one  stakeholder363 
provided data for the entire period of 2015-2020 as requested in the questionnaire.  

Table 14 - The scale of hate crime on the ground of disability in the Member States, 
recording in terms of reported cases, investigated cases, and convictions 

Country 

Year of data 

Cases reported 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

Finland 
Germany 
Italy 
Romania 
Spain 

2019 
2019 
2015-2020 
2018-2020 
2019 

49 
82 
147 
1 
26 

1 

The above data shows rather low levels of hate speech in the Member States. However, as 
much as this seems the case, underreporting is common with regards to hate speech and 
hate crime incidences. Therefore, it is likely that the scale of this phenomenon far exceeds 
that of which is shown above. 

OSCE collects data from Europe and elsewhere on levels of hate crime, including where 
there is a bias motive against people with disabilities. The most recent data, which is for the 
year  2019,  is  presented  in  Table  15  below.  The  figures  show  a  wide  variation  between 
jurisdictions on the numbers of reported disability bias motive hate crimes with a range of 
one (in HR, IS and SI) to 8,469 in England and Wales. There is also significant variation 
between  jurisdictions  in  the  percentage  of  hate  crimes  reported  to  the  police  that  was 
disability bias motivated, ranging from 0.07% in Germany to 18.5% in Italy. This significant 
variation is indicative of issues with reporting and the recording of such crimes. According 
to the OSCE, ‘[d]isability hate crimes, like all hate crimes, are underreported. There are a 
series  of  challenges  in  reporting  this  type  of  hate  incident,  notably  the  ‘victims’  potential 
isolation or proximity to the perpetrator, the fear that their claim will not be taken seriously 
and the risk that law enforcement officers will not recognise the severity of this type of hate 
crime.’364  

360 Ibid. 
361 ODIHR, ‘Hate Crime Reporting’, available at: https://hatecrime.osce.org/ (last accessed 28 September 2021). 
362 FI, DE, IT, RO, ES. 
363 IT. 
364 ODIHR, ‘Disability Hate Crime’, 2016, available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/0/290021_1.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2021), 
p. 3. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Table 15 - OSCE collated data on hate crimes reported to the police in 2019365 

Member State 

Belgium  
Croatia  
England  and 
Wales 
Finland 
Germany 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Slovenia 
Spain 

No. of Disability Bias 
Motive Hate Crimes 
Reported to the Police 

% of hate crimes reported to the 
police that were disability bias-
motivated 

12 
1 
8,469 

15 
6 
1 
9 
207 
11 
25 
1 
26 

0.8% 
2.1% 
7.9% 

1.7% 
0.07% 
9.1% 
3.6% 
18.5% 
0.5% 
3.3% 
1.8% 
1.5% 

Given  that  England  and  Wales  have  the  highest  reported  number  of  disability  bias-
motivated hate crimes in the OSCE data, it is worth exploring the trend in that jurisdiction 
over a more extended period.  

Table 16 - Hate crimes recorded by police in England and Wales by monitored bias 
motive - year ending March 2016 to year ending March 2020366 

% 
change 
2015/ 
16 to 
2019/ 
20 

150 

67 

72 

136 

Hate Crime 
Bias Motive 

2015/
16 

2016/ 
17 

2017/ 
18 

2018/ 
19 

2019/ 
20 

Disability 

Race  

Religion 

Sexual 
Orientation  

3,393 

45,44
0 
3,962 

6,700 

5,254 

58,29
4 
5,184 

8,569 

Transgender 

820 

1,195 

6,787 

64,82
9 
7,103 

10,67
0 

1,615 

7,786 

72,04
1 
7,203 

13,31
4 

2,183 

8,469 

76,070 

6,822 

15,835 

2,564 

213 

Table 16 provides data on police recorded hate crimes by bias motive over a period of five 
years.  The  data  show  significant  increases  across  all  monitored  characteristics.  The 
increase  in  disability  bias-motivated  recorded  crime  has  the  second-largest  percentage 
increase at 150%. This increase follows concerted efforts in England and Wales to improve 
reporting and recording of hate crime. The figures for England and Wales would suggest 
significant underreporting in many jurisdictions, including the Member States.  

In addition, according to the EDF, ‘[p]ersons with disabilities are more at risk of being victims 
of violent crimes, including hate crimes, than other persons, and to face harassment, hate 

365 ODIHR, ‘Bias against other groups – People with disabilities’, available at: https://hatecrime.osce.org/taxonomy/term/234 (last accessed 13 
August 2021). 
366 Home Office, ‘Hate Crime: England and Wales’, 2020, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-
2019-to-2020/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2019-to-2020 (last accessed 19 August 2021). 

62 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

speech and ableist comments in their daily life.’367 In their submission to the consultation, 
the EDF referred to research showing that: 

  50% of persons with disabilities report an experience of harassment, compared 

to 37% of persons without disabilities (over five years)368  

  17% of persons with disabilities experience physical violence, comparing to 8% 

of persons without disabilities;369  

  Women with disabilities are two to five times more likely to face violence than 
other  women,  and  34  %  of  women  with  a  health  problem  or  a  disability  have 
experienced physical or sexual violence by a partner in their lifetime.370 

In their consultation response, the Spanish Committee of Representatives of Persons with 
Disabilities described ‘the data about hate crimes against people with disabilities [as] heart-
breaking.’371 The Committee stressed that 21% of hate crimes reported to the authorities in 
Spain are perpetrated against people with disabilities.372  

Grounds covered by the Framework Decision  

The statistical data on the number of recorded cases of hate crime offences on the grounds 
of  race,  colour,  descent,  or  national  or  ethnic  origin  provided  by  the  stakeholders  from 
Member States in the period 2015-2020 has certain limitations. There is an issue of overlap 
among  different  grounds,  which  makes  disaggregation  difficult.  Stakeholders  frequently 
presented data of two or more protected characteristics combined. Thus, the only way to 
analyse  the  collected  data  was  to  consider  them  together  (unless  the  same  data  was 
presented under different grounds).  

Stakeholders from 10 Member States373 provided data on reported cases of hate crime on 
grounds covered by the Framework Decision. Among these, only a few provided data on 
investigated  cases  or  convictions.  Consequently,  available  data  relies  on  the  number  of 
reported cases. Similarly to the other categories, not all stakeholders provided data for the 
entire period of 2015-2020. The data was first used to calculate the average annual number 
of cases per Member State and then to calculate the crime rates i.e. number of average 
annual reported cases per 100,000 people.  

Table 17 - Average annual hate crime rates on Framework Decision grounds (race, 
colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin) based on the data collected from 
stakeholders on the annual number of cases in EU Member states (2015-2020) 

EU Member State 

Hate crime rate on Framework Decision grounds 

Finland 
Cyprus 
Germany 
Malta 
France 
Spain 
Hungary 
Croatia 

23.86 
10.85 
8.53 
6.41 
1.26 
1.18 
0.12 
0.07 

FRA, 

Rights 

Survey: 

‘Fundamental 

367 EDF, EDF Recommendations on EU Initiatives on Hate Speech and Hate Crime, see footnote 101, p. 3. 
368 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2021-crime-safety-victims-rights_en.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 22. 
369 Ibid. p. 18. 
370  European  Parliament  resolution  of  29  November  2018  on  the  situation  of  women  with  disabilities  (2018/2685(RSP)),  OJ  C  363,  2020, 
available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018IP0484 (last accessed 28 September 2021). 
371 The Spanish Committee of Representatives of Persons with Disabilities, Feedback to Roadmap. 
372 Ibid. 
373 FI, CY, DE, MT, FR, ES, HU, HR, RO, IT. 

VICTIMS’ 

RIGHTS’, 

available 

SAFETY 

CRIME, 

2021, 

AND 

at: 

63 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Romania 
Italy 

0.05 
0.01 

According to Table 17, the average annual rates of hate crime on the grounds covered by 
the  Framework  Decision  reported  in  certain  Member  States  was  unrealistically  low, 
especially  Italy,  Romania,  Croatia and  Hungary,  which had by far the  lowest  rate  (below 
0.2). Generally, underreporting is the major problem in collecting data about the incidents 
of  hate  speech  or  hate  crime:  79%  of  stakeholders  responded  that  such  incidents  are 
underreported. 

Despite  limitations  in  the  availability  and  credibility  of  data,  hate  crime  on  the  grounds 
covered by the Framework Decision is more frequent than on other grounds. It is likely that 
Member States with highest rates of reported cases according to data presented in Table 
17 – among which Finland recorded by far the highest rate (23.86), but also Cyprus (10.85) 
and Germany (8.53) – are either better at reporting and recording disaggregated crime data 
or use broader definitions of hate crime to prosecute such incidents.  

Some  respondents  and  stakeholders  stated  that  creased  migration  and  terrorist  attacks, 
economic and social crises and the pandemic have influenced the increase of cases of hate 
crime on the grounds covered by the Framework Decision. This has been attributed to the 
rise of right-wing trends, conspiracy theories, disinformation and fake news that promote 
radicalisation.  According  to  NGO  stakeholders,  the  particular  reason  of  increasing  hate 
crime is the rise of far-right and conservative groups.374  

According to the literature, across the EU Member states, the minorities most targeted by 
hate crime are the Roma population,375 followed by Muslims,376 migrants377 and Jews378.  

Various studies show that the grounds covered by the Framework Decision are statistically 
the most frequent hate crime grounds in terms of reported cases. For example, according 
to  the  Swedish  Crime  Survey,  the  most  common  hate  crime  motive  was  related  to  the 
victim’s skin colour, nationality, or ethnic background, followed by their religious belief.379 
Based on an EU-funded study in Croatia, more than half of all hate crimes were motivated 
by nationality or ethnicity of the victim.380   

3.2. Developments 

3.2.1. General considerations 

During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  when  asked  whether  stakeholders  considered  that 
there was an increase of the phenomenon of hate speech and hate crime in the years 2018-
2020,  as  compared to  the incidence  in 2015-2017,  63.3%  (50  out  of  79) of  stakeholders 
answered in the affirmative. 

374 For example, EL*C - Eurocentralasian Lesbian* Community. 
375 FRA, ‘A persisting concern: anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion', see footnote 105.  
376 See FRA, ‘Database 2012-2020 on anti-Muslim hatred’, see footnote 106; Rünne, Laanpere, ‘Islamophobia in Estonia, National Report’, see 
footnote 106; Vrielink, ‘Islamophobia’ and the law: Belgian hate speech legislation and the wilful destruction of the Koran’, see footnote 106.  
377  For  example,  Florio,  Basile,  Lai,  Patti,  ‘Leveraging  Hate  Speech  Detection  to  Investigate  Immigration-related  Phenomena  in  Italy’,  see 
footnote 107. 
378 FRA, ‘Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews’, see footnote 108; FRA, ‘Antisemitism: Overview of antisemitic incidents 
recorded in the European Union 2009-2019’, see footnote 108. 
379 The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå), ‘Self-reported exposure to hate crime – Analysis of data from the Swedish Crime 
at: 
Survey, 
https://www.bra.se/download/18.1f8c9903175f8b2aa70fe4/1607610487532/2020_14_Self-reported_exposure_to_hate_crime.pdf 
(last 
accessed 19 August 2021), p. 3. 
380 Maja Munivrana Vajda et al., ‘Hate crime in Croatia: Empirical research of cases from the period 2013-2018’, 2020, EU project IRIS (Croatian 
Law  Center),  available  at:  https://www.hpc.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ZiM_izvjesce.pdf#page=92&zoom=100,92,644  (last  accessed  19 
August 2021). 

Politician’s 

available 

Crime’, 

Survey 

Survey 

School 

Safety 

2020, 

and 

on 

64 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Figure  19  –  Stakeholder  responses  to  ‘in  your  view,  is  there  an  increase  of  the 
phenomena of hate speech and hate crime?’ 

50

Yes

6

No

Number of stakeholders

23

Don't know

Additionally, Table 18 depicts the developments in hate crime incidence in recent years:  

Table 18 - The development of hate crime incidence in recent years 

Country 

Development
: Increase / 
Decrease in 
No. of cases 

Belgium381 

Increase 

Bulgaria382 

Decrease 

Croatia 

Increase 

Cyprus 

Decrease 
(marginal) 

Czech 
Republic383 

Decrease 

Denmark384 

Increase 

Year of data 

Cases 
reported 

Cases 
investigated 

Convictions 

2020 
2018 
2016 

2020 
2019 
2018 

2020 
2018 
2017 

2020 
2018 
2016 

2020 
2018 
2016 

2019 
2018 
2017 

1439 
1159 
875 

96 
3 
256 

87 
33 
28 

22 
29 
17 

134 
179 
143 

569 
449 
446 

713 
353 
181 

52 
3 
184 

87 
60 
87 

19 
11 
16 

18 
8 
12 

52 
43 
41 

381 This figure includes both hate speech and hate crime data; The low number of cases reported or investigated in 2020 by federal police is 
due to the lack of human resources available for this mission and the priority given to COVID-related work. 
382 Data from BG Country Information; figures include hate speech incidents. As regards convictions, the available data is expressed in terms 
of ‘persons convicted’: 55 persons were convicted in 2020, 1 person was convicted in 2019 and 207 were convicted in 2018.  
383 The number of cases investigated comprises both hate speech and hate crime cases. 
384 Data from the Country Fiche for DK and figure includes hate speech incidents (Source: The National Police's annual report on hate crimes, 
2015-2019.). 

65 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Estonia 

Decrease 
(marginal) 

Finland385 

Decrease 

France 

Increase 

Germany386 

Increase 

Hungary 

Decrease 

Italy387 

Increase 

Lithuania 

Increase 

Netherlands
388 

Decrease  

Romania 

Increase 

Slovakia389 

Decrease 

2018 
2017 
2016 

2019 
2018 
2017 

2019 
2018 
2017 

2020 
2019 
2018 

2020 
2019 
2017 

2019 
2018 
2017 

2020 
2019 
2018 

2019 
2018 
2017 

2020 
2018 
2016 

2020 
2019 
2018 

4 
1 

10 
37 
36 

4 
3 

15 
1 
5 

1 
5 
2 

1237 
1300 
1556 

10 240  
8585 
8113 

1119 
1111 
1048 

11 
10 
6 

1918 
1405 
2155 

96 
60 
56 

122 
109 
169 

1 
1 
1 

311 
172 
162 

57 

74 
72 
50 

It can be observed that in eight countries390, there was an increase in hate crime incidence 
in recent years. While data in seven countries391 show a decrease in hate crime incidence. 
Other sources reveal that hate crime has generally increased significantly in recent years. 
The ODIHR reports that information concerning 6964 hate incidents was gathered by the 
organisation in 2019. This represents a marked increase from 5735 incidents in 2018, 5601 
incidents in 2016 and 5357 incidents in 2015.392 

385  Data  from  Country  Fiche  for  FI  (Source:  for  cases  reported  the  data  comes  from  Hate  crime  reported  to  Police  in  Finland  in  2018;  the 
prosecuted cases and convictions are based on statistics of Statistics Finland). 
386 Data from the Country Fiche for DE (Source: Federal Ministry of the Interior – politically motivated crime). 
387 Data from the Country Fiche for IT (Source: Osservatorio per la sicurezza contro gli atti discriminatori del Ministero dell’Interno (OSCAD, 
Observatory for the protection against discriminatory acts of the Ministry of the Interior) 2020), includes hate speech incidents reported. 
388 Data from the Country Fiche for NL, data from incidents registered to police. Public Prosecution Service has registered 252 cases reported 
in 2020, 221 cases reported in 2019, 312 reported in 2018 and 189 reported in 2017. 
389 Data from the Country Fiche for SK (Source: Statistical yearbook of the General prosecutor’s Office). 
390 BE, DE, DK, FR, HR, IT, LT, RO. 
391 CY, CZ, EE, FI, HU, NL, SK. 
392 ODIHR, ‘Hate crime Reporting’, available at: https://hatecrime.osce.org/what-do-we-know?year=2019 (last accessed 19 August 2021).  

66 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

As a result of the increased incidence of hate crime, the FRA, the ECRI, and many Member 
States have been cooperating with civil society organisations, introduced special measures 
for victims, or developed policies to counter hate crime more effectively.393   

The  FRA  Report  on  ‘Hate  crime  recording  and  data  collection  practice  across  the  EU’ 
provides information on the reporting of hate crimes in the Member States.394 According to 
the report, there was a general increase in hate crime incidence in the period 2010-2017 in 
Austria,395 Denmark, Finland396, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Sweden.397  By 
contrast, a general decrease in hate crime incidence during the same period occurred in 
France, Ireland,398 Lithuania, and Slovakia. Interestingly, in Luxembourg, an increase in the 
offences  recorded  is  observed  in  the  period  2007-2011,  whilst  a  decrease  occurred/is 
reported from 2015-2017.399 

Developments in measures to counter hate crime 

The abovementioned report on ‘Hate crime recording and data collection practice across 
the EU’ acknowledges the usefulness of civil society organisations in exchanging relevant 
data  with  authorities;  this  is  due  to  the  potential  of  civil  society  organisations  working 
together with authorities to uncover real hate crime figures. Civil society organisations are 
skilled in and able to receive/record information about hate incidents. Moreover, drawing on 
the data collected over time, they can identify patterns and trends in victimisation and bias 
indicators.400 

In recent years, Member States have established specialised units for hate crimes within 
administrations  or  agencies,  enhanced  cooperation  with  civil  society  organisations  or 
introduced  special  measures  for  victims  of  hate  crime.  For  example,  a  significant 
development in Malta was the establishment of the Hate Crime and Speech Unit in 2019, 
which works closely with the Maltese Police Force to address hate speech and hate crime 
related  issues  and  support  victims  through  the  provision  of  free  therapeutic  and  legal 
services.401   

The FRA 2019 Fundamental Rights Report identified that in 2018, certain Member States 
developed specific policies to counter hate crime more effectively.402 Some examples are 
outlined in Table 19: 

Table 19 – Examples of Member State policies to counter hate crime more 
effectively, according to the FRA ‘Fundamental Rights Report’ of 2019 

Greece 

Spain 

The Ministry of Justice signed an inter-agency agreement in June 2018 among 
the relevant ministries (Citizens’ Protection, Immigration Policy, and Health) and 
the  NGO  Racist  Violence  Recording  Network  for  a coordinated  and  holistic 
approach to combat racist crime. 

The State Secretariat for Security of the Ministry of the Interior set up the National 
Office for  Combating Hate  Crimes, a coordinating body  providing strategic and 
technical information for the adoption of public policies in relation to hate crimes. 

393 See, for example, ECRI, ‘Annual report on ECRI’s activities covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2019’, see footnote 130, p. 
18-19; FRA, ‘Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU’, see footnote 37, p.25-26. 
394 FRA, ‘Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU’, see footnote 37, p.9. 
395 Hate crimes under certain bias motivators have more than doubled in the period 2007-2016. 
396  Note  that  there  was  a  change  in  methodology  in  the  recording  of  hate  crime  in  2009,  therefore  any  data  collected  before  that  was  not 
comparable. 
397 Ibid.  
398 Hate crimes are recorded as ‘racist’ crimes in IE. 
399 FRA, ‘Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU’, see footnote 37, pp. 68-69. 
400 Ibid, p. 26. 
401 ECRI conclusions on the implementation of the recommendations in respect of Malta, see footnote 44, p. 5. 
402 FRA Rights, ‘Fundamental Rights Report 2019’, 2019, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-fundamental-
rights-report-2019_en.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 93. 

67 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Slovakia 

The  National  Criminal  Agency  updated  its  manual  on  extremist  crime,  which 
provides information on crime and police procedures in investigating it and issued 
detailed instructions for other police units on how to deal with these incidents.403 

3.2.2. Specific considerations with regard to grounds  

Gender and sex  

Gender identity and sex characteristics 

During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  some  NGO  stakeholders  representing  the  LGBTIQ 
community indicated that hate crime against these persons is increasing.404 According to 
the  stakeholders,  there  is  also  an  increasing  tendency  among  people  who  survived  a 
transphobic attack to share their experiences of victimisation on social media in order to 
raise awareness of the problem.405 

With regard to other sources, in 2015, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human 
Rights issued a recommendation stressing that hate crime legislation should be reviewed 
to ensure the protection of intersex people by including the sex characteristics as a specific 
ground in equal treatment and hate crime legislation.406 

Age 

According to the WHO, elder abuse is likely to become an increasing problem due to ageing 
populations. ‘It is predicted that by the year 2050, the global population of people aged 60 
years and older will more than double, from 900 million in 2015 to about 2 billion, with the 
vast  majority  of  older  people  living  in  low-  and  middle-income  countries.’407  Should  the 
proportion  of elder  abuse victims  remain  constant, the  number  of  victims  will  increase to 
320 million victims by 2050.408 

The  WHO  also  reported  that  ‘emerging  evidence  indicates  that  the  prevalence  of  elder 
abuse  in  both  the  community  and  in  institutions  have  increased  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic.’409  Similarly,  the  UN  Secretary-General  has  stated  that  ‘beyond  its  immediate 
health impact, the pandemic is putting older people at greater risk of poverty, discrimination and 
isolation.’410  

AGE Platform Europe, in their submission, states that during the pandemic, ‘[o]lder persons 
have  been  stigmatised,  verbally  abused  and  physically  assaulted,  as  well  as  financially 
targeted: fraud and theft have become easier during the pandemic with many isolated older 
persons being targeted due to their perceived vulnerability.’411 Furthermore, AGE Platform 
Europe raised concerns about the maltreatment of older people in care homes during the 
pandemic: ‘older persons have also been victims of serious crimes of neglect and abuse in 
care homes. In some cases, older residents have been abandoned and left to die. Reports 
in several countries point to those challenges, as well as refusal to admit older people to 

403 Ibid.  
404 For example, EL*C - Eurocentralasian Lesbian* Community, Birmingham City University and Organisation Intersex International Europe e.V. 
(OII Europe). 
405 Birmingham City University. 
406 Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Human rights and intersex people: Issue Paper’, see footnote 194, p. 9. 
407 WHO, ‘Elder Abuse’, 2021, available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/elder-abuse (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
408 Ibid. 
409 Ibid.  
410  UN,  Antonio  Guterres,  ‘Our  response  to  COVID-19  must  respect  the  rights  and  dignity  of  older  people’,  1  May  2020,  available  at: 
https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/our-response-covid-19-must-respect-rights-and-dignity-older-people (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
411 AGE Platform Europe, Feedback on the Roadmap, p. 3. 

68 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

hospitals, lack of personal protective equipment and testing, radical non-visitor policies that 
aggravated isolation and a true de-prioritisation in the management of the crisis.412 

Disability 

According to the OSCE, disability hate crimes affect society as a whole, not only the victims. 
The occurrence of these hate crimes also underscores ‘wider trends of intolerance towards 
other  groups,  and  everyone  has  a  role  to  play  in  countering  this  and  all  forms  of 
intolerance.’413 

Grounds covered by the Framework Decision 

As  mentioned  in  subsection  2.1.1.  on  general  considerations  on  hate  speech,  in  2019, 
Members  of the  European  Parliament  adopted a Resolution  condemning,  inter  alia,  hate 
crime and scapegoating by politicians and public officials fostering hatred and violence in 
society on grounds of race and ethnic origin, among others.414 

3.3. Harmful Impact 

3.3.1.  Harmful impact on victims and other relevant individuals 

3.3.1.1 General considerations 

As regards the literature collected concerning the harmful impact of hate crime on its victims 
and on other relevant individuals, such as family members, the overarching harm that was 
identified was the negative psychological impact of hate crime on the victim. Furthermore, 
focus was placed on secondary victimisation and the effect of hate crime on victims’ identity, 
that could be classified as a negative psychological impact. However, for the purposes of 
this section, they will be discussed individually.  

The negative psychological impact of hate crime on the victim 

According to the literature, the most frequently identified harm for hate crime victims is the 
negative psychological effect. This can be explained due to the fact that such crimes directly 
target a victim’s personal characteristics and, thus, affect their identity.415  

The EU High Level Group416 emphasised that psychological support services are necessary 
within criminal proceedings and in order to help those who have experienced this type of 
crime.  Furthermore,  support  services  are  necessary  to  protect  these  persons  from 
secondary victimisation (for detailed analysis see subsection below on the exacerbation of 
harm vis-à-vis secondary victimisation). The European Parliament’s Policy Department417 
highlights  that  victims  of  hate  crime  often  experience  the  feeling  of  vulnerability, 
helplessness, and hopelessness, while the FRA418 provides that victims of hate crime often 

412 Ibid.  
413 ODIHR, ‘Disability Hate Crime’, see footnote 364, p. 2. 
414  European  Parliament  Resolution  of  25  October  2018  on  the  rise  of  neo-fascist  violence  in  Europe,  see  footnote  169.  Interestingly  the 
Hungarian translation mentions ‘scapegoating of’ and not ‘scapegoating by’ politicians. The present study relies on the English versions of EU 
texts. 
415 This is maintained by the EU High Level Group, the Policy Department for Citizens’ and Constitutional Affairs, FRA, the OSCE, and RAA 
Sachsen e.V. 
416 EU High Level Group, ‘Ensuring justice, protection and support for victims of hate crime and hate speech: 10 key guiding principles’, see 
footnote 172, p.13-15 
417 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p. 23.  
418 FRA, ‘Making hate crime visible in the European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights’, see footnote 42, p.20.  

69 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

suffer  from  severe  trauma,  such  as  depression,  suspicion  of  others,  self-blame,  and 
profound sense of isolation.  

The ODIHR419 highlights victims of hate crimes, when compared to victims of other crimes, 
suffer from a greater emotional impact of short-lived mental distress and a psychological 
impact of more persistent and long-lasting mental distress. Furthermore, they concur with 
the  FRA,420  by  quoting  Paul  Iganski,421  that  on  average,  victims  are  more  likely  to  suffer 
from depression, anxiety and nervousness, an extreme sense of isolation, and some other 
forms  of  severe  trauma  than  victims  of  other  crimes.  The  same  is  maintained  by  RAA 
Sachsen e.V.422 who highlight that victims of hate crime are more likely than victims of other 
crime  to  develop  such  severe  trauma.  Finally,  the  European  Forum  for  Restorative 
Justice423 outlines that victims of hate crimes may experience an exacerbated level of self-
blame  and  emotional  suffering.  It  can  be  inferred  from  the  vast  array  of  literature, 
emphasising  the  harmful  psychological  impact  of  hate  crime on  its  victims, that this may 
result in increased harms for victims of such crime.  

The negative impact of hate crime on the victim’s identity 

According to the literature, hate crime harms its victims and other relevant individuals due 
to the negative impact it has on their identities.424  

The European Parliament’s Policy Department425 highlights that victims of hate crime are 
targeted  for  an  immutable,  unchangeable  characteristic,  or  a characteristic  that  is  at  the 
core of their identity. This is line with the FRA findings 426 according to which hate crimes, 
as opposed to other types of crimes, strongly impact victims in part because they cannot 
attribute their victimisation to bad luck and, instead, are forced to accept that their social 
identity was targeted and in part since they remain at risk of repeat victimisation. They may 
blame themselves and experience a lack of confidence. while RAA Sachsen e.V.427 noted 
a victim’s social identity might be affected by a feeling of isolation and alienation following 
their  experience.  This  shows  that  the  immutability  of  their  characteristics  results  in 
psychological  difficulties  that  affect  a  victim’s  identity,  as  those  characteristics  form  the 
motive behind hate crime attacks.  

The exacerbation of harm vis-à-vis secondary victimisation  

According to the literature, hate crime harms its victims and other relevant individuals due 
to the likelihood for secondary victimisation.428,429   

The  EU  High  Level  Group430  highlights  that  those  victims  of  hate  crime  may  experience 
secondary victimisation and, thus, they should be protected to prevent the emotional and 
psychological harm they have already experienced from worsening. A similar view is shared 

‘Hate  Crime  Victim  Support 

419 OSCE ODIHR, ‘Understanding the Needs of Hate Crime Victims’, 2020, available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/0/5/463011.pdf 
(last accessed 7 July 2021), p.11.  
420 FRA, ‘Making hate crime visible in the European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights’, see footnote 42, p.20.  
421 Iganski, ‘Understanding the needs of persons who experience homophobic or transphobic violence or harassment: The impact of hate crime’, 
see footnote 174. 
422  RAA  Sachsen  e.V., 
sachsen.de/media/561/RAA_Saxony_Hate_Crime_Victim_Support_in_Europe_2016_m.pdf (last accessed 7 July 2021).  
423 European Forum for Restorative Justice, Feedback on the Roadmap, p.19.  
424 This is maintained by the European Parliament’s Policy Department, the FRA, and RAA Sachsen e.V. 
425 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p.23 
426 FRA, ‘Making hate crime visible in the European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights’, see footnote 42, p.20.  
427 RAA Sachsen e.V., ‘Hate Crime Victim Support in Europe: A Practical Guide’, see footnote 422, p.25.  
428 For the definition of secondary victimisation, please see Section 1.3.1. 
429 This was maintained by the EU High Level Group, the ODIHR, Equinet, Victim Support Europe, and the European Forum for Restorative 
Justice. 
430 EU High Level Group, ‘Ensuring justice, protection and support for victims of hate crime and hate speech: 10 key guiding principles’, see 
footnote 172, p.12. 

in  Europe:  A  Practical  Guide’,  2016,  available  at:  https://www.raa-

70 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

by the OSCE ODIHR431 who maintains that secondary victimisation can lead to even greater 
humiliation, degradation, and isolation for the victims of hate crime. Equinet432 outlined that 
those  victims  of  hate  speech  and  hate  crime  can  be  victims  of  secondary  victimisation. 
Victim  Support  Europe433  highlights  that  those  victims  of  hate  crime  are  ‘particularly 
vulnerable  victims’  at  higher  risk  of  being  subject  to secondary  victimisation  or  repeated 
abuse.  Finally,  the  European  Forum  for  Restorative  Justice434  maintains  that  secondary 
victimisation must be taken into consideration when considering the harmful impact of hate 
crime on victims. In general, there is a large risk of secondary victimisation and if this occurs, 
the harmful impact of hate crime on victims can be even higher. 

3.3.1.2 Specific considerations with regard to grounds  

Sex and gender 

There  is  insufficient  data  on  the  harmful  impact  of  gender-based  hate  crime  on  victims. 
However,  the  psychological  impact  of  gender-based  violence,  such  as  anxiety,  low  self-
esteem,  depression,  post-traumatic  stress  disorder,  lack  of trust  and  of  sense of  control, 
withdrawal from social life,435 can be similar to the impact of misogynistic hate crimes.  

Hate crime scholars have argued that ‘women with experiences of misogynistic hate crimes 
have heightened levels of fear of crime, and that they are most afraid of being followed or 
chased’.436  

Gender identity and sex characteristics  

In the FRA 2020 EU-LGBTI II survey, just one in three victims of hate-motivated physical or 
sexual attack (33%) said that the incident did not have an impact on them while the majority 
described the impact of the attack.437 The two most mentioned forms of impact on health 
and well-being were psychological problems (e.g. depression, anxiety) and fear of going out 
or  visiting  places.  About  half  of  trans  and  intersex  respondents  reported  experiencing 
psychological problems (49-58%, depending on the category), and 36-48% (depending on 
the category) reported they were afraid to go out or visit places.438 

Intersex  individuals,  due  to  their  distinct  sexual  characteristics,  may  be  subject  to  hate-
motivated physical violence ‘in instances in which they either disclose their intersex status 
or if their behaviour and/or outer appearance do not match stereotypical notions of male 
and female norms’.439 According to a quantitative study of trans persons’ experience of hate 

in 

2021, 

March 

upcoming 

431 ODIHR, ‘Understanding the Needs of Hate Crime Victims’, see footnote 419, p.14.  
432 Equinet, Feedback on Roadmap. 
433 Victim Support Europe, Feedback on the Roadmap. 
434 European Forum for Restorative Justice, Feedback on the Roadmap. 
435  European  Parliament  Research  Center,  supporting  study  for  the  own-initiative  legislative  report  ‘Gender-based  violence:  including 
cyberviolence’; 
at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662621/EPRS_STU(2021)662621_EN.pdf  (last  accessed 29 September  2021), 
p.14. 
436 Mika Hagerlid, ‘Swedish Women’s Experiences of Misogynistic Hate Crimes: The Impact of Victimization on Fear of Crime’, 2020, Feminist 
Criminology, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1557085120957731 (last accessed 19 August 2021); F.U. Bespinar, D. 
Canel-Cinarbas,, Spousal conflicts as domestic violence in Turkey: A case for gender bias in hate violence, 2017, in E. Dunbar, A. Blance, D. 
Crévecoeur-MacPhail  (Eds.), 
issues’,  available  at: 
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=691266 (last accessed 19 November 2021), pp. 211–224; H Mason-Bish, ‘We need to talk about 
women: Examining the place of gender in hate crime policy’, 2015, in N. Chakraborti & J. Garland (Eds.), ‘Responding to hate crime: The case 
for 
at: 
and 
https://policypress.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1332/policypress/9781447308768.001.0001/upso-9781447308768-chapter-13 
(last accessed 19 November 2021) pp. 169–182; B.A. McPhail, ‘Gender-bias hate crimes: A review’, 2003, in B. Perry (Ed.), ‘Hate and bias 
crime:  A  reader’,  available  at:  https://www.routledge.com/Hate-and-Bias-Crime-A-Reader/Perry/p/book/9780415944083  (last  accessed  19 
November 2021), pp. 261–279.  
437 FRA, 'EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality', see footnote 83, p. 42.Survey obtained a total of 139,799 respondents aged 15 
years or older who describe themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or intersex (LGBTI) completed the online EU-LGBTI II Survey1 in all 
EU Member States and the candidate countries of North Macedonia and Serbia. 
438 Ibid., p. 43. 
439 Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Human rights and intersex people: Issue Paper’, see footnote 194, p. 43. 

‘The  psychology  of  hate  crimes  as  domestic 

terrorism:  U.S.  and  global 

connecting 

research’, 

available 

available 

policy 

71 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

crime in the  EU,  the  vast  majority  of  respondents  were  not  confident  that  they  would be 
treated appropriately by members of the police service as their preferred/acquired gender. 
This has been identified as a negative impact on transphobic incidents being reported in the 
first place.440 Furthermore, the qualitative findings of the same study show that hate crime 
against trans women is implicitly regarded as ‘male-on-male’ by the police, that it overlooks 
trans  women’s  vulnerability,  and  that  the  police  often  presumes  trans  women  not  as  the 
victim, but as the cause of the incident.441 This likely affects the scale of underreporting.  

Age 

The WHO  indicates  that  elder  abuse  can  ‘lead  to  physical  injuries  –  ranging  from  minor 
scratches  and  bruises  to  broken  bones  and  disabling  injuries  –  and  serious,  sometimes 
long-lasting, psychological consequences, including depression and anxiety.’ Moreover, it 
highlights  that,  for  older  people,  the  consequences  can  be  serious  and  convalescence 
longer,  as  even  minor  injuries  can  cause  permanent  damage,  or  even  death.  The  study 
carried  by  WHO  shows  that  that  victims  of  elder  abuse  are  twice  more  likely  to  die 
prematurely than people who are not victims of elder abuse.442 

Brown and Gordon's research found older victims, as a population, are more vulnerable to 
the effects of crime than other adults.443 Older people are more likely to have lower levels 
of  resilience  to  deal  with  the  trauma  that  being  a  victim  can  bring.  The  lower  levels  of 
resilience  are  due  to  issues  such  as  higher  rates  of  physical  and  mental  ill-health  in  the 
older  population,  the  greater  likelihood  that  older  people  will  be  living  alone  and  lacking 
appropriate interpersonal support networks, heightened levels of poverty for those no longer 
in work, and higher levels of fear of crime and insecurity. Older people are also more likely 
to be dealing with other traumatic events in their lives than the general population, including 
the ill-health or death of a partner, reducing the resilience to deal with other traumas such 
as  being  a  victim  of  crime.  For  some  older  people,  being  a  victim  of  crime  also  brings 
enhanced  fear  of  a  loss  of  independence  because  relatives  may  view  the  episode  as 
evidence  that  the  older  person  can  no  longer  safely  live  independently.  For  all  these 
reasons,  Brown  and  Gordon  argue  that  being  a  victim  of  crime  can  have  a  particularly 
detrimental impact on older people. 

For older people, as for other groups protected under the hate crime legislation, being a 
victim of crime can lead to lifestyle changes having a detrimental long-term impact on the 
victim and others sharing that characteristic. Recent a research project, published in 2018, 
from  Northern  Ireland  found  that  older  people  who  had  been  victims  of  crime  tended  to 
make  changes  to  their  everyday  life  because  of  the  fear  of  re-victimisation.444  While  the 
changes depended on the nature of the crime, they included avoiding certain locations such 
as public spaces, restricting movements after dark, and becoming more reluctant to leave 
their homes. Moreover, the reluctance to have their home be identifiable as one containing 
an  older  vulnerable  person  was  also  highlighted  in  the  research.  This  included  the 
unwillingness to have handrails added to entrances to homes even when needed. The study 
found that where a crime or spate of crimes that involved the perceived targeting of older 
people came to light within a community or neighbourhood, this caused other older people 

440 Turner, Whittle, Combs, ‘Transphobic hate crime in the European Union’, see footnote 72, p. 2. 
441 Ibid. p. 2. 
442 WHO, ‘Elder Abuse’, see footnote 407.  
443 Kevin J. Brown, Faith Gordon, ‘Older Victims of Crime: Vulnerability, Resilience and Access to Procedural Justice’, 2018 International Review 
of Victimology. 25(2): 201-221, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269758018791426 (last accessed 16 August 2021); 
K. J. Brown and F. Gordon. ‘Exploring and Overcoming Barriers to Justice for Older Victims of Crime’, 2020 Criminal Law Review 12: 1127-
1136,  available  at:  https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/exploring-and-overcoming-barriers-to-justice-for-older-victims-of  (last  accessed  16 
August  2021);  Kevin  J.  Brown  and  Faith  Gordon.  ‘Improving  access  to  justice  for  older  victims  of  crime  by  reimagining  conceptions  of 
vulnerability’, 2020,  Ageing  &  Society  (online  early  release):  1-18,  available  at:  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ageing-and-
society/article/abs/improving-access-to-justice-for-older-victims-of-crime-by-reimagining-conceptions-of-
vulnerability/4892222EE06E8B96806EFF80E17F57E1#article (last accessed 16 August 2021). 
444 Kevin J. Brown and Faith Gordon, ‘Older Victims of Crime: Vulnerability, Resilience and Access to Procedural Justice’, see footnote 443.  

72 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

in the community to change their lifestyles for fear of also falling victim, in particular where 
crimes were violent.  

Being a victim of crime and its aftermath increases the chances that an older person will no 
longer live independently. This is a loss for the older person, but it can also impact family 
members required to take on additional caring responsibilities or fund residential care-home 
fees.445  

Furthermore, AGE Platform Europe highlights that ‘the consequences of elder abuse are 
dramatic  and  long-lasting’,  as  the  abuse  may  lead  to  ‘a  decline  in  physical  and  mental 
capacities’ and developing ‘feelings of rejection and exclusion’. In the most serious cases, 
abuse and maltreatment can also lead to death.446  

In support of this AGE Platform Europe refer to statistics from the WHO, which finds that 
among the 8,500 annual homicides of older persons in EU, about one third are the result of 
elder abuse.447    

Disability 

According to the European Network on Independent Living, hate crime based on disability 
and  the  ability  to  live  independently  are  closely  interlinked.  As  long  as  disabled  people 
experience instances of abuse, hostility and discrimination, their aspirations and inclusion 
within their community will be impacted. Disabled individuals experiencing harassment or 
hate crime will see their ability to perform activities in daily life impacted negatively, by for 
example, being unable to leave their homes or to use public transport. Moreover, disabled 
individuals  may  experience  further  marginalisation  and  isolation  if  law  enforcement 
agencies lack  the  necessary  and  satisfactory  methods to protect  and support them from 
hate crime.448 

Grounds covered by the Framework Decision 

In  some  EU  Member  states,  distrust  in  the  police  by  vulnerable  minorities  is  a  serious 
concern: not only citizens do not trust that the police could tackle the incident, but they do 
not trust in the police, who are seen as exhibiting racist actions.449 There are instances of 
police brutality, especially against members of the Roma minority, which have been dealt 
with  by  the  ECtHR.  In  the  case  of  Stoica  v.  Romania,  the  Court  found  that  the  racially 
motivated beating of a 14-year old boy of Roma origin by police officers constitutes inhuman 
and  degrading  treatment  (Article  3  of  the  ECtHR)  in  conjunction  with  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination (Article 14 of the ECtHR).450 In the case of Nachova v. Bulgaria, the Court 
found  that  Bulgaria  violated  Article  2  of  the  ECtHR  (right  to  life)  because  the  Bulgarian 
military police, during an arrest attempt, killed two Bulgarian nationals of Roma origin, and 
also found a violation of Article 14 of the ECtHR (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction 
with Article 2 of the ECtHR for failing to investigate the causal link between the killings and 
alleged racist attitudes based on a witness stating that the police officer had shouted ‘you 

human 

445 Ibid. 
446 AGE Platform Europe, Feedback on the Roadmap. 
447 Ibid. 
448 European Network on Independent Living, ‘Disability Hate Crime: A guide for disabled people’s organisations, law enforcement  agencies, 
national 
http://www.enil.eu/wp-
available 
content/uploads/2012/06/Disability_Hate_Crime_Guide-FINAL-ENG.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2021), p.15. 
449 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p. 73. 
450 
v. 
at: 
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22\%22CASE%20OF%20STOICA%20v.%20ROMANIA\%22%22],%22documentcollectioni
d2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-85308%22]} (last accessed 19 August 2021). 

institutions,  media 

stakeholders’, 

Romania, 

42722/02 

available 

ECtHR, 

Stoica 

March 

2008, 

2014, 

rights 

other 

and 

No. 

at: 

4 

73 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

damn Gypsy’ after the shootings.451 In M.F. v. Hungary, the Court found a violation of Article 
3 of the ECtHR, due to the authorities’ failure to explain the cause of the applicant’s injuries 
inflicted while in police custody.452 

Hate crime on Framework Decision grounds may have severe consequences. In the case 
of Sečić v. Croatia, the applicant of Roma origin was attacked by two unidentified persons 
who beat him with wooden planks while shouting racist words.453 Apart from multiple broken 
ribs, Mr. Šečić suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome, characterised by depression, 
anxiety,  panic  attacks,  fears  for  his  and  his  family’s  safety,  nightmares,  and  underwent 
psychiatric treatment. 

Persons  who  do  not  possess  the  protected  characteristics  of  a  group  based  on  the 
Framework  Decision  grounds,  but  are  perceived  as  such,  may  also  experience  harmful 
impact. An example of this concept of bias motives by association on Framework Decision 
grounds is shown in the case Škorjanec v. Croatia, where, in which two perpetrators of a 
racist attack were prosecuted and convicted for a hate crime against the applicant and his 
partner.454 While the partner was of Roma origin, the applicant was not. The Court stated 
that the obligation to seek a possible link between racist attitudes and given acts of violence 
also  includes  ‘acts  of  violence  based  on  the  victim’s  actual  or  perceived  association  or 
affiliation with another person who actually or presumably possesses a particular status or 
protected characteristic’. 

3.3.2. Harmful impact on wider society 

3.3.2.1 General considerations 

For  the  harmful  impact  on  the  wider  society  based  on  the  stakeholder  consultation,  see 
subsection 2.3.2 on the harmful impact of hate speech on the wider society. Stakeholders 
were asked whether hate speech/hate crime causes harm to the wider society and to groups 
sharing  protected  characteristics.  In  particular,  they  were  asked  ‘what  were  the  harmful 
impacts of hate speech/hate crime on society as a whole?’ 

As regards the literature collected concerning the harmful impact of hate crime on its victims 
and  on  other  relevant  individuals,  such  as  family  members,  the  most  frequent  harms 
identified were social tensions, with regard to general society, and fear of association, with 
regard to groups sharing protected characteristics.  

The stirring up of social tensions  

In focusing on the wider society, the most common recurrence within the literature on this 
topic concerned the increase in social tensions brought about by hate crime.455  

and 

ECtHR, 

43577/98 

43579/9,  Nachova 

451  ECtHR,  No. 
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=002-3747&filename=002-3747.pdf&TID=thkbhnilzk 
September 2021). 
452 
at: 
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22m.f.%20v.%20hungary%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%2
2,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-178178%22]} (last accessed 19 August 2021). 
453 ECtHR, No. 40116/02, Šečić v. Croatia, 31 May 2007., available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-80711%22]} 
(last accessed 19 August 2021). 
454 

available 
accessed 

v.  Bulgaria, 

and  Others 

2005, 
(last 

45855/12, 

Hungary, 

available 

October 

at: 
29 

2017, 

M.F. 

July 

No. 

31 

v. 

6 

ECtHR, 

No. 

25536/14, 

Škorjanec 

v. 

Croatia, 

28 

March 

2017., 

available 

at: 

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22docname%22:[%22%C5%A0korjanec%20v%20Croatia%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRAN
DCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-172327%22]} (last accessed 29 September 2021). 
455 This  is  maintained  by  the  EU  High  Level  Group;  the  European  Parliament’s  Policy  Department;  the  FRA;  and  the  European  Forum  for 
Restorative Justice. 

74 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

The EU High Level Group456 maintains that hate crime is a particularly serious offence due 
to  its  impact  on  the  community  or  group  to  which  the  victim  belongs  or  is  perceived  to 
belong, as well as on the victim. This is because hate speech can lead to an exacerbation 
of social divisions and intergroup or interethnic tensions. According to the EU High Level 
Group,  due  to  the  harm  to  both  the  victim  and  the  society  hate  crimes  deserve  specific 
condemnation and punishment,. This is in accordance with the considerations of the ECtHR 
in Menson v. United Kingdom, which it highlights that ‘where that attack is racially motivated, 
it is important that the investigation is pursued with vigour and impartiality, having regard to 
the  need  to  reassert  continuously  society’s  condemnation  of  racism  and  to  maintain  the 
confidence of minorities in the ability of the authorities to protect them of racist violence’.457 
This statement depicts the importance of limiting these tensions to ensure that society in 
general condemns these acts so that victims and persons with protected characteristics feel 
secure. 

The European Parliament’s Policy Department458 refers to the fact that hate crimes erode 
social  cohesion,  reinforce  social  tensions,  and  trigger  retaliation  that  results  in  a  vicious 
circle  of  violence  and  counter-violence,  while  with  regard  to  the  groups  with  protected 
characteristics, they leave a feeling of powerlessness for the minority.459 According to the 
European  Parliament’s  Policy  Department,  these  are  sufficient  reasons  to  address  hate 
crimes differently to ordinary crimes. Another actor that concurs with this point of view is the 
FRA,460  which  highlighted  that  hate  crimes  reinforce  distinctions  and  boundaries  forming 
social structure and run counter to the very ideas of human dignity, individual autonomy, 
and  a  pluralistic  society.  Furthermore,  the  FRA  states  that  hate  crime  reflects  inbuilt 
tendencies  and  predispositions  of  societal  structures.  Finally,  the  European  Forum  for 
Restorative Justice461 also points out that the harm caused by hate crime goes beyond the 
individual level and may increase social prejudice. Overall, it can be inferred that hate crime 
has a negative impact on the wider society via facilitating social tensions between persons 
and reinforcing social hierarchies.  

The  harm  created  for  groups  sharing  protected  characteristics  via  a  fear  of 
association 

With  regard  to  groups  sharing  protected  characteristics,  hate  crime,  according  to  the 
literature, can harm its victims via creating a fear of association.462  

The FRA463 highlighted that to hate crime offenders their victims are interchangeable. This 
is  because  offenders  only  need 
their  victims  as  having  a  certain 
to  perceive 
characteristic.464The violence against the victims does not address them only, but also those 
who  share  the  same  characteristics.465  Therefore,  persons  connected  to  the  victim  may 
become aware that they could have been targeted as well. Similarly, RAA Sachsen e.V.466 
highlighted that hate crime sends a ‘terroristic message’ to everyone who shares the victim’s 
characteristics.  Therefore,  these  persons  feel  devalued,  unwelcome,  denigrated,  and 

v. 

Kingdom, 

the  United 

and  Others 

ECtHR,  No. 

47916/99,  Menson 

456 EU High Level  Group, ‘Guidance Note on the practical  application of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JJHA on combating certain 
forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law’, see footnote 171, p. 4. 
457 
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-23192%22]} (last accessed 29 September 2021), paragraph 1.  
458 Bayer and Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, see footnote 64, p. 23. 
459 See also: Barbara Perry, ‘Exploring the community impacts of hate crime’ in Paul Iganski and Spiridoula Lagou, ‘The person injuries of ‘hate 
crime’  in  Nathan  Hall,  Abbee  Corb,  Paul  Giannasi  and  John  G.D.  Grieve  (eds),  ‘The  Routledge  International  Handbook  on  Hate  Crime’, 
Routledge 2015.  
460 FRA, ‘Making hate crime visible in the European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights’, see footnote 42, p. 19.  
461 European Forum for Restorative Justice, Feedback on the Roadmap. 
462 This is maintained by FRA, ODIHR, and RAA Sachsen e.V. 
463 FRA, ‘Making hate crime visible in the European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights’, see footnote 42, p. 22.  
464 Alke Glet, ‘Sozialkonstruktion und strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Hasskriminalität in Deutschland. Eine empirische Untersuchung polizeilicher 
und justizieller Definitions- und Selektionsprozesses bei der Bearbeitung vorurteilsmotivierter Straftaten‘, 2011, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot. 
465 FRA, ‘Making hate crime visible in the European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights’, see footnote 42, p. 22. 
466 RAA Sachsen e.V., ‘Hate Crime Victim Support in Europe: A Practical Guide’, see footnote 422, p.20. 

6  May 

available 

2003, 

at: 

75 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

despised  in  society  because  of  their  social  identity.  Similarly,  the  ODIHR’s  statement467 
maintains that hate crimes send messages of rejection and devaluation of communities and, 
therefore, the persons forming these communities experience fear and feel at risk of future 
attacks.  This  statement  from  the  ODIHR  came  from  the  personal  testimonies  of  victims 
showing a first-hand perspective. In general, these findings show a ripple effect throughout 
a particular community in situations of hate crime.  

3.3.2.2 Specific considerations with regard to grounds 

Sex and gender 

There  is  insufficient  data  on  the  harmful  impact  of  gender-based  hate  crime  on  wider 
society. It can be considered, however, that the impacts of gender-based violence crimes 
on wider society, such as the ‘silencing’ of women in public space,468 may be similar to the 
impacts of gender-based hate crimes.469 

Sexual orientation 

The literature explains that some Member States introduced increased sanctions for hate 
crimes  on  grounds  of  sexual  orientation,  and  ‘that  homosexuals  constitute  a  victimized 
group within society’.470 According to Europol’s response to the stakeholder consultation, 
hate crime affects our society in a very wide way and sexual orientation is among the peak 
grounds deeply involved. 

Furthermore,  the  European  Parliament  outlined  its  concerns  about  neo-fascist  and  neo-
Nazi groups and their effect on society as a whole by targeting, inter alia, LGBTIQ people.471 

Age 

According  to  Silvia  Perel-Levin,  chair  of  the  NGO  Committee  on  Ageing  in  Geneva  and 
representative  to  the  UN  of  the  International  Network  for  the  Prevention  of  Elder  Abuse 
(INPEA) and the International Longevity Centre Global Alliance (ILC GA), ‘[a]geism is very 
insidious,  socially  accepted  and  internalised  by  many  to  the  point  that  when  we  are 
discriminated against because we are older, we fail to see the injustice.’472  

Furthermore, Goosey supports that age-hostile crime can advance a pre-existing cultural 
context where older people are devalued and face discrimination. Specifically, ‘age-related 
hate  crime  is  analogous  to  the  social  exclusion  and  marginalisation  that  can  result  from 
race-related  and  religion-related  hate  crime,  and  therefore  perpetrators  of  age-hostile 
crimes ought to be punished as hate crime offenders.’473 

The Law Commission in England and Wales, in considering whether to add age to the list 
of protected characteristics, stated that hate crime can cause a harmful impact on society 

467 OSCE ODIHR, ‘Understanding the Needs of Hate Crime Victims’, see footnote 419, p. 11.  
468  European  Parliament  Research  Centre,  supporting  study  for  the  own-initiative  legislative  report  ‘Gender-based  violence:  including 
cyberviolence’; upcoming in March 2021, see footnote 435, p.14. 
469 ODIHR, ‘Gender-based hate crime’, available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/f/1/480847.pdf (last accessed 26 October 2021), p. 
3.  
470 Eva Tiby, ‘Constructions of Homophobic Hate Crimes: Definitions, Decisions, Data’, 2007, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology 
and  Crime  Prevention,  8(2),  available  at:  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14043850701686196?scroll=top&needAccess=true& 
(last accessed 29 September 2021). 
471 European Parliament Resolution of 25 October 2018 on the rise of neo-fascist violence in Europe, see footnote 169.  
472  Silvia  Perel-Levin,  ‘Ageism  during  COVID-19’,  2020,  available  at:  https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/pau/age/Policy-Seminar/Silvia-Perel-
Levin-Policy-Seminar-on-Ageing.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2021), p.1. 
473 Stuart Goosey, ‘Ageism as a Hate Crime: The Case for Extending Aggravated Offences to Protect Age Groups’, 2020,  Oxford Journal of 
Legal  Studies  (early  online  release),  available  at:  https://academic.oup.com/ojls/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ojls/gqaa059/6044459 
(last accessed 19 August 2021), p. 20. 

76 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

by damaging the principle of equality. It considered that damage can occur in two ways: 
firstly  by  decreasing  social  cohesion  through  the  isolation  or  withdrawal  of  vulnerable 
groups, the reinforcement of ‘outsider’ status and the deepening of tensions and divisions 
between  different  groups,  and  secondly,  by  undermining  a group’s  equal  participation  in 
economic, social, political and cultural life. 474 

Disability 

 According  to  the  European  Network  on  Independent  Living,  the  harmful  impact  of  hate 
crime against disabled individuals can affect, not only the individuals themselves, but also 
their families and wider communities. Members of the same group may live in fear of being 
targeted,  while  members  of  other  groups  may  also  be  reminded  of  their  vulnerability  to 
similar incidents.475 

In terms of behaviour and actions of victims and their communities, victims of hate crimes 
and the groups they belong to, may avoid specific places, such as businesses and streets, 
and adjust their daily routines, clothing or appearance for fear of being targeted.476 

Ultimately, increasing awareness of disability hate crime and fostering positive dialogue with 
key  stakeholders  to  combat  it,  disabled  people's  inclusion  within  the  community  can  be 
improved,  disabled  people  can  be  portrayed  as  valued  contributors  to  society  and those 
who are affected by disability hate crime can be supported.477 

474 Law Commission, ’Hate Crime Laws: A Consultation Paper’, 2020, available at: 
https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2020/10/Hate-crime-final-report.pdf  (last  accessed  16 
August 2021), p. 255. 
475 European Network on Independent Living, ‘Disability Hate Crime A guide for disabled people’s organisations, law enforcement agencies, 
national human rights institutions, media and other stakeholders’, see footnote 448, p. 18. 
828 Ibid, p. 19. 
477 Ibid, p. 5. 

77 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

3.4. Cross-border impact 

3.4.1.  General considerations 

As  part  of  the  targeted  consultation,  the  stakeholders  were  requested  to  answer  the 
questions: ‘in your view, can hate crime have a spillover impact across borders’ and ‘in what 
ways can hate crime committed in one Member State lead to instances in another’.   

Can hate crime have a spillover impact across borders? 

The  stakeholders  were  asked  whether  hate  crime  can  have  a  spillover  impact  across 
borders.  

Figure 20 - Stakeholder responses to 'in your view, can hate crime have a spillover 
impact across borders?' 

2

3

9

68

Yes

I don't know

N/A

No

This shows that the great majority of stakeholders perceives hate crime as having a cross-
border impact via this spillover effect.  

In what ways can hate crime committed in one Member State lead to instances of 
hate crimes in another? 

Stakeholders were requested to provide whether they felt the following ways could lead to 
instances of hate crimes originating in one Member State in another: 

  The psychological impact or spillover effect of hate crimes on society may provoke 
follow-up  hate  crimes  in  other  Member  States,  imitating  or  echoing  the  crime 
committed in the Member State where the first crime occurred; 

  Hate crimes may create a climate of fear or social conflicts, which may spillover 

from one Member State to the other; 

  The ideologies behind hate crimes are developed internationally and are cross-
border phenomena because they can be rapidly shared through social media; 
  Hate crimes offences may be committed by networks with members from several 
countries (within or outside the EU) that inspire organise or plan physical attacks 
against specific groups that share a protected characteristic; 

  Other ways.  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

Figure 21 - Number of stakeholder responses to 'in your view, in what ways can 
hate crimes committed in one Member State lead to instances of hate crimes in 
(an)other Member State?' 

61

a
m
e
n
o
n
e
h
p
r
e
d
r
o
b
-
s
s
o
r
c
e
r
a

i

d
e
r
a
h
s
y
l
d
p
a
r
e
b
n
a
c
y
e
h
t
e
s
u
a
c
e
b

i

a
d
e
m

l

a
i
c
o
s
h
g
u
o
r
h
t

e
b
y
a
m

s
e
c
n
e
f
f
o
s
e
m

i
r
c
e
t
a
H

h
t
i

w
s
k
r
o
w
t
e
n
y
b
d
e
t
t
i

m
m
o
c

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c

l

a
r
e
v
e
s

m
o
r
f

s
r
e
b
m
e
m

61

t
a
h
t

)

U
E
e
h
t
e
d
i
s
t
u
o
r
o
n
h
t
i

i

w

(

l

l

a
c
i
s
y
h
p
n
a
p
r
o
e
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
e
r
i
p
s
n

i

57

59

t
a
h
t

s
p
u
o
r
g
c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

i

t
s
n
a
g
a
s
k
c
a
t
t
a

c
i
t
s
i
r
e
t
c
a
r
a
h
c
d
e
t
c
e
t
o
r
p
a
e
r
a
h
s

f
o
e
t
a
m

i
l
c
a
e
t
a
e
r
c
y
a
m

s
e
m

i
r
c
e
t
a
H

y
a
m
h
c
i
h
w

,
s
t
c
i
l
f
n
o
c

l

a
i
c
o
s

r
o
r
a
e
f

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
e
n
o
m
o
r
f

r
e
v
o

l
l
i

p
s

r
e
h
t
o
e
h
t
o
t

r
o
t
c
a
p
m

i

l

l

a
c
i
g
o
o
h
c
y
s
p
e
h
T

n
o
s
e
m

i
r
c
e
t
a
h
f
o
t
c
e
f
f
e
r
e
v
o

l
l
i

p
s

e
t
a
h
p
u
-
w
o

l
l

o
f
e
k
o
v
o
r
p
y
a
m
y
t
e
i
c
o
s

,
s
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

r
e
h
t
o
n

i

s
e
m

i
r
c

3

r
e
h
t
O

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
e
h
t
n

i

d
e
t
t
i

m
m
o
c

d
e
r
r
u
c
c
o
e
m

i
r
c

t
s
r
i
f
e
h
t
e
r
e
h
w

e
m

i

i
r
c
e
h
t
g
n
o
h
c
e
r
o
g
n
i
t
a
t
i

m

i

s
e
m

i

i
r
c
e
t
a
h
d
n
h
e
b
s
e
g
o
o
e
d

i

l

i

e
h
T

d
n
a
y
l
l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

l

d
e
p
o
e
v
e
d
e
r
a

Number of stakeholder responses

When  requested  to  elaborate  on  this  spillover  effect  that  hate  crime  may  have,  many 
stakeholders referred to examples of events that have occurred which illustrate this spillover 
impact. For example, the neo-Nazi march against the Jewish community in Prague in 2007 
that was attended by far-right activists from all over Europe; the attack on two mosques in 
Christchurch  in  New  Zealand  where  the  gunman  maintained  he  took  inspiration  from 
terrorist  attacks  in  Norway:  the  United  States,  Italy,  Sweden  and  the  UK;  the  fascist 
organisation  Pohjoismainen  vastarintaliike  (‘The  Nordic  Resistance  Movement’)  which 
operates  in Finland,  Norway,  Sweden,  Demark, and Iceland;  and the  incidents  of sexual 
violence  in  Cologne  on  New  Years’  Eve  2015/16  being  a  source  of  influence  for  hate-
motivated incidents in Bulgaria against men of Middle-Eastern and African descent.  

The sources as collected by the literature suggest that the biggest threat of cross-border 
hate crime is that of inspiration from other extremist groups. This inspiration often occurs 
between those Member States with similar languages478.  

The Counter Extremist Project479 provides a variety of examples of transnational activity by 
far-right extremist groups, such as: 

  The British Group National Action who welcomed militants from other countries, 
particularly Poland, to join its violent street activities. It also took part in marches 
in Germany, Lithuania, and Latvia.  

478 This is maintained by the Counter Extremism Project, the Soufan Center, and Anti-Defamation League (‘ADL’). 
479 Counter Extremism Project, ‘Violent Right-Wing Extremism and Terrorism –  Transnational Connectivity, Definitions, Incidents, Structures 
and Countermeasures’, 2020, available at: https://www.counterextremism.com/sites/default/files/CEP Study_Violent Right-Wing Extremism and 
Terrorism_Nov 2020.pdf (last accessed 7 July 2021), pp.12, 79 and 145.  

79 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

  The leader of the Der III. Weg in Germany, Klaus Armstroff, spoke at a Finnish 
NRM event in Helsinki. Members of the Swedish arm of NRM reportedly came 
to visit Germany to liaise with Der III. Weg.  

  The French far-right milieu mostly liaises with international partners who speak 

French, i.e. those from Belgium and Switzerland.  

The examples provided concerning the NRM are concurred by the Soufan Center480 who 
maintain  that  it  is  composed  of  activists  from  Norway,  Sweden,  Finland,  and  Denmark. 
Moreover,  the  Soufan  Center481  have  discussed  the  Atomwaffen  Division,  a  neo-Nazi 
terrorist network, which originated in the United States and has now expanded its ideology 
across the UK, Canada, Germany, the Baltic states, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, 
Ireland,  Switzerland,  Italy,  and  other  European  countries.  In  fact,  in  disseminating  these 
ideas  across  Europe,  the  leader  of  the  Washington  State  cell  of  Atomwaffen  Division 
embarked on a 25-day trip to Europe, including to Czech Republic, Poland and Ukraine. 
The Feuerkrieg Division, based in the Baltics, Belgium, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, 
Norway,  Latvia,  Germany,  and  Russia  was  involved  in  violent  plots  in  Europe,  including 
death  threats  made  against  Belgian  MEP  Guy  Verhofstadt.  Furthermore,  their  German 
branch,  AWD  Deutschland,  has  been  involved  in  sending  death  threats  to  Green  Party 
members of Parliament Cem Ozedemir and Claudia Roth, claiming they were at the top of 
the group’s ‘kill list’.  

Furthermore,  the  ADL482  highlights  the  circulation  of  Renaud  Camus’  2011  ‘The  Great 
Replacement’ theory in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, 
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. Camus believes that native white Europeans are 
being replaced in their countries by non-white immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, 
and the end result will be the extinction of the white race. Furthermore, the ADL483 provided 
some information on the Soldiers of Odin USA, , a controversial anti-refugee vigilante group 
created in the United States only months after its formation in Finland. The vigilante group 
originated  in  Finland  in  Winter  2015/2016,  following  a  number  of  incidents  of  sexual 
harassment in some European cities. These incidents were alleged to have been committed 
by refugees. As a result of social media, members and supporters of the group spread the 
concept to nearby Scandinavian and Baltic countries, to France and Belgium – both of which 
were recently impacted by a number of terrorist attacks, and to English-speaking countries 
such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  

In  general,  globalisation  and  the  internet  has  allowed  (violent)  extremist  groups  to 
disseminate their ideas further than ever. This can be seen from the vast range of some of 
these extremist groups, such as Atomwaffen Division originating from the United States but 
now widespread all across Europe. This inspiration could lead to a larger amount of hate 
crime  across  certain  Member  States,  especially  when  considering  the  hateful  tactics 
exercised by these groups.  

480 The Soufan Center, ‘White Supremacy Extremism: The Transnational Rise of the Violent White Supremacist Movement’, 2019, available at: 
https://thesoufancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Report-by-The-Soufan-Center-White-Supremacy-Extremism-The-Transnational-Rise-
of-The-Violent-White-Supremacist-Movement.pdf (last accessed 7 July 2021), p.11.  
481  The  Soufan  Center,  ‘Special  Report:  The  Atomwaffen  Division:  The  Evolution  of  the  White  Supremacy  Threat’,  2020,  available  at: 
https://thesoufancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-Atomwaffen-Division-The-Evolution-of-the-White-Supremacy-Threat-August-
2020-.pdf (last accessed 7 July 2021).  
482  Anti-Defamation 
at: 
https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/hate-beyond-borders-the-internationalization-of-white-supremacy#european-influencers-  (last  accessed 
7 July 2021).  
483 ADL, ‘Soldiers of Odin USA: The Extreme European Anti-Refugee Group Comes to America’, see footnote 260. 

‘Hate  Beyond  Borders:  The 

of  White  Supremacy’, 

Internationalisation 

available 

League, 

80 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

3.4.2. Specific considerations with regard to the ground of sex and 

gender 

As certain manifestations of gender-based violence against women, when committed with 
an objectively verifiable gender bias, can fall under the hate crime on ground of sex and 
gender, it is possible to draw an analogy to the literature that observes these crimes already 
have  such  a  negative  impact  on  the  wider  EU  society  that  their  cross-border  dimension 
results from the impact of the offence.484 For more information on the cross-border impact 
of hate crime in general, it is worth consulting subsection 3.4.1.    

484 Petter Asp, ‘The Substantive Criminal Law Competence of the EU’, 2012, Skrifter utgivna av juridiska fakulteten vid Stockholms universitet 
no 79, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2728241 (last accessed 29 September 2021) p. 86.  

81 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VII – ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION AND QUANTITATIVE 
AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTED 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find 
the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact 
this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the 
Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the 
EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial 
purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
8
-
2
1
-
3
6
6
-
E
N
N

-

ISBN 978-92-76-44640-8