Hate crime and systemic failure

Hidden in Plain Sight is the title of a recently published report from the EHRC on crimes against disabled people. Disability commissioner Mike Smith talks to Ian Macrae about how and why victims are let down by the system

What is a disabled journalist supposed to feel when reporting that an inquiry into crimes against disabled people in which the victim’s disability was a motivating factor comes up with little that is surprising.

That’s the case with a report, Hidden in Plain Sight published by the Equality And Human Rights Commission (EHRC) following an inquiry which looked in detail at ten well-documented cases.

Among the conclusions are that there are significant numbers of these sorts of crimes committed each year, that too many of them go unreported and that those who do report attacks or abuse all too often receive inappropriate reactions from the police and other public bodies.

But if none of this is new, the Commission’s approach has at least led it to some conclusions which, if not entirely new and surprising, have at least meant that big institutional issues have been thrust into the spotlight.

Lead Commissioner for the inquiry and chair of the EHRC’s Disability Committee, Mike Smith (pictured) gives this broad outline.

“Targeted hostility and other forms of harassment against disabled people are really quite commonplace – hundreds of thousands of cases each year – probably significantly more commonplace than anyone has recognised before.

“There’s what we’re calling a systematic and institutional failure to recognise the problem, to respond to it, and to take appropriate action to that response.”

In addressing the question of how this situation has arisen, Smith once again gives an answer which will sound familiar to anyone who has been concerned with disability hate crime in recent years.

“There’s a real lack of evidence or data because police are uncomfortable asking about disability in the first place. So they don’t then consider whether disability may have been a factor in why it happened. They don’t then follow through.“

But he also points to a more fundamental problem to do with the place and perception of disability in society.

“The charity model pervades and we’ve come across what might be called a collective denial that this stuff could be taking place. When we investigated responses to some of the more complicated cases, time after time a disabled person was targeted and yet there was a denial that this could have been because of their disability. So people are just being too literal in approaching the problem and not thinking deeply enough about it.”

In other instances, whether guided by policy or a misguided sense of what’s appropriate to do in dealing with crimes against disabled people, Smith says the EHRC inquiry found that agencies had worked against the interests of the disabled person.

“The No Secrets guidance, which is meant to encourage co-operation between public bodies has sometimes meant that police have just handed cases over to social services instead of dealing with it as a crime. That’s meant that what was theft or fraud suddenly becomes relabelled financial abuse. And then the action is targeted on the vulnerability of the victim, making them change their life and behaviour, perhaps moving them instead of dealing with the perpetrator.”

In previous high profile hate crimes in other areas of the equality agenda, the Stephen Lawrence murder, for instance, the very attitudes which motivated the crime itself were found to prevail among the very people, including police officers who were charged with investigating it. So did the EHRC inquiry find evidence of institutional disablism in police forces?

“I don’t think I would phrase it that way. When we talk about systemic failures it doesn’t mean that they’re overtly discriminatory. It means that they don’t deal with it very well. They’re probably not doing their Equality Duty in terms of elimination or promotion of positive images, but it’s not just the police. It’s all public sector authorities.

Smith expands, using examples of exclusion and unthinking discrimination throughout the public sector.

“It’s housing and the way they build housing: it’s transport and the way they create conflicts over shared spaces: it’s social services and the ridiculous allocation of resources which might allow one significant social encounter a week. Well, if you’re socially excluded, of course you’re more likely to be targeted. So there are all sorts of overlapping vicious circles.”

While it’s clear that society contains a whole range and variety of views, it’s not just the negative ones which fuel and motivate crime which cause problems. Other softer, more charitable views of disabled people can lead to a victim’s credibility being questioned.

“They don’t believe that things like this are happening,” says Smith. “You’re meant to feel sorry for a disabled person. Why would someone beat them up?”

The cases which the inquiry looked at also revealed other issues of credibility.

“One man, Michael Gilbert [abused and ultimately killed by members of his own family] had his claim that he was being intimidated and victimised discredited by police officers because he was a big guy. They just didn’t take it seriously.

“A blind woman was molested on a bus. When she reported it, she was told, well what can we do, you can’t provide a description. “

But these systemic failures may turn out to be the easy part. It’s deeper, more ingrained attitudes where the real problems have their roots.

“As a society we need a fundamental shift in how we understand what disability is and means. We need to stop thinking of it as a negative construct and see it as part of the natural variation of human life.”