and hatred’. Maybe; but then again maybe
not. The figures have to be considered in the
context of rising reports of ‘hate crime’ since
it was first introduced as a category of crime
five years ago. In 2013/14 there were 44,577
hate crimes, followed by 52,465 in 2014/15
and 62,518 in 2015/16. Interestingly, the fig-
ures have spiked in July each year, perhaps
as people take advantage of long evenings
to spend more time on the street. If Britons
have been becoming more hateful over the
past few years it is a trend which began long
before the EU referendum.
An alternative explanation is that there
has been an increase in reporting of this
type of crime owing to the publicity given
to it, aided by the somewhat loose offi-
cial definition: ‘any criminal offence which
is perceived, by the victim or any other
person, to be motivated by hostility or
prejudice towards someone based on a per-
sonal characteristic.’
In other words, for a ‘hate crime’ to be
recorded no one has to prove that a crime
was motivated by hate on the grounds of
race, nationality, sexual orientation or so
on — mere perception is enough. When you
consider that an Oxford physicist last year
tried to report the Home Secretary’s speech
at the Conservative party conference as
a hate crime, you see the problem. In the
event, the police recorded Amber Rudd’s
speech as a hate ‘incident’ but decided it
wasn’t a crime.
Mr Jozwik’s death was not the only
reported post-Brexit ‘hate crime’ which
turned out to be nothing of the sort. Among
other high-profile incidents, the window
of a Spanish restaurant was broken in Lew-
isham — recorded on that trusty record
of crime, Facebook, as a result of Brexit-
induced hate but later treated by police
as a burglary. Then there was theabusive graffiti which appeared on a Polish
cultural centre in Hammersmith. This pro-
duced understandable horror and a local MP,
Greg Hands, underlined that Poles are wel-
come. Only later did it emerge that the graf-
fiti read ‘Fuck you OMP’ — OMP being a
Polish centre-right think-tank which had
backed Brexit.
The Jozwik case provides a salutary les-
son for anyone who is tempted to jump to
conclusions about crimes before the full
facts are known. Such reactions are them-
selves a form of prejudice, which in this case
has been committed by people who consid-
ered themselves to be standing up against
prejudice. Racism and xenophobia should
never be tolerated, and it is good that great-
er efforts are being made to stamp them out
than in the past. We should rightfully feel
ashamed that Mr Jozwik met his death here
and ask what is it that makes our town cen-
tres at night such breeding grounds for vio-
lence and aggression.
But the idea that the referendum
unleashed a frenzy of violence against
foreigners culminating in the murder of
Arek Jozwik — something which caused a
lot of soul-searching among Leave as well
as Remain voters at the time — has turned
out not to be true. On that point, people on
both sides of the Brexit divide should surely
be relieved.‘We need you to lead the
Brexit negotiations.’PROSPERITY BRITAIN:
A PROGRAMME FOR PRODUCTIVITY
REGISTER HERE
http://www.spectator.co.uk/productivity | 020 7961 0044In association withNew technology is constantly emerging – yet the country’s productivity stagnates. Why is it that the output of an
average British worker lags behind that of our overseas competitors and what is the Government doing about it?
Chaired by Andrew Neil. Speakers to be announced.Thursday 30 November, 8 - 10.30 a.m. | Landing Forty Two, Leadenhall Street, LondonThe idea of anti-Polish murder was
understandably shocking. But
what was the evidence for it?