| 
1.2.1 Lack of Comparable and Reliable Data
Lack of comparable data constitutes a challenge for most reports compiled by international institutions and NGOs. Countries vary not only in their definition of what hate crimes are, but also in what kinds of data and information they collect and publish about hate-motivated incidents and offenses. This makes it almost impossible to compare hate crime rates between different states. (7)
According to an assessment by the Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of the European Union, only two EU member states—Finland and the United Kingdom—have developed comprehensive criminal justice data collection systems on racist and other hate crimes. Data collection in these countries often includes information on victim characteristics or places of victimization. In Poland and Germany, official national hate crime registrations and data collection systems are described as »sufficient« or »good.« The FRA defines a »good« system as one that systematically registers incidents/crimes and/or focuses on right-wing extremism/hate crimes. (8) However, this ranking is based on comparisons with other countries, including those where no data has been collected and published on hate crimes at all; consequently, it fails to take into account significant differences between countries with the same ranking as the country-specific situations below exemplify. After evaluating recent policies and developments in the field of monitoring of racially motivated or right-wing violence, the FRA considers Germany to be one of the member states with noticeable improvements over the last couple of years, observing that »state and non-governmental initiatives can complement each other to produce a fuller account of the situation.« (9) However, it is also highlighted »that the number of registered crimes might increase if existing laws, which are well placed to prosecute a range of ‘racist’ crimes, were applied more broadly to ‘everyday’ racism that is not affiliated to (sic) the activities of extremist groups.« (10) Throughout the reports, positive references are made to the activities of victim support organizations in East Germany, complimenting them for both providing a useful alternative data source and for addressing the needs by those who have been victimized by racist violence, an approach that is considered »relatively rare« throughout the EU. (11)
Despite the categorization of the Polish registration system as »good,« Poland’s current system displays obvious weaknesses. According to the Polish RAXEN reports (2004 and 2005), the information provided by the Police Headquarters Press Office, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of the Interior offer only a fragmentary view of the situation in Poland. (12) They do not precisely indicate what types of crimes the authorities have registered, against whom the registered crimes were committed, or what legal steps were taken (if any). The 2004 report states that there is no government institution in Poland that systematically collects data on anti-Semitic incidents. In the 2005 report the authors point out that there is also no official or unofficial data available on Islamophobic incidents and that the available data regarding anti-Semitic hate crimes is still very incomplete. With respect to attacks on the Roma community, it criticized that the Ministry of the Interior and Administration for »possess[ing] information about racist violence against Roma,« but it refuses to make this information public, not even by individual requests. (13) Three national NGOs are mentioned as important alternative data sources with respect to incidents of hate crimes and hate speech in Poland: Nigdy Więcej, the Association for Crisis Intervention (Towarzystwo Interwencji Kryzysowej), and the Open Republic Association Against Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia (»Otwarta Rzeczpospolita« Stowarzyszenie Przeciw Antysemityzmowi i Ksenofobii).
In summary, the Polish government collects extremely limited information about hate crimes and does not make this information public, whereas in Germany, the government’s data registration system and understanding of hate crimes has been improving over the past few years. Despite pronounced disparities between both countries’ legal frameworks and law enforcement practices, the FRA’s ranking of »good« for both countries obscures such differences. This topic will be further explored in Chapters 2 and 3.
7. International Centre for the Prevention of Crime 2002. Preventing Hate Crimes: International Strategies and Practices, Montreal.
8. According to the FRA eight other EU member states fall under the »good« category: Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden. Nine states are said to have only a »limited system« (Belgium, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia), while five (Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain) do not provide any official data on hate crimes. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2007. Report on Racism, p. 121.
9. Ibid., p. 145.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., p. 132.
12. Only two of the Polish RAXEN reports produced since 2003 by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights are available to the public; the most recent one covers the year 2005 and devotes only a few pages to the topic »racist violence and crimes.« Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights 2004 and 2005. Data Collection: RAXEN National Report: Poland, European Racism and Xenophobia Information Network, Warsaw.
13. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights 2004. Data Collection, p. 33.
(OPP)
