View previous stories
	Most hate crime victims suffer in Silence by Guardian News United Kingdom   Aug. 2006   Most victims of racist and homophobic crime do not report their experiences to the police and often suffer ongoing victimisation which they regard as part of everyday life, according to a report published today.   The research by Victim Support found most victims of hate crimes, which included verbal abuse, property damage and assault, suffered in silence. Only one in five who reported the offences felt supported by police and many criticised officers for failing to act, particularly over low-level harassment.   Some who experienced continued victimisation saw the abuse as part of daily life and even gave up leaving the house. Others lost their home or business because of arson, vandalism or having to move to get away from their abusers. They gave fear of going to court, concern about revenge attacks and a lack of understanding from the police as reasons for not reporting what was happening.   Peter Dunn, head of research and development at Victim Support, said: "Hate crime symbolises all the worst aspects of prejudice. Our research shows that it has a more profoundly damaging affect on victims that is often not fully understood by the criminal justice system." He said the report"s findings, obtained through interviews with 107 hate crime victims and a survey of support organisations, would be shared to try to improve the help available. The organisation helps 30,000 victims of racist crime every year and the numbers are rising.   Maxie Hayles, head of Birmingham Racial Attacks Monitoring Unit, said agencies needed to prioritise hate crimes. "The fact is that people do not trust the criminal justice system and would rather suffer the terror than risk not being helped," he said. Although the Home Office publishes figures for recorded racist incidents and racially or religiously aggravated offences - up 7% and 6% respectively last year - a spokeswoman said it did not break down figures for victimisation based on sexual orientation or disability.
	Tobacco Giants guilty of Lying by AFP   18.8.2006.   A US judge has found the tobacco industry guilty of lying for decades about the lethal effects of smoking.   The judge has also banned tobacco companies from using descriptive terms such as "lights" on cigarette packets. Other forbidden descriptions include "low tar", "light", "ultra light", "mild" and "natural".   The decision follows a protracted two year trial. The judge has that ordered tobacco companies correct past lies and highlight their "manipulation of cigarette design and composition to ensure optimum nicotine delivery."   The case was filed by included Philip Morris"s parent Altria, American Tobacco, British American Tobacco (BAT), Brown and Williamson Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, RJ Reynolds Tobacco and industry-funded lobby groups.   Washington district judge, Gladys Kessler, accepted the government"s case that cigarette smoking causes disease and death. But Justice Kessler stopped short of ordering the companies to fund a nationwide campaign against smoking.   The government had sought a ban on tobacco advertising in motor sports but Justice Kessler did not rule in its favour.   As of January 1, 2007, tobacco companies will be prohibited from using positive health messages in their packaging or advertising.   "Despite internal recognition of this fact, defendants have publicly denied, distorted and minimized the hazards of smoking…” she said.   The statements would have to be published on the companies websites, as special inserts in cigarette packets, as full-page advertisements in the Sunday editions of a host of US newspapers, and as messages on national television.   The Department of Justice said it was "pleased with the court"s finding of liability on the part of the defendants, but disappointed that the court did not impose all of the remedies sought by the government".   "Nevertheless, we are hopeful that the remedies that were imposed by the court can have a significant, positive impact on the health of the American public," it said in a brief statement.   The ruling represents the latest setback for the tobacco industry after a years-long legal onslaught in the United States and around the world.   The American Heart Association welcomed Kessler"s ruling but condemned her remedies as "weak".   "It"s like a criminal act worthy of a life sentence but instead they got a slap on the wrist," association chief executive Cass Wheeler said.   The Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids said the industry was guilty as charged — "guilty of lying to the American people and marketing their deadly and addictive products to our children at untold cost in lives and suffering".   But the group also complained about the remedies and urged the government to appeal for stricter constraints on the industry"s future conduct.   The US government brought its complaint against the tobacco industry in 1999, alleging that companies had engaged in a conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to cover up the risks of smoking.   When the trial began in September 2004, the government demanded that the companies pay out 12 billion dollars over five years to set up a national campaign against smoking, targeting young people aged under 21 in particular.   The judge rather ordered the industry to pay the government"s hefty legal costs from the trial.   She absolved one of the defendants, Liggett Group, after finding that the relatively small cigarette maker had withdrawn from the industry conspiracy in the mid-1990s.   Kessler catalogued a long series of deceits perpetuated by the industry down the years, including savage attacks on anti-smoking advice issued by the US surgeon-general.   She noted that up to the 1970s, tobacco executives continually insisted that they would be happy to remove any harmful elements from cigarettes "if and when" they were identified.   They knew full well from research by their in-house scientists that nicotine, for instance, was highly addictive.   The ruling quoted Joseph Cullman, then president of Philip Morris, as "falsely" denying in a 1971 television interview that cigarettes posed a risk to pregnant women or their babies.   "It"s true that babies born from women who smoke are smaller, but they are just as healthy as the babies born to women who do not smoke," Cullman said. "Some women would prefer to have smaller babies."
	View more stories