There are three simple things Theresa May could do immediately to stop racism and hate crime

Theresa May, our new Prime Minister, has sent a rallying call to the nation in the aftermath of the EU referendum: “We need to unite our country”. On that, she is spot on. The scale of the division cannot be understated. In the 18 days following the referendum, 331 individuals and families have reported being attacked in racist hate crimes, according to the National Police Chiefs’ Council – a five-fold increase. And these are thought to be only the tip of the iceberg as hate crime is significantly under-reported.
 
But the underlying drivers of this rise in hate crime, including our politicians’ divisive rhetoric and the media’s role in spreading hatred, are being completely ignored. We all know that some politicians sensationalise and misrepresent information in the hope of winning votes. In this election we saw “racist rhetoric about migrants and migration from the highest political levels in the UK”, according to the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, and in a manner that appears to have incited violence. As Baroness Sayeeda Warsi said: “Are we prepared to tell lies, to spread hate and xenophobia just to win a campaign? For me that’s a step too far.”
 
We should encourage good behaviour and be wary of further actions that censor the free expression of diverse views, however vile. But a lot more can be done to counter this culture of and misrepresenting the facts to win votes. That’s where May, as incoming Prime Minister ready to set out her mandate for government, can step in.
 
To start, she could consider is the appointment of an Independent Election Commissioner, or the funding of independent NGOs, to act as a fact-checker during election campaigns. The role would be limited to determining whether campaign speeches and marketing material are inaccurate or misleading, and to providing context where relevant so a layperson can understand the key issues. Its gravitas should be such that fear of a negative judgement on specific claims would act as a deterrent – an important part of the jigsaw required to help in the cleaning up of politics.
 
Typically in a liberal democracy, it is the role of the media to hold politicians to account. However, on this issue, the media has played a part in instigating much of the hatred we now see on our streets. Consider the weeks of front page scare stories about migrants or the cartoon that compared immigrants to vermin, conflating refugees with gun-wielding terrorists. The old adage - with freedom of speech comes great responsibility – is often ignored by parts of the media intent on sensationalism.
 
The Editor’s Code is designed to reflect “the highest professional standards that members of the press…have undertaken to maintain”, but these basic standards are not even close to being met. There needs to be serious reform from Ipso – the relatively new press watchdog in charge of regulating adherence to this Code for much of the print media – as it struggles to effectively deter the press from spouting such hatred. Again, this should be an important area of focus for May as she seeks to stabilise Britain after Brexit.
 
First, the press regulator needs to speed up the slow processes which mean that corrections are often published after the issue is no longer relevant. Second, it must improve its rulings so that corrections are given the same prominence as the initial falsehood, and with appropriate financial penalties. Third, the code itself needs to be updated to protect groups from discrimination as recommended by the Leveson Inquiry into the British press. The deficiencies in the code are the reason why, for example, Ipso rejected complaints about a column that compared migrants to “cockroaches”.
 
Finally, the regulator or an independent commission appointed by May should investigate the overall editorial standards of newspapers and issue financial penalties where there is a pattern of problematic behaviour.
 
With no action taken on these underlying causes of dangerous political rhetoric and media sensationalism, we are left to deal with their consequences – as the rise in hate crime demonstrates. Yet even there, we see limited action from the government so far. 
 
The fight against bigotry has been going backwards, according to scholars such as Matthew Goodwin, with little funding for research or strategic co-ordinated action – although credit is due to May for making some small progress in the recording of hate crime during her time at the Home Office. This should give us reasons for hope in the future.
 
Despite some of May’s more controversial stances on immigration – including the “go home” vans, her treatment of international students, the apparently reckless decision-making and discriminatory application of extradition law, and the threat to deport EU immigrants – the incoming Prime Minister’s call to make “Britain a country that works for everyone”, and her promise to remain part of the European Court of Human Rights, demonstrates that a fundamental change in attitude to racism and hate crime is possible under her leadership.
 
We need to now implement these simple steps – as well as better legal advice for victims of hate crimes, schemes to encourage the reporting of hate crime in general, as well as on social media, and the expansion of restorative justice programmes – to put a stop to hate and racism now.
 
There is even more that can be done, with a little thought. Within schools, wildly distorted views of immigrants among young children are reported; they need to be challenged. The police crackdown on hate crime in London, as launched by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, could also be replicated across the country. And the threshold for prosecuting hate crimes needs to be re-visited, too.
 
With a Pandora’s box of bigotry unleashed during an historic period of political instability, inaction will legitimise the view a rise in hatred and intolerance is inevitable during tough times. I don’t agree. 
 
Will Theresa May’s unifying “one nation” policy agenda prove to be more than mere political rhetoric? Our country’s future is at stake.