Also, this allows the existence of the phenomenon often referred to as “ethno corruption,” that is using diversity measures by the majority. All of these lead to the further marginalization of disadvantaged minority communities. In sum, not combatting the inherent ambiguity and political sensitivity involved in defining minority groups and membership criteria, both impedes prospects for minority protection (in the case of victims of hate crimes and discrimination) and risks reaching target group for diversity policies. The second issue I would like to raise, concerns a special form of OVERPOLICING minorities in prosecuting HATE CRIMES. The issue concerns the, at first glance theoretical, but also very practical question of what are hate crimes? Identity-, or minority protection mechanisms? In other words, can and should any group be protected as a hate crime victim, or only members of discrete and insular, underprivileged, vulnerable communities who lack sufficient numbers or power to seek redress through the political process or may face discrimination because of their inherent (unchangeable, fundamental, immutable) characteristics? The past years in legislation by international and national organizations brought a proliferation of protected grounds, and has been extended to basically any socially recognized identity, and often even open ended lists are used, making reference to “any other status.”