Abstract: This rapid review has sought to examine how the regulatory system for healthcare professionals, from employment through to national oversight and professional regulatory bodies, supports recognition and reporting of antisemitism and other forms of racism, and tackles racism at every stage and level. In particular, the review has sought to answer 2 principal questions:
How do we make sure in the NHS in England that perpetrators of antisemitism and other forms of racism are held to account with effective action taken to tackle their behaviour?
How do we make sure that patients and staff are protected from racism within the NHS in England and across the UK health and care professional regulation system?
This review proposes that the NHS establishes a clear organisation-wide priority to increase trust and confidence in NHS services among Jewish, and other minority ethnic patients and staff through actively promoting an anti-racist workplace culture and putting in place systems to tackle incidents of all forms of racism thoroughly, fairly and transparently. The NHS must work to embed anti-racism principles at its very core, eliminate racist prejudice and disadvantage, and demonstrate fairness in all aspects of NHS employment and care. That must include efforts to tackle anti-Jewish racism.
The scope of this review considers actions that can be taken to address racism from all quarters, including:
NHS staff
patients and their relatives
members of the public
Building on the existing large body of evidence on the impact of racism in healthcare, and on the extensive experience of Lord Mann, the review undertook:
a period of targeted engagement with relevant stakeholders, including the UK health and care system and professional regulatory bodies
thorough examination of existing mechanisms, guidance, and processes for addressing incidents of racism in the NHS
Abstract: The role of HM Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism was established to provide independent advice to the Prime Minister and Government on issues relating to antisemitism in the UK and the most effective methods to combat it. As the first holder of the Office, I was appointed to the role of the Independent Adviser in 2019 for five years. Since then, I have maintained a constructive dialogue with the devolved nations as well as the UK Government.
This 2024 review collates recommendations from my major reports on antisemitism in the last two years, the first of which was a detailed action plan on tackling anti-Jewish hatred across the UK while the second addressed the alarming growth in antisemitism on our university campuses. The review also gives an overview of other important project areas that I have covered in my work plan.
While significant progress has been made, important recommendations still require adoption and implementation by the relevant department or devolved administration. I am therefore urging Ministers in the new UK Government, the devolved governments and senior officials to use this review as a blueprint or checklist for further action and the review is formatted in sections according to who holds the lead responsibility.
The need for action has been made even more urgent by the conflict in Israel and Gaza since 7th October 2023. The Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 4,103 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2023, the highest total ever reported to CST in a single calendar year. Of the 4,103 instances of anti-Jewish hate reported, 2,699 (66%) occurred on or after 7th October. This figure alone exceeds any previous annual antisemitic incident total recorded by CST, which has been recording incidents since 1984.
Abstract: At the beginning of the twenty-first century, antisemitism still constitutes a significant problem in many parts of the world, including in Britain. Although many historical, social and political aspects of anti-Jewish prejudice have been studied extensively, something that has received only scant attention is whether and how key institutions and actors have attempted to counteract it. This thesis contributes towards filling this gap in the scholarly literature by examining governmental and non-governmental responses to contemporary antisemitism in Britain, which it conceptualises as a multi-dimensional and contested social problem. Analysing government documents, parliamentary records and other publications, the thesis compares how state and civil society actors have discursively framed antisemitism, and what practical measures – if any – they have adopted to counter it. This analysis shows that the state has traditionally tended to neglect anti-Jewish prejudice, or to address it only indirectly in the context of much larger categories of issues, such as racism or inequality. While this universalistic approach is not entirely dismissed, the thesis problematizes the underlying assumption that contemporary antisemitism should simply be subsumed under the larger umbrella of racism. The limitations of such an approach become especially apparent in the context of Holocaust remembrance and Holocaust education, to which the thesis devotes a separate chapter. On the other hand, while the thesis does not propose a simple dichotomy of universalistic state responses and particularistic civil society responses, it argues that the work of groups such as the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism and the Community Security Trust highlights the potential of civil society to make significant contributions to the fight against contemporary antisemitism by engaging with it as a particular issue. However, an examination of British Israel advocacy organisations in the final chapter demonstrates that this inherent potential is not always realised in practice. Overall, the thesis argues that a multi-level framework for addressing anti-Jewish prejudice that includes different governmental as well as non-governmental actors is most likely to be effective in countering antisemitism in all its complexity.
Abstract: The present report provides an overview of data on antisemitism as recorded by international organisations and by official and unofficial sources in the European Union (EU) Member States. Furthermore, the report includes data concerning the United Kingdom, which in 2019 was still a Member State of the EU. For the first time, the report also presents available statistics and other information with respect to North Macedonia and Serbia, as countries with an observer status to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). All data presented in the report are based on the respective countries’ own definitions and categorisations of antisemitic behaviour. At the same time, an increasing number of countries are using the working definition of antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and there are efforts to further improve hate crime data collection in the EU, including through the work of the Working Group on hate crime recording, data collection and encouraging reporting (2019–2021), which FRA facilitates. ‘Official data’ are understood in the context of this report as those collected by law enforcement agencies, other authorities that are part of criminal justice systems and relevant state ministries at national level. ‘Unofficial data’ refers to data collected by civil society organisations.
This annual overview provides an update on the most recent figures on antisemitic incidents, covering the period 1 January 2009 – 31 December 2019, across the EU Member States, where data are available. It includes a section that presents the legal framework and evidence from international organisations. The report also provides an overview of national action plans and other measures to prevent and combat antisemitism, as well as information on how countries have adopted or endorsed the non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) (2016) as well as how they use or intend to use it.
This is the 16th edition of FRA’s report on the situation of data collection on antisemitism in the EU (including reports published by FRA’s predecessor, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia).
Abstract: Antisemitism can be expressed in the form of verbal and physical attacks, threats, harassment, discrimination and unequal treatment, property damage and graffiti or other forms of speech or text, including on the internet. Antisemitic incidents and hate crime violate fundamental rights, especially the right to human dignity, the right to equality of treatment and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The present report provides an overview of data on antisemitism as recorded by international organisations and by official and unofficial sources in the 28 European Union (EU) Member States, based on their own definitions and categorisations. ‘Official data’ are understood here as those collected by law enforcement agencies, other authorities that are part of criminal justice systems and relevant state ministries at the national level. ‘Unofficial data’ refers to data collected by civil society organisations.
This is the 15th edition of FRA’s report on the situation of data collection on antisemitism in the EU (including reports published by FRA’s predecessor, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia).
Abstract: Antisemitism can be expressed in the form of verbal and physical attacks, threats, harassment, property damage and graffiti or other forms of speech or text, including on the internet. Antisemitic incidents and hate crime violate fundamental rights, including the right to human dignity, the right to equality of treatment and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This annual overview compiles the available evidence on antisemitic incidents collected by governmental and non-governmental sources, covering the period 1 January 2006– 31 December 2016, where data are available. In addition, it includes a section that presents evidence from international organisations. No official data on reported antisemitic incidents in 2016 were available for 11 Member States by the time this report was compiled in September 2017.
‘Official data’ are understood here as those collected by law enforcement agencies, other authorities that are part of criminal justice systems and relevant state ministries at the national level. ‘Unofficial data’ refers to data collected by civil society organisations.
Abstract: Antisemitism can be expressed in the form of verbal and physical attacks, threats, harassment, property damage, graffiti or other forms of text, including on the internet. This report relates to manifestations of antisemitism as they are recorded by official and unofficial sources in the 28 European Union (EU) Member States.
‘Official data’ is understood here as that collected by law enforcement agencies, criminal justice systems and relevant state ministries at the national level. ‘Unofficial data’ refers to data collected by civil society organisations.
This report compiles available data on antisemitic incidents collected by international, governmental and non-governmental sources, covering the period 1 January 2004– 31 December 2014, where data are available. No official data on reported antisemitic incidents were available for seven Member States at the time this report was compiled: Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta and Portugal.
Abstract: Das Konzept der Diaspora hat in den vergangenen Jahren in der akademischen Diskussion eine hohe Konjunktur erfahren. War der Bedeutungsgehalt des Begriffs historisch auf die klassischen Fälle von teils gewaltsamer Vertreibung, teils freiwilliger Neusiedlung der jüdischen und griechischen, sowie schließlich der armenischen Gemeinden beschränkt, so bezieht er sich inzwischen auf quasi alle außerhalb ihres ursprünglichen Territoriums lebenden ethnischen Gruppen (Tölölyan 1991). Dieser Schritt markiert einen sowohl theoretischen wie auch politischen Einschnitt, der in einem engen Zusammenhang mit den Debatten über die kulturellen Effekte der Globalisierung steht. Die Wiederkehr der Diaspora kann gewissermaßen als exemplarische Repräsentation einer Vergesellschaftungsform verstanden werden, die mit unseren nach wie vor territorial verorteten Kategorien bricht und in ihren transnationalen Bezügen die Grenzen eines „methodologischen Nationalismus“ (Beck 2004) aufzeigt. Das begriffliche Gegenüber der Diaspora bildet demzufolge der Nationalstaat. Anschließend an den postkolonialen Diskurs scheinen diasporische Gemeinschaften als alternative Entwürfe deterritorialisierter kultureller Identitäten auf, die im strikten Gegensatz zu nationalstaatlich organisierten Gesellschaften konstruiert sind (vgl. Appadurai 1994; Clifford 1997; kritisch dazu Anthias 1998). Wie ich im Folgenden zeigen möchte, übersieht diese behauptete Fundamentalopposition, dass und in welcher Weise Migrationspopulationen nach wie vor durch nationalstaatliche Regimes und deren institutionelle Zwänge gekennzeichnet sind. Im Unterschied zu einer Position, die insbesondere das kosmopolitische und grenzüberschreitende Potenzial von Diaspora-Gemeinschaften unterstreicht, will ich insofern gerade auf deren Einbettung in jeweils nationalstaatliche Rahmen verweisen, in und gegenüber denen die lokalen Diasporas ihre kulturelle Eigenständigkeit zu behaupten versuchen. Ein solches Vorgehen ist mit der migrationssoziologischen Annahme verknüpft, dass Einwanderung als Prozess aufzufassen ist, den sowohl die aufnehmende Gesellschaft als auch die Immigranten selbst strukturieren. Es handelt sich dabei nicht um einen symmetrischen Prozess, sondern um einen zu Lasten der Einwanderer ungleich gewichteten, denn diese müssen auf die politischen und symbolischen Ordnungsmuster Bezug nehmen, die in den verschiedenen Aufnahmegesellschaften maßgeblich sind (Bauböck 1992). Diesem Spannungsverhältnis soll am Beispiel der Migration russischsprachiger Juden nach Deutschland nachgegangen werden.
Abstract: The present update relates to manifestations of antisemitism as they are recorded by official and unofficial sources in the 28 European Union (EU) Member States. ‘Official data’ is understood here as that collected by law enforcement agencies, criminal justice systems and relevant state ministries at the national level. ‘Unofficial data’ refers to data collected by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs). This update compiles available data on antisemitic incidents collected by international, governmental and non-governmental sources, covering the period 1 January 2003–31 December 2013. No data on manifestations of antisemitism were available for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia at the time this update was compiled.
This is the 10th in a series of yearly updates about data collected on antisemitism published by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and its predecessor, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).
Abstract: In contemporary westem societies that are gappling with notions of democracy, representation, accountability, power relations, transparency and responsibility, the issue of how organizations are governed has become crucial. In the governmenal or public sector, as new transnational stuctures such as the European Union evolve, questions are now being asked about other kinds of restructuring, such as devolution or the reformulation of the role of local govemment. In the corporate world, too, there is a renewed interest in the obligations of boards to shareholders, the work force and the local community, as well as in the make-up, roles and responsibilities of those boards.
Abstract: Following concerns from many quarters over what seemed to be a serious
increase in acts of antisemitism in some parts of Europe especially in March and
April 2002, the EUMC asked the 15 National Focal Points of its Racism and
Xenophobia Network (RAXEN) to direct a special focus on antisemitism in its
data collection activities.
One of the outcomes of that initiative is the comprehensive report
“Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003.” The information from
the RAXEN network enabled the EUMC to present, for the first time in the EU,
data on antisemitism that has been collected systematically, using common
guidelines for each Member State. The main report provides an overview of
incidents of antisemitism and examples of good practice to combat antisemitism
from information available in the years 2002 – 2003, and a thorough analysis of
the data, as well as proposals for action to combat antisemitism.
As part of the same initiative the EUMC also commissioned this present report.
It consists of material from in-depth interviews with 35 persons from Jewish
communities in eight European countries, covering their own perceptions of
antisemitism. It is not meant to supply an objective, academic analysis. Instead
its aim is to present a snapshot of views of people from Jewish communities in
Europe, their experiences, concerns and expectations. In this way, the
qualitative material from the interviews adds personal insights to the statistical
and descriptive material in the main report. This report is complementary to the
main report and should be read in conjunction with it.
Abstract: Following concerns from many quarters over what seemed to be a serious
increase in acts of antisemitism in some parts of Europe, especially in
March/April 2002, the EUMC asked the 15 National Focal Points of its Racism
and Xenophobia Network (RAXEN) to direct a special focus on antisemitism in
its data collection activities. This comprehensive report is one of the outcomes
of that initiative. It represents the first time in the EU that data on antisemitism
has been collected systematically, using common guidelines for each Member
State.
The national reports delivered by the RAXEN network provide an overview of
incidents of antisemitism, the political, academic and media reactions to it,
information from public opinion polls and attitude surveys, and examples of
good practice to combat antisemitism, from information available in the years
2002 – 2003.
On receipt of these national reports, the EUMC then asked an independent
scholar, Dr Alexander Pollak, to make an evaluation of the quality and
availability of this data on antisemitism in each country, and identify problem
areas and gaps. The country-by-country information provided by the 15
National Focal Points, and the analysis by Dr Pollak, form Chapter 1 and
Chapter 2 of this report respectively.
Finally, in the light of the information and analysis provided by this exercise,
the report concludes with a number of proposals for action to the EU and its
Member States on concrete measures to combat antisemitism, including legal
and educational measures, and recommendations for improving the monitoring
and recording of antisemitic incidents.
