Abstract: Roger Waters, documenta 15. Wo BDS darauf steht, ist meistens Antisemitismus drin. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht ist klar: „Antisemitische Konzepte“ sind mit der Menschenwürde „nicht vereinbar und verstoßen gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung“. Der Bundesgerichtshof hat zudem festgestellt, dass das Relief der sogenannten Judensau an der Wittenberger Stadtkirche das Judentum als Ganzes verhöhnt und verunglimpft. Sie stelle ohne Distanzierung eine Rechtsverletzung dar.
Dennoch hob das Bundesverwaltungsgericht eine Entscheidung der Stadt München auf, die Raumvergabe von Kommunen an Organisationen zu verweigern, welche sich mit den Inhalten, Themen und Zielen der BDS-Kampagne identifizieren. Eine solche Beschränkung verstoße gegen die Meinungsfreiheit. Auch bei der documenta wurde mit der Kunstfreiheit argumentiert.
Muss man nicht strafbare Aussagen der BDS-Kampagne nicht nur hinnehmen, sondern ihnen auch noch städtische Einrichtungen zur Verfügung stellen? Oder kann der Staat zum Schutz der Menschenwürde gegen antisemitische Hetze auch mit nicht strafrechtlichen Mitteln vorgehen? Diesen Fragen ging eine Tagung des Tikvah Instituts nach, die in diesem Buch dokumentiert wird.
Mit Beiträgen von Norman Nathan Gelbart, Jan von Hein, Patrick Heinemann, Jonathan Heuberger, Matthias von Kaler, Christian Kirchberg, Gerhard Robbers, Alexander Roth
Herausgegeben vom Tikvah Institut und Volker Beck
Mit einem Vorwort von Volker Beck
Abstract: Staatsexamen am Feiertag? Arbeiten statt Neujahrsfest? Immer wieder kommt es im Alltag von Jüdinnen und Juden in Deutschland zu Konflikten zwischen religiösem Leben und weltlichen Ansprüchen und staatlichen Regelungen. Jüdische Studierende berichten davon, dass sie oft zwischen einem zügigen Studienabschluss und ihrem Glauben wählen müssen, da Prüfungstermine auf Samstag, also Schabbat, oder auf hohe jüdische Feiertage gelegt werden – ganz ohne Ersatztermine. Auch in der Arbeitswelt besteht oft kein Verständnis gegenüber der Befolgung der halachischen Arbeitsruhegebote. Alternative Prüfungstermine und Freistellungen von der Arbeit oder vom Schulunterricht für die Religionsausübung zu verweigern, verletzt aber die Religionsfreiheit und stellt eine unzulässige Benachteiligung dar.
Mit diesem Buch wird die Bedeutung der jüdischen Feiertage beleuchtet und gezeigt, wie der Gesetzgeber handeln müsste, soll die Religionsfreiheit von Jüdinnen und Juden in unserer Rechtsordnung den verfassungsrechtlich gebotenen Respekt erfahren.
Mit Beiträgen von Zsolt Balla, Daniel Fabian, Christian Gehring, Eric Haußmann, Susanna Kahlefeld, Rainer Kampling, Dorothea Marx, Sarah Serebrinski, Anna Staroselski, Heinrich de Wall
Herausgegeben vom Tikvah Institut und Volker Beck
Mit einem Vorwort von Volker Beck
Mit Grußworten von Patricia Ehret und Shila Erlbaum
Abstract: The spread of hate speech and anti-Semitic content has become endemic to social media. Faced
with a torrent of violent and offensive content, nations in Europe have begun to take measures to
remove such content from social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. However, these
measures have failed to curtail the spread, and possible impact of anti-Semitic content. Notably,
violence breeds violence and calls for action against Jewish minorities soon lead to calls for
violence against other ethnic or racial minorities. Online anti-Semitism thus drives social tensions
and harms social cohesion. Yet the spread of online anti-Semitism also has international
ramifications as conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns now often focus on WWII and
the Holocaust.
On Nov 29, 2019, the Oxford Digital Diplomacy Research Group (DigDiploROx) held a one-day
symposium at the European Commission in Brussels. The symposium brought together diplomats,
EU officials, academics and civil society organizations in order to search for new ways to combat
the rise in online anti-Semitism. This policy brief offers an overview of the day’s discussions, the
challenges identified and a set of solutions that may aid nations looking to stem the flow of antiSemitic content online. Notably, these solutions, or recommendations, are not limited to the realm
of anti-Semitism and can to help combat all forms of discrimination, hate and bigotry online.
Chief among these recommendations is the need for a multi-stakeholder solution that brings
together governments, multilateral organisations, academic institutions, tech companies and
NGOs. For the EU itself, there is a need to increase collaborations between units dedicated to
fighting online crime, terrorism and anti-Semitism. This would enable the EU to share skills,
resources and working procedures. Moreover, the EU must adopt technological solutions, such as
automation, to identify, flag and remove hateful content in the quickest way possible. The EU
could also redefine its main activities - rather than combat incitement to violence online, it may
attempt to tackle incitement to hate, given that hate metastases online to calls for violence.
Finally, the EU should deepen its awareness to the potential harm of search engines. These offer
access to content that has already been removed by social media companies. Moreover, search
engines serve as a gateway to hateful content. The EU should thus deepen is collaborations with
companies such as Google and Yahoo, and not just Facebook or Twitter. It should be noted that
social media companies opted not to take part in the symposium demonstrating that the solution
to hate speech and rising anti-Semitism may be in legislation and not just in collaboration.
The rest of this brief consists of five parts. The first offers an up-to-date analysis of the prevalence
of anti-Semitic content online. The second, discuss the national and international implications of
this prevalence. The third part stresses the need for a multi-stakeholder solution while the fourth
offers an overview of the presentations made at the symposium. The final section includes a set
of policy recommendations that should be adopted by the EU and its members states.
Abstract: Jewish Association Czulent as an advocacy organization working to spread tolerance and shape attitudes of openness towards national, ethnic and religious minorities, with particular emphasis on counteracting anti-Semitism and discrimination, taking into account cross-discrimination.
Observing the public debate on hate speech and hate crimes, which increasingly appears in the mainstream, we have noticed a high level of its politicization. This is particularly visible in the topic of anti-Semitism, which is even instrumentalized and used as a political tool.
The politicization and exploitation of hate thus influences discussions about hate crimes. In this way, we do not focus on the solutions and functioning of investigative bodies or courts, but on political "colors". As a result, injured people lose their human dimension and become only the subject of statistics.
Instead of focusing on eliminating the phenomenon or analyzing the increase in hate speech and hate crimes. We focus on the discourse regarding the uniqueness and tolerance of the "Polish nation". This contributes to the phenomenon of underreporting, and people and groups that require support and are particularly vulnerable to hateful attacks are afraid to report such attacks and seek support.
Therefore, we decided to focus on the injured people in our actions. We analyzed the individual stages, from the decision to report a crime to the final court judgment. The respondents represented various social groups, which allowed us to learn from different perspectives about the experiences and emotions that accompanied them at particular stages. In the interviews we conducted, we paid attention to the actors who appeared at various stages, which is why our study includes, in addition to the police, prosecutor's office, and courts, non-governmental organizations and the media.
We hope that our activities and research will contribute to supporting people exposed to such attacks and a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced not only by people injured in hate crimes, but also by their representatives, investigators, prosecutors and judges. We encourage you to use the research cited, but also to develop and expand it.
Contents:
Information on the survey and methodology
Hate crimes – experiences
Human rights defenders
Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
Gender aspects
Hate crimes – enhancements are needed
Summary and final conclusions
The publication was created thanks to funding from the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future (EVZ Foundation), as part of the project "Pre-project for the Project: Strategic Litigation as one of the Tools to Counteract Antisemitism on the Internet".
Abstract: The experience and perceptions of the Jewish community and wider European population, recorded antisemitic incidents, the increasing level of antisemitic content online and sociological research show the persisting presence of antisemitism in the European Union. A 2021 survey on the prevalence and intensity of anti-Jewish prejudices in 16 European countries found that on average, 20 % of the population in the countries under scrutiny can be regarded as (strongly or moderately) antisemitic, whereas the proportion of latent antisemites was 14 %, with six countries where the aggregate proportion of strongly, moderately and latently antisemitic people was above 50 %. Research has also shown – and it has also been reported from a number of Member States in the context of the current report – that the consecutive crises of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine have intensified antisemitic sentiments across Europe. The cut-off date of the research on which the report is based was 7 July 2023, therefore, the study does not reflect the unprecedented spike in antisemitism and antisemitic incidents in Europe and across the world following the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023. Thus, the impact of the attacks and their aftermath could not be taken into account in this study. With a view to combating racial and/or religious hatred, including antisemitism, the European Union has not only adopted policies and commitments, but it has also put in place numerous legal instruments that can be used to counter different forms of antisemitism, including but not limited to the Framework Decision on combating certain forms of expressions of racism and xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive, the Employment Equality Directive, and the Victims’ Rights Directive. The importance of effectively applying this legislation to fight antisemitism is emphasised in the EU Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life (2021-2030), in which the European Union pledged to ‘step up action to actively prevent and combat’ the phenomenon in all its forms. This thematic report provides a comparative overview of how these legal instruments have been complied with in the 27 EU Member States, and aims to establish how and to what extent the legal framework and its practical application in the different Member States provide protection against antisemitism in three main areas: (i) non-discrimination; (i) hate crimes; and (iii) hate speech. It identifies gaps in the existing legal protections and/or their enforcement across the EU Member States and makes recommendations on mechanisms for the provision of effective protection against acts motivated by antisemitism.
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: Lorsqu’un tribunal allemand à Cologne décida que l’ablation du prépuce pour motif religieux relève de coups et blessures volontaires, il ne pensait pas faire de politique. Lorsque les porte-parole des Juifs en Allemagne s’indignèrent que cette décision revienne en somme à bannir les juifs du pays, éclata un scandale politique national aux proportions mondiales. La chancelière Angela Merkel, rapporte-t-on, réagit en disant « Je ne veux pas que l’Allemagne soit le seul pays au monde dans lequel les Juifs ne peuvent pratiquer leurs rites. Sinon on passerait pour une nation de guignols ». En réalité ce n’est pas le ridicule que l’Allemagne craignait, c’était qu’après avoir tenté d’éradiquer les Juifs d’Europe, avec un certain succès, elle affiche une inhospitalité foncière à l’égard des Juifs. Mais il n’est pas fortuit que ce soit précisément en Allemagne que les droits de l’homme, les droits les plus individuels, soient scrupuleusement approfondis jusqu’à une conclusion politiquement intenable.
Le tribunal de Cologne, en pénalisant la berit milah, ne fait pas de politique, il protège l’intégrité physique de la personne et déclenche pourtant un scandale politique et des réactions en chaîne qui poussèrent le législateur allemand à amender dans l’urgence cette embarrassante décision. Et les juifs, lorsqu’ils circoncisent, que font-ils exactement ? Les anthropologues ont échafaudés un ensemble d’hypothèses sur la fonction de la circoncision. Les réponses varient selon le groupe étudié, mais souvent se chevauchent…
Abstract: Si l’on considère à deux ans de distance le débat sur la circoncision qui a secoué l’Allemagne en 2012, et du point de vue d’un combattant juif alors focalisé uniquement sur la circoncision juive de garçons, ma conclusion est que la circoncision a perdu son innocence. Certes, il y a toujours eu des livres de Juifs et des articles de non-Juifs pour s’en prendre à la circoncision ; et certes, il y eut de nombreuses discussions sur certaines pratiques, comme la Metzitza bePeh, la succion du sang par le mohel qui exécute la circoncision, par exemple quant à savoir si l’usage d’une paille en verre devait être rendu obligatoire – et malgré tout, la circoncision était un acte qui semblait aller de soi. Et quiconque souhaitait y renoncer pour son fils y renonçait.
Or, avec le débat sur la circoncision, qui a eu lieu dans une Europe centrale qui considère la religion avec méfiance dès qu’elle poursuit des buts autres que thérapeutiques, les choses ont changé d’un coup. Au prétexte des complications qui survinrent lors de la circoncision d’un garçon musulman, circoncision qui n’avait pour ainsi dire rien à avoir avec une berit milah (considérant l’âge du garçon, le lieu, les participants et les conditions de l’acte) – la circoncision a été prise dans une spirale de légitimations, qui n’avait pour ainsi dire rien à voir avec le rapport que la majorité des juifs entretiennent à l’égard de cette tradition, ou, pour employer ici le terme religieux, de cette mitsvah.
Abstract: Partons d’un constat, qui est à l’origine de notre volonté – avec Danielle Cohen-Levinas – d’organiser ce colloque pour le penser collectivement : en juin 2012, un jugement de la cour d’appel de Cologne déclarait la circoncision d’un enfant pour des raisons religieuses constitutive d’atteinte à l’intégrité corporelle. Cette pratique très ancienne et commune au judaïsme et à l’islam était dès lors interdite dans toute l’Allemagne. Quelques semaines plus tard, l’Autriche et les hôpitaux universitaires de certains cantons suisses décidaient à leur tour d’un moratoire sur les circoncisions rituelles. Dans cette Allemagne repentante depuis des décennies, les Juifs se sont retrouvés de manière inattendue et soudaine au cœur d’une polémique puissante qui les renvoyait, aux côtés des musulmans, à une pratique décrétée mutilatrice, archaïque, voire barbare. Ce rituel, fondamental au point que son interdiction rendait impossible la présence juive en Allemagne, selon le Zentralrat der Juden, semblait contredire et bafouer des valeurs essentielles de la République fédérale. Ce débat s’est élargi, puisqu’en octobre 2013 c’est le Conseil de l’Europe qui publiait un avis préconisant de légiférer dans le sens d’une limitation, voire d’une interdiction de la circoncision rituelle à l’échelle du continent. L’affaire est sérieuse, une incompatibilité entre l’Europe et ses minorités juive et musulmane est explicitement énoncée, ce fait est sans précédent depuis la fin du nazisme.
Topics: Antisemitism, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Law, Policy, European Union, Antisemitism: Education against, Holocaust Commemoration, Holocaust Education, Hate crime, Jewish Heritage, Jewish Culture
Topics: Antisemitism, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Law, Policy, European Union, Antisemitism: Education against, Holocaust Commemoration, Holocaust Education, Hate crime, Jewish Heritage, Jewish Culture
Abstract: The NOA Hungarian Report Card showcases the current national policy landscape in 10 areas: culture, education, hate crime, hate speech, Holocaust remembrance, intercultural dialogue, media, religious freedom, security, and sport.
This research demonstrates that there is still much that the Hungarian government can and should do to combat antisemitism despite the goodwill expressed and measures already put in place. Also, it is important to keep in mind that the policy gaps highlighted in this report are not merely challenges but opportunities for the Hungarian government to manifest its commitment to eradicating antisemitism. This is especially important in the areas of education and intercultural dialogue, which arguably have the largest impact on prejudice, particularly regarding the younger generations.
Abstract: The NOA-Networks Overcoming Antisemitism project, launched in 2019, is an innovative effort to develop new public-civil society partnerships and enhance collaboration within the nongovernmental sector to support the European Council’s Declarations on fighting antisemitism and fostering Jewish life on the continent. This
report showcases the current policy landscape in 10 areas: culture, education, hate crime, hate
speech, Holocaust remembrance, intercultural dialogue, media, religious freedom, security, and
sport. The research demonstrates that there is still much the Belgian government can and should
do to combat antisemitism. Moreover, there appears to be resistance amongst policymakers to
pass specific measures or to honour commitments made at the national or European Union level.
Abstract: In early 2018, the Polish parliament adopted controversial legislation criminalising assertions regarding the complicity of the ‘Polish Nation’ and the ‘Polish State’ in the Holocaust. The so-called Polish Holocaust Law provoked not only a heated debate in Poland, but also serious international tensions. As a result, it was amended only five months after its adoption. The reason why it is worth taking a closer look at the socio-cultural foundations and political functions of the short-lived legislation is twofold. Empirically, the short history of the Law reveals a great deal about the long-term role of Jews in the Polish collective memory as an unmatched Significant Other. Conceptually, the short life of the Law, along with its afterlife, helps capture poll-driven, manifestly moralistic and anti-pluralist imaginings of the past, which I refer to as ‘mnemonic populism’. By exploring the relationship between popular and political images of the past in contemporary Poland, this article argues for joining memory and populism studies in order to better understand what can happen to history in illiberal surroundings.
Abstract: This article addresses the persistence of anti-Semitism in Romania, placed in the context of some recent debates concerning the memory of the Holocaust in the country, as well as in the area of Central and Eastern Europe more broadly. It argues that, despite significant improvements in terms of legislation, the memory of the Holocaust remains a highly contested issue in contemporary Romania, torn between the attempts to join in the European memory of the Holocaust and local legacies that on the one hand focus primarily on the suffering of Romanians under the communist regime, and on the other perform a symbolic “denationalisation” of the Jewish minority in the country, whose own suffering is thus excised from national memory. It does so by focusing in particular on the debates surrounding the adoption of Law 217/2015, meant to clarify earlier legislation on Holocaust denial, and comparing them with those prompted by the Ukrainian “memory laws” passed in the same year. Taking into account both the national and international reactions to these very different pieces of legislation, the article shows the still-persisting discrepancy between a (mostly Western) “European” memory of the legacy of the twentieth century and local memory topoi characteristic of the countries that were part of the former socialist bloc.
Abstract: In 2015, Spain approved a law that offered citizenship to the descendants of Sephardi Jews expelled in 1492. Drawing on archival, ethnographic, and historical sources, I show that this law belongs to a political genealogy of philosephardism in which the “return” of Sephardi Jews has been imagined as a way to usher in a deferred Spanish modernity. Borrowing from anthropological theories of “racial fusion,” philosephardic thinkers at the turn of the twentieth century saw Sephardi Jews as inheritors of a racial mixture that made them living repositories of an earlier moment of national greatness. The senator Ángel Pulido, trained as an anthropologist, channeled these intellectual currents into an international campaign advocating the repatriation of Sephardi Jews. Linking this racial logic to an affective one, Pulido asserted that Sephardi Jews did not “harbor rancor” for the Expulsion, but instead felt love and nostalgia toward Spain, and could thus be trusted as loyal subjects who would help resurrect its empire. Today, affective criteria continue to be enmeshed in debates about who qualifies for inclusion and are inextricable from the histories of racial thought that made earlier exclusions possible. Like its precursors, the 2015 Sephardic citizenship law rhetorically fashioned Sephardi Jews as fundamentally Spanish, not only making claims about Sephardi Jews, but also making claims on them. Reckoning with how rancor and other sentiments have helped buttress such claims exposes the recalcitrant hold that philosephardic thought has on Spain's present, even those “progressive” political projects that promise to “return” what has been lost.
