Abstract: Der Bundesverband der Recherche- und Informationsstellen Antisemitismus e. V. (Bundesverband RIAS) ist der Dachverband zivilgesellschaftlicher Meldestellen für antisemitische Vorfälle in Deutschland. Er verfolgt das Ziel, bundesweit eine einheitliche zivilgesellschaftliche Dokumentation antisemitischer Vorfälle ober- und unterhalb der Strafbarkeitsgrenze zu gewährleisten, die in jährlichen Berichten systematisch ausgewertet und der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht werden. Neben den Meldungen von Betroffenen und Zeug*innen, dem Versammlungs- und Pressemonitoring sind auch polizeilich erfasste Straftaten Teil der Datengrundlagen, wenn diese zugänglich gemacht werden. In den vergangenen Jahren gab es allerdings keinen flächendeckenden systematischen Abgleich mit den polizeilichen Statistiken zu antisemitischen Straftaten. Der Kriminalpolizeiliche Meldedienst Politisch Motivierte Kriminalität (KPMD-PMK), in den neben den klassischen Staatsschutzdelikten auch Hasskriminalität beziehungsweise antisemitische Straftaten eingehen, ist seit Beginn Gegenstand der Arbeit des Bundesverbandes RIAS, etwa in den vom Bundesverband RIAS durchgeführten Problembeschreibungen zu Antisemitismus in mehreren Bundesländern (vgl. RIAS-BK 2018; Bundesverband RIAS, 2019, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2022; SABRA 2020). Das durch das BMI geförderte Projekt Austausch von Polizei und Zivilgesellschaft zu Antisemitismus (APZAS) wurde ins Leben gerufen, um einerseits den Austausch zwischen regionalen Antisemitismus-Meldestellen und den Polizeistellen zu initiieren und zu begleiten sowie andererseits die Erfassungspraxis in den föderal arbeitenden Landeskriminalämtern aus zivilgesellschaftlicher Perspektive zu untersuchen und dabei insbesondere den zugrunde liegenden antisemitismusbegriff nachzuvollziehen. Dafür wurden 2023 zwölf leitfadengestützte Interviews mit Expert*innen (vgl. Helfferich, 2019) aus den Bereichen Zivilgesellschaft, Wissenschaft, Justiz, der polizeilichen Hochschullehre sowie Vertreter*innen unterschiedlicher Landeskriminalämter geführt. Die Interviews wurden im Anschluss inhaltsanalytisch ausgewertet (vgl. Kuckartz, 2012; Schreier, 2012). Ausgewählte Ergebnisse werden in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Bevor wir uns der Kritik der Extremismus-Konzeption widmen, werden zunächst das Antisemitismusverständnis des KPMD-PMK sowie Perspektiven von Betroffenen untersucht.
Abstract: This report finds that the decision to ban away supporters from the fixture was reached through a flawed risk assessment process.
We argue that the prohibition was not justified by the risks as assessed, and it represented an unnecessary departure from ordinary policing practice, which we believe would likely have been sufficient to secure the match.
The Parliamentary Select Committee similarly concludes that the decision-making process was flawed. However, it maintains that the prohibition was proportionate to the level of risk, even if that risk had been more rigorously assessed.
Our analysis considers a further, key point. A central weakness in the decision-making process was the failure clearly to specify the nature and source of the risk.
If the primary risk came from away supporters themselves, then exclusion may have been justified. But if the principal risk derived from anti-Israel protestors, boycott activists, and antizionist actors seeking to disrupt or attack the match, then banning the away supporters risked punishing those who were being threatened and who did not themselves constitute a significant threat.
In such circumstances, the appropriate response would have required consideration beyond technical policing calculations. If there was a significant antisemitic threat, a policy priority might have been to mobilise sufficient police resources to defend the match, the visiting team, and their supporters rather than excluding them.
The decision-making process appears to have overestimated the risk posed by Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters, in part through a misreading of the Amsterdam precedent and perhaps through reliance on politically committed sources of advice. It may have given insufficient weight to risks arising from boycott activism and to the risk of antisemitic violence of the kind that occurred in Amsterdam.
The process did not engage in a serious way with institutions or individuals from the Jewish community either locally or nationally, or with HM Independent Advisor on Antisemitism. Doing so would have given it a better chance of avoiding the mistakes that it made in understanding the precedent, possible alternatives and the predictable impact of the away fans ban on Jewish communities.
If there was a significant antisemitic dimension to the threat environment, the risk assessment process did not identify or articulate it clearly.
Abstract: In Deutschland hat man sich an Zustände gewöhnt, an die man sich niemals gewöhnen darf: Jüdische Schulen müssen von Bewaffneten bewacht werden, jüdischer Gottesdienst findet unter Polizeischutz statt, Bedrohungen sind alltäglich. Der Staat hat zugelassen, dass es so weit kommt - durch eine Polizei, die diese Gefahr nicht effektiv abwehrt, sondern verwaltet; durch eine Justiz, die immer wieder beschönigt. Der jüdische Autor Ronen Steinke, selbst Jurist, ist durch Deutschland gereist und erzählt von jüdischem Leben im Belagerungszustand. Er trifft Rabbinerinnen und Polizisten, konfrontiert Staatsschützer, Geheimdienstler und Minister mit dem Staatsversagen. Viel muss sich ändern in Deutschland. Was zu tun wäre, erklärt dieses Buch.
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".
