Search results

Your search found 64 items
You ran an advanced options search Previous | Next
Sort: Relevance | Topics | Title | Author | Publication Year View all 1 2
Home  / Search Results
Date: 2018
Author(s): Fellous, Gérard
Date: 2014
Abstract: En 2005, la France célébra le centenaire de la loi de séparation de l’Eglise et de l’Etat, un an après le vote de la loi sur les signes religieux à l’école et le débat passionné qu’elle a suscité en France. Depuis plusieurs années, la laïcité est devenue un terrain d’affrontements et de vives tensions. Par exemple, Marine Le Pen se réclame du principe de laïcité pour se donner une respectabilité républicaine. Or, les valeurs que défend le Front national sont à l’opposé du principe de laïcité.

Il faut donc rappeler qu’en France, la laïcité c’est d’abord une liberté de croyance, une liberté de conscience qui permet aux hommes et aux femmes qui composent une société d’y vivre comme ils le souhaitent. Elle permet donc de concilier la diversité des croyances et des patrimoines culturels avec l’égalité des droits. L’État républicain doit se faire accueillant à tous, sans discrimination. Pour cela, il se refuse à tout privilège des particularismes : ni religion reconnue, ni athéisme consacré. Les religions et les humanismes athée ou agnostique peuvent se vivre librement, dans la sphère privée de l’intimité personnelle. La laïcité est donc porteuse d’un idéal, celui de l’individu-citoyen, elle est donc faite pour tout le peuple. La laïcité c’est également un ensemble de lois qui permettent à tous les citoyens de vivre ensemble sans qu’ils aient à renoncer à leurs particularités. Il n’y a pas de contradiction entre l’identité et la citoyenneté.

Face à une laïcité très souvent mal connue ou ignorée par une majorité des citoyens, les juifs de France, qu’ils soient croyants, pratiquants ou non, attachés à leurs origines religieuses ou athées, ont tissé des liens historique, sociologique et philosophique avec cette laïcité consubstantielle à leur citoyenneté et à leur adhésion à la Nation, résume Gérard Fellous, dans ce texte que nous publions pour ce vingt-huitième numéro des Etudes du CRIF: « La laïcité française. L’attachement du judaïsme. » Le judaïsme français s’est toujours montré fortement attaché aux principes fondamentaux de la laïcité, résume-t-il encore, avec justesse.

Certes.

Mais, si les atteintes à la laïcité ne sont pas acceptables, il ne saurait pourtant être question d’abdiquer devant les éventuelles atteintes aux fondamentaux, tant en France qu’en Europe.

La montée d’une sorte d’antijudaïsme institutionnel et « légal » inquiète les juifs d’Europe, lequel antijudaïsme a commencé à se traduire dans plusieurs grands pays de l’Union européenne par une remise en cause directe du droit et de la possibilité d’exercer librement la religion juive. Lorsque l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe vote en plénière, une résolution contre la circoncision assimilée à une mutilation sexuelle, cela nous éclaire sur sa face sombre. Le CRIF a mis un point d’honneur à dénoncer ce projet de loi-cadre. Nous pensons également à la remise en cause de la cacherout alimentaire - et surtout des autorisations jusque-là consenties à l’abattage rituel juif, dans quelques pays, ce qui serait une atteinte à une tradition millénaire.

Roger Cukierman,

Président du CRIF

Author(s): Krstić, Jovan
Date: 2015
Abstract: One of the clear examples of the existence of legal gaps in the legislation of the Republic of Serbia is the problem of restitution of property of Holocaust victims, which is shown as a separate problem that remains unregulated. The academic community of experts deserves serious scientific criticism for tolerating legal gaps in the legal system. Criminological phenomena of hate crime and hate speech which in the past resulted in the adoption of racial laws, civil rights and confi scation of property and physical liquidation – Holocaust –are such unique instances of evil that they exceede the limits of one life span and affect generations to come, unprepared to deal with them due to the unwillingness of our generation to act preventively regulating social relations based on modern principles and standards in order to prevent recurrence of the past. This is considered to be the essential (symbolic) inadequacy of the security systems from the perspective of knowledge management and diplomacy. Wrong attitude of the academic community towards the problem of increasing the capacity within the security system to protect the public interest and towards the reform of the security system can be critically assessed through present profiling of the security community outside of executive power – in the judiciary, in the status of law enforcement agencies, although the nature of their work and the principle of secrecy is incompatible with the principle of transparency in the work of law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, it is likely that all these problems will be crashing down on the future generations.
Author(s): Lazić, Radovan
Date: 2015
Abstract: Law on Property Restitution and Compensation stipulates that its provisions apply to confiscated property provided that the owner of that property is rehabilitated. In this case, the request for the return of property must be accompanied by a court decision on the rehabilitation or proof that the application for rehabilitation was submitted. The first Serbian Rehabilitation Act was passed in 2006. According to the Law on Rehabilitation, from December 2011, persons who have been deprived of a right (to life, to freedom of movement, to property...) because of political activism, ideological or religious beliefs and national origin before the entry into force of this Act can be rehabilitated. However, the question is how the provisions of this law are applied to the victims of the Holocaust and other victims of Nazi terror. Does this law take into account the victims, does it provide any satisfaction to the victims of the Holocaust and other victims of the occupiers and various quisling formations? What consequences the
implementation of the Rehabilitation Act may have on the property rights of persons who, in the course of World War II, acquired property that was previously forcibly taken away (factual and legal violence) from their
rightful owners? What consequences the implementation of this law may have on the rights of the victims of the Holocaust and their heirs and what consequences the implementation of this law may have on the rights of the
victims of the Holocaust who have no heirs?
Author(s): Samardžić, Nikola
Date: 2015
Abstract: Following on the overview presented at the first annual Holocaust and Restitution Conference concerning what is known about the expropriation of cultural property in Serbia during World War II and where that cultural property is presently located, ways in which restitution of art, Judaica, and other cultural property might best be implemented are discussed.

Serbia is encouraged to do historical research on the history of cultural plunder during World War II and on what was restituted to Serbia and within Serbia after the War, and to create a listing or database on the internet of what was taken in Serbia, noting what was subsequently returned and what is still missing. An entity should be responsible for provenance research in the country, either one that actually does the research as in Austria or one that oversees the research carried out by museums, libraries, and archives as in the Netherlands. Information should be made public over the internet of the results of such provenance research. A separate entity, as neutral and independent as possible, should be responsible for restitution decisions based on the provenance research. Serbia should pass legislation covering the return of private movable cultural property that is applicable to both Serbian and foreign citizens. Preferably there should be no deadline for claims for cultural property, whether individual or communal, since such cultural property is often not immediately identifiable. A non-bureaucratic process for filing claims should be established. Cultural property for which original owners and heirs are not identified (heirless property) should be listed on an internet site so that potential claimants can come forward. Such
items should not necessarily move from their current location, but their provenance history should be publicly noted.
Author(s): Fisher, Wesley A.
Date: 2015
Abstract: Following on the overview presented at the first annual Holocaust and Restitution Conference concerning what is known about the expropriation of cultural property in Serbia during World War II and where that cultural property is presently located, ways in which restitution of art, Judaica, and other cultural property might best be implemented are discussed.
Serbia is encouraged to do historical research on the history of cultural plunder during World War II and on what was restituted to Serbia and within Serbia after the War, and to create a listing or database on the internet of what was taken in Serbia, noting what was subsequently returned and what is still missing. An entity should be responsible for provenance research in the country, either one that actually does the research as in Austria or one that oversees the research carried out by museums, libraries, and archives as in the Netherlands. Information should be made public over the internet of the results of such provenance research. A separate entity, as neutral and independent as possible, should be responsible for restitution decisions based on the provenance research. Serbia should pass legislation covering the return of private movable cultural property that is applicable to both Serbian and foreign citizens. Preferably there should be no deadline for claims for cultural property, whether individual or communal, since such cultural property is often not immediately identifi able. A non-bureaucratic process for filing claims should be established. Cultural property for which original owners and heirs are not identifi ed (heirless property) should be listed on an internet site so that potential claimants can come forward. Such
items should not necessarily move from their current location, but their provenance history should be publicly noted.
Date: 2015
Abstract: This paper discusses the restitution of Jewish property in Croatia from 1990 on, having in mind that the question has not yet been resolved and that progress towards this has been very slow due to sketchy laws which are being implemented only partially. Th is issue usually receives more attention only when a Croatian government fi gure meets someone from Israel or the US Administration. Current legislature enables restitution only of Jewish property seized after 1945, while property seized during the NDH (Independent state of Croatia) remained intact, " protected " by laws passed at the time of Yugoslavia. Current restitution of seized property is performed according to the Law on Restitution/Compensation of Property Taken during the Time of the Yugoslav Communist Government, which came into eff ect in 1997, so the right to restitution or compensation applies only to Croatian citizens of the fi rst order of succession. Th at property seized between 1941 and 1945 is not restituted is still an accepted practice, despite the fact that it is in this period when the majority of Jewish property was seized. Th e right to restitution is still limited to the fi rst order of succession, while the deadline for applications remains too short. Towards the end of mandate of the Jadranka Kosor government there were some attempts to change that and enact a new law, but the proposal for that law got stuck somewhere in parliamentary procedure so it is not yet clear when it will be passed. Until now, judging by unoffi cial data, less than 30 percent of Jewish families of those who perished in the NDH have achieved the return of immobile property, so the government of Prime Minister Zoran Milanović donated a building in the centre of Zagreb to the Jewish municipality, as a kind of compensation for property seized during Ustasha regime.
Author(s): Dajč, Haris
Date: 2017
Abstract: Once one of the most numerous and prosperous minorities in Yugoslavia, the number of Jews declined from over 80,000 to 15,000 in the years aer WW2. is number further decreased due to migration to Israel in the first post-war years, and further impoverishment took place because of confiscation and restitution of the majority of private and communal Jewish property, and enforced renouncing of Yugoslav citizenship. e first multi-party elections in Yugoslavia brought to power nationalist elements in all republics, which was followed by civil war, and the breaking of socialist Yugoslavia. Jews of Yugoslavia found themselves on different warring sides. Fragmentation on all confronted sides made the Jewish community even more vulnerable. A huge majority of former Warsaw Pact members aer the Berlin wall fell passed laws for restitution of property taken by the state in post WW2 period. Jews of Yugoslavia, in several new states, had promises from state offi cials that their property would be restituted and errors made half a century ago would be rectified. e only case where such a promise came true was Serbia. In 2011 Serbia passed General Restitution Law concerning individuals, therefore also Jews. In 2006 Serbia passed Law on property of the religious communities that also included Jewish community and that helped restitution of the Jewish communal property. e state of Serbia is the only state in the region that passed the Jewish Lex Specialis that concerns on Jewish property with no successor but also unclaimed Jewish property in February 2016. Croatia passed a General Restitution Law in 1996, and amended it in 2002, but it only affects property nationalized aer May 1945. at Law is limited to direct successors who are Croatian citizens or citizens of countries which have bilateral agreements with Croatia. Due to very high taxes, in some cases reaching 25% of property value, a lot of Jewish requests remained unsolved. Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the rare European countries that did not pass such a law. Moreover, the BIH constitution declares three constituent nations: Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, while others as minorities cannot be nominated for state positions, according to chapters IV and V of the BIH constitution (Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina). is paper aims to give insight into the economic power of Jews just before the breakdown of Yugoslavia, and the current economic situation of Jewish communities in Serbia, Croatia and BIH, with a special emphasis on their economic, legal and social position in the last two decades. is restitution issue is very important for it shows how much goodwill states have for helping their local Jewish communities. e research material is obtained from local Jewish communities, periodicals, reports, interviews, conferences, scientific journals and statistical data of all three states and various Jewish organization. Facing the past, admitting and rectifying remain open issues in those countries, and they are excellent indicators of the progress achieved in the last 25 years.
Author(s): Samson, Maxim GM
Date: 2019
Author(s): Perry-Hazan, Lotem
Date: 2016
Author(s): Bradney, Anthony
Date: 2009
Date: 2013
Abstract: Este año se conmemora en España el Bicentenario de la Constitución de Cádiz de 19 de
marzo de 1812. Durante estos dos siglos muchas cosas han cambiado y muy
particularmente, en las relaciones entre el Estado y las confesiones
religiosas. Con la vigente Constitución de 1978 queda razonablemente resuelto
uno de los problemas permanentes en la historia del constitucionalismo español
como es la llamada “cuestión religiosa”. El reconocimiento de la libertad
religiosa ha traído consigo un pluralismo religioso que se refleja en una diversidad
de confesiones en la sociedad española que, progresivamente, van adquiriendo
una mayor presencia social. En nuestro país los judíos son una minoría
religiosa que no supera los 40.000 miembros. En Baleares, la población judía
está perfectamente integrada en la sociedad junto al resto de religiones y
comparte las mismas inquietudes que el resto de ciudadanos. Al coincidir en
este año 2012 otras conmemoraciones como la del XXV aniversario de la sinagoga
de Palma de Mallorca y el XX aniversario del Acuerdo suscrito entre el Estado
español y la Federación de Comunidades Judías de España, se presenta en este
libro un estudio del régimen jurídico y la evolución histórica de la Comunidad
judía de las Islas Baleares. El libro constituye, pues, una importante aportación científica que recoge trabajos de
representantes de la Comunidad Judía balear, de representantes de la Administración pública balear y de profesores expertos de diferentes Universidades españolas.

Contenido:

La libertad religiosa en España: IsidoroMartín Sánchez
La federación de comunidades judías de España y su acuerdo de cooperación con el Estado español
de 1992 (XX Aniversario): Marcos González Sánchez
Breve historia de la presencia judía en Mallorca: J. Maíz Chacón
Los chuetas como segmento escindido de la comunidad judeoconversa de Mallorca: P. de Montaner
La comunidad judía en las Islas Baleares. Un punto y seguido permanente en la historia (estudio
socio-jurídico): Abraham Barchillón Gabizón
XXV Aniversario de la inauguración de la sinagoga
de Palma de Mallorca: David Kaisin
Translated Title: The Spanish Jews today
Date: 2001
Author(s): Toktaş, Şule
Date: 2006
Abstract: Contemporary liberal democracies confront governance problems elicited by the discord between the principles of equality and difference, and between the concepts of majority and minority. Citizenship came to be recognized as a vital governance tool in response to this challenge evidenced by growing academic and political interest in the concept. The basic precept that citizenship refers to is a constitutionality-based relationship between the individual and the state, implying a unique, reciprocal, and unmediated bond between the individual and the political community.

It is argued that citizenship has three main aspects. First is the legal status aspect, which enfolds citizenship in terms of civil, political, and social rights, plus duties such as obeying laws, paying taxes, and performing military service. The second aspect is the identity dimension of citizenship, which regards individuals' membership in different social and political groups in multiple categories of race, class, ethnicity, religion, gender, profession, and sexuality. The third aspect is related to citizens' capacities, responsibilities, and willingness to cooperate, in short the civic virtue that the citizens possess and perform. The sense of identity that citizens have; their maneuvers to deal with competing identities; their willingness to participate in collective decisions and access to political processes; their sense of belonging to the social, political, and economic order; and their initiative potency all refer to different features of civic virtue. All in all, modern citizenship is perceived as the combination of legal status, social roles, and moral attributes that necessitate "good citizenry."

It has been suggested that these three aspects of citizenship—legal status, identity, and civic virtue—are interrelated; as the sensitivity to identities increases, demands for legal rights increase correspondingly. It is also claimed that identity affects the way people perform their duty of civic participation and their conception of responsibility. From another point of view, it is also argued that the three components of citizenship conflict with one another under certain circumstances. For instance, claims for cultural recognition of minorities may conflict with equal citizenship status. An empirical investigation of citizenship is complementary to understanding the interaction between these three aspects. This study undertakes the crucial task of providing evidence from the field to illuminate the complex correlations and divergences within citizenship and the relational bond between the legal status, identity, and civic virtue aspects.

In this article, the results of qualitative research on a particular group of citizens—Turkish citizens with Jewish background—are discussed in the light of the parameters set above. The study provides empirical evidence to illuminate the dynamics at stake in the relationship between the legal status, identity, and civic virtue aspects in the specificity of Turkey's Jews and the conduct of Turkish citizenship. With the use of in-depth interviews conducted with the sample group of Jews, the study attempts to understand how being a non-Muslim minority group living in a Muslim-predominant society influences the perceptions and experiences regarding citizenship.

The discussion developed in the article is presented in three parts. In the first part, an overview of Turkish citizenship and the status of non-Muslim minorities per se is put forth. This part also sets forth the essentials of Turkish citizenship with its legal status, identity, and civic virtue aspects. In addition, the paradoxical consequences of the dominant paradigms inherent in citizenship in Turkey regarding non-Muslim minorities are demonstrated. The second part focuses on the field research conducted with the Jewish community in Turkey. After a brief summary of methodology and a portrayal of the general characteristics of the sample group, it discusses how members of Turkey's Jewish community experience and perceive Turkish citizenship through its aspects of legal status, identity, and civic virtue. The respondents' perceptions and experiences regarding being Turkish citizens and a non-Muslim minority are also covered. The third part offers a discussion on Turkish citizenship in the light of the research results and gives a citizen-centric account through the lenses of respondents.
Date: 2009
Abstract: The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights presents its 5th brief
update of its 2004 report “Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the EU”. The
overview contains the latest governmental and non-governmental
statistical data covering 2001 to 2008 for those EU Member States that
have official or unofficial data and statistics on anti-Semitic incidents. The
Agency collects regularly publicly available official and unofficial data and
information on racism and xenophobia in the EU Member States through
its Racism and Xenophobia Network (RAXEN) with a special focus on
anti-Semitism.

The Agency’s data collection work shows that most Member States do not
have official or even unofficial data and statistics on anti-Semitic incidents.
Even where data exist they are not comparable, since they are collected
following different methodologies. For some countries, RAXEN National
Focal Points provide the Agency with lists of cases collected either ad hoc
by civil society organisations or through the media with varying degrees of
validity and reliability. Detailed data and incidents lists are presented in the
FRA electronic database, Info_Portal at http://infoportal.fra.europa.eu.
The Agency’s regular review of data collection systems indicates that most
Member States have a serious problem of underreporting, particularly in
reference to official systems of data collection that are based on police
records and on crime and law statistics, because not all anti-Semitic
incidents registered officially are categorised under the label “antiSemitism”
and/or because not all anti-Semitic incidents are reported to the
official body by the victims or witnesses of an incident.

A complementary problem to underreporting is misreporting and overreporting:
This could be the case in unofficial data collection carried out by
organisations that do not provide information concerning their
methodologies.