DOCSLIB.ORG

Antisemitism Overview of Data Available in the European Union 2008–2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Antisemitism Overview of Data Available in the European Union 2008–2018 TK- 0 1 -1 9 HELPING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - 751 A REALITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION -EN-N Antisemitism Overview of data available in the European Union 2008–2018 November 2019 ISBN 978-92-9474-753-2 doi:10.2811/116610 FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Schwarzenbergplatz 11 ▀ 1040 Vienna ▀ Austria ▀ Tel +43 158030-0 ▀ Fax +43 158030-699 fra.europa.eu ▀ [email protected] ▀ facebook.com/fundamentalrights ▀ linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency ▀ twitter.com/EURightsAgency Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 Print ISBN 978-92-9474-765-5 doi:10.2811/151463 TK-01-19-887-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-9474-766-2 doi:10.2811/129256 TK-01-19-887-EN-N © European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2019 Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. Antisemitism Overview of data available in the European Union 2008–2018 November 2019 Country codes CONTENTS EU Member Country code State Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 AT Austria Limited data collection on antisemitism .................................................................................. 5 BE Belgium Legal framework ........................................................................................................................ 11 BG Bulgaria CY Cyprus Data collection for this overview ............................................................................................ 14 CZ Czechia Reports and evidence from international organisations ..................................................... 15 DE Germany United Nations (UN) ........................................................................................................................ 15 European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).................................................. 18 DK Denmark OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) ....................................... 19 EE Estonia EL Greece Use of IHRA working definition on antisemitism in the Member States 20 ES Spain National data on antisemitism ................................................................................................ 21 FI Finland Austria .............................................................................................................................................. 24 FR France Belgium .............................................................................................................................................30 HR Croatia Bulgaria ............................................................................................................................................. 35 Croatia ...............................................................................................................................................36 HU Hungary Cyprus ................................................................................................................................................ 37 IE Ireland Czechia ..............................................................................................................................................38 IT Italy Denmark ............................................................................................................................................ 41 Estonia .............................................................................................................................................. 44 LT Lithuania Finland .............................................................................................................................................. 45 LU Luxembourg France ............................................................................................................................................... 46 LV Latvia Germany........................................................................................................................................... 50 Greece ............................................................................................................................................... 55 MT Malta Hungary ............................................................................................................................................ 56 NL Netherlands Ireland ............................................................................................................................................... 58 PL Poland Italy ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Latvia ................................................................................................................................................ 62 PT Portugal Lithuania ............................................................................................................................................63 RO Romania Luxembourg ..................................................................................................................................... 64 SE Sweden Malta ................................................................................................................................................. 65 SK Slovakia The Netherlands .............................................................................................................................. 66 Poland ................................................................................................................................................ 73 SI Slovenia Portugal ............................................................................................................................................ 76 UK United Kingdom Romania ............................................................................................................................................77 Slovakia ............................................................................................................................................ 79 Slovenia ............................................................................................................................................ 80 Spain .................................................................................................................................................. 81 Sweden .............................................................................................................................................83 United Kingdom ............................................................................................................................... 86 Concluding remarks – persisting gaps in data collection ..................................................... 93 Country codes CONTENTS EU Member Country code State Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 AT Austria Limited data collection on antisemitism .................................................................................. 5 BE Belgium Legal framework ........................................................................................................................ 11 BG Bulgaria CY Cyprus Data collection for this overview ............................................................................................ 14 CZ Czechia Reports and evidence from international organisations ..................................................... 15 DE Germany United Nations (UN) ........................................................................................................................ 15 European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).................................................. 18 DK Denmark OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) ....................................... 19 EE Estonia EL Greece Use of IHRA working definition on antisemitism in the Member States 20 ES Spain National data on antisemitism ................................................................................................ 21 FI Finland Austria .............................................................................................................................................. 24 FR France Belgium .............................................................................................................................................30 HR Croatia Bulgaria ............................................................................................................................................. 35 Croatia ...............................................................................................................................................36 HU Hungary Cyprus ................................................................................................................................................ 37 IE Ireland Czechia ..............................................................................................................................................38 IT Italy Denmark ............................................................................................................................................ 41 Estonia .............................................................................................................................................. 44 LT Lithuania Finland
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World
    Boston College Law Review Volume 60 Issue 7 Article 6 10-30-2019 Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World Lauren E. Beausoleil Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Lauren E. Beausoleil, Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World, 60 B.C.L. Rev. 2100 (2019), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol60/iss7/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FREE, HATEFUL, AND POSTED: RETHINKING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION OF HATE SPEECH IN A SOCIAL MEDIA WORLD Abstract: Speech is meant to be heard, and social media allows for exaggeration of that fact by providing a powerful means of dissemination of speech while also dis- torting one’s perception of the reach and acceptance of that speech. Engagement in online “hate speech” can interact with the unique characteristics of the Internet to influence users’ psychological processing in ways that promote violence and rein- force hateful sentiments. Because hate speech does not squarely fall within any of the categories excluded from First Amendment protection, the United States’ stance on hate speech is unique in that it protects it.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Full Publication
    EUROPEAN JEWISH DIGEST: LOOKING AT THE HEADLINES ACROSS JEWISH EUROPE VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3: MARCH 2015 1 / ISSUES CONCERNING ANTISEMITISM Violence, Vandalism & Abuse There were several instances of violent and abusive antisemitism in Europe during March. In France, two Jewish teenagers were robbed and beaten after leaving a synagogue in Marseilles. The two assailants allegedly said to the victims “dirty Jews, we will exterminate all of you.” Both teenagers required medical attention. In Austria, a Jewish man wearing a Star of David necklace was attacked in a shopping centre in St. Pölten. The victim said that he was taunted by a group of men with antisemitic insults, after which one of them attacked him. The police quickly arrested the attacker, who whilst admitting to the attack, denied that it was motivated by antisemitism. In the UK, while carrying out an experiment similar to one undertaken by another reporter in Paris in February, Jewish journalist Jonathan Kalmus was subjected to antisemitic abuse and insults when walking in Manchester and Bradford wearing a kippah. In Bradford, he was stalked by a man who repeatedly took pictures of him and endured shouts of “you Jew,” “fight the Jewish scum” and “you’re a Jew, not a Muslim... Jew, Jew, Jew run!” However, in one positive moment in a coffee shop, a Muslim man, wearing traditional Islamic dress stood up, raised his hand and welcome him with “Shalom, Shalom”. In response to this, Prime Minister David Cameron said “there are no excuses for the shocking antisemitism filmed in Manchester and Bradford. The idea that Jewish people feel unsafe again in Europe strikes at the heart of everything we stand for.
    [Show full text]
  • MWP WP Template 2013
    MWP 2017/08 Max Weber Programme Xenophobic Manifestations, Otherness and Violence in Greece 1996-2016: Evidence from an Event Analysis of Media Collections AuthorIoannis AuthorGalariotis, and VasilikiAuthor AuthorGeorgiadou, Anastasia Kafe and Zinovia Lialiouti European University Institute Max Weber Programme Xenophobic Manifestations, Otherness and Violence in Greece 1996-2016: Evidence from an Event Analysis of Media Collections Ioannis Galariotis, Vasiliki Georgiadou, Anastasia Kafe and Zinovia Lialiouti EUI Working Paper MWP 2017/08 This text may be downloaded for personal research purposes only. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the working paper or other series, the year, and the publisher. ISSN 1830-7728 © Ioannis Galariotis, Vasiliki Georgiadou, Anastasia Kafe and Zinovia Lialiouti, 2017 Printed in Italy European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy www.eui.eu cadmus.eui.eu Abstract Research on xenophobia in Europe has recently received much attention in various academic disciplines. The existing scholarly debate focuses more on older patterns of xenophobia emerging as forms of ‘non-violent discrimination and segregation’ but pays less attention to xenophobia as a violent practice per se. This study attempts to examine xenophobia in Greece by employing an event extraction technique: we track violent attacks by Greek citizens on any kind of ‘foreigners’ by analysing a vast amount of text data available from newspapers and news websites over a twenty-year period: 1996-2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Antisemitism
    ANTISEMITISM ― OVERVIEW OF ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS RECORDED IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 2009–2019 ANNUAL UPDATE ANNUAL © European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2020 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights' copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. Neither the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights nor any person acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 Print ISBN 978-92-9474-993-2 doi:10.2811/475402 TK-03-20-477-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-9474-992-5 doi:10.2811/110266 TK-03-20-477-EN-N Photo credits: Cover and Page 67: © Gérard Bottino (AdobeStock) Page 3: © boris_sh (AdobeStock) Page 12: © AndriiKoval (AdobeStock) Page 17: © Mikhail Markovskiy (AdobeStock) Page 24: © Jon Anders Wiken (AdobeStock) Page 42: © PackShot (AdobeStock) Page 50: © quasarphotos (AdobeStock) Page 58: © Igor (AdobeStock) Page 75: © Anze (AdobeStock) Page 80: © katrin100 (AdobeStock) Page 92: © Yehuda (AdobeStock) Contents INTRODUCTION � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3 DATA COLLECTION ON ANTISEMITISM � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    [Show full text]
  • Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 - 2003
    Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 - 2003 Based on information by the National Focal Points of the RAXEN Information Network Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 – 2003 Based on information by the National Focal Points of the EUMC - RAXEN Information Network EUMC - Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 - 2003 2 EUMC – Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 – 2003 Foreword 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar
    Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar October 2020 About Us This report was written based on the information and data collection, monitoring, analytical insights and experiences with hate speech by civil society organizations working to reduce and/or directly af- fected by hate speech. The research for the report was coordinated by Burma Monitor (Research and Monitoring) and Progressive Voice and written with the assistance of the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School while it is co-authored by a total 19 organizations. Jointly published by: 1. Action Committee for Democracy Development 2. Athan (Freedom of Expression Activist Organization) 3. Burma Monitor (Research and Monitoring) 4. Generation Wave 5. International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School 6. Kachin Women’s Association Thailand 7. Karen Human Rights Group 8. Mandalay Community Center 9. Myanmar Cultural Research Society 10. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State) 11. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytica 12. Olive Organization 13. Pace on Peaceful Pluralism 14. Pon Yate 15. Progressive Voice 16. Reliable Organization 17. Synergy - Social Harmony Organization 18. Ta’ang Women’s Organization 19. Thint Myat Lo Thu Myar (Peace Seekers and Multiculturalist Movement) Contact Information Progressive Voice [email protected] www.progressivevoicemyanmar.org Burma Monitor [email protected] International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School [email protected] https://hrp.law.harvard.edu Acknowledgments Firstly and most importantly, we would like to express our deepest appreciation to the activists, human rights defenders, civil society organizations, and commu- nity-based organizations that provided their valuable time, information, data, in- sights, and analysis for this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting White Supremacist Hate Speech Using Domain Specific
    Detecting White Supremacist Hate Speech using Domain Specific Word Embedding with Deep Learning and BERT Hind Saleh, Areej Alhothali, Kawthar Moria Department of Computer Science, King Abdulaziz University,KSA, [email protected].,aalhothali,[email protected] Abstract White supremacists embrace a radical ideology that considers white people su- perior to people of other races. The critical influence of these groups is no longer limited to social media; they also have a significant effect on society in many ways by promoting racial hatred and violence. White supremacist hate speech is one of the most recently observed harmful content on social media. Traditional channels of reporting hate speech have proved inadequate due to the tremendous explosion of information, and therefore, it is necessary to find an automatic way to detect such speech in a timely manner. This research inves- tigates the viability of automatically detecting white supremacist hate speech on Twitter by using deep learning and natural language processing techniques. Through our experiments, we used two approaches, the first approach is by using domain-specific embeddings which are extracted from white supremacist corpus in order to catch the meaning of this white supremacist slang with bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) deep learning model, this approach reached arXiv:2010.00357v1 [cs.CL] 1 Oct 2020 a 0.74890 F1-score. The second approach is by using the one of the most re- cent language model which is BERT, BERT model provides the state of the art of most NLP tasks. It reached to a 0.79605 F1-score. Both approaches are tested on a balanced dataset given that our experiments were based on textual data only.
    [Show full text]
  • How Does Political Hate Speech Fuel Hate Crimes in Turkey?
    IJCJ&SD 9(4) 2020 ISSN 2202-8005 Planting Hate Speech to Harvest Hatred: How Does Political Hate Speech Fuel Hate Crimes in Turkey? Barbara Perry University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Davut Akca University of Saskatchewan, Canada Fatih Karakus University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Mehmet F Bastug Lakehead University, Canada Abstract Hate crimes against dissident groups are on the rise in Turkey, and political hate speech might have a triggering effect on this trend. In this study, the relationship between political hate speech against the Gulen Movement and the hate crimes perpetrated by ordinary people was examined through semi-structured interviews and surveys with victims. The findings suggest that a rise in political hate rhetoric targeting a given group might result in a corresponding rise in hate crimes committed against them, the effects of which have been largely overlooked in the current literature in the evolving Turkish context. Keywords Political hate speech; hate crimes; doing difference; group libel. Please cite this article as: Perry B, Akca D, Karakus F and Bastug MF (2020) Planting hate speech to harvest hatred: How does political hate speech fuel hate crimes in Turkey? International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 9(4): 195-211. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v9i4.1514 Except where otherwise noted, content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. As an open access journal, articles are free to use with proper attribution. ISSN: 2202-8005 © The Author(s) 2020 Barbara Perry, Davut Akca, Fatih Karakus, Mehmet F Bastug: Planting Hate Speech to Harvest Hatred Introduction Hate speech used by some politicians against certain ethnic, religious, or political groups has in recent years become part of an increasing number of political campaigns and rhetoric (Amnesty International 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Antisemitism Overview of Data Available in the European Union 2007–2017
    HELPING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS A REALITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Antisemitism Overview of data available in the European Union 2007–2017 November 2018 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 Print ISBN 978-92-9474-262-9 doi:10.2811/978488 TK-06-18-238-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-9474-260-5 doi:10.2811/401871 TK-06-18-238-EN-N © European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2018 Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. CONTENTS Introduction ..........................................................................................................................5 Limited data collection on antisemitism ..........................................................................5 Legal framework..................................................................................................................7 Data collection for this overview ................................................................................... 10 Reports and evidence from international organisations ............................................ 11 United Nations (UN) ............................................................................................................... 11 European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) ........................................ 14 OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) .............................. 15 National data on antisemitism .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Online Hate Speech: Hate Or Crime?
    ELSA International Online Hate Speech Competition Participant 039 Liina Laanpere, Estonia Online Hate Speech: Hate or Crime? Legal issues in the virtual world - Who is responsible for online hate speech and what legislation exists that can be applied to react, counter or punish forms of hate speech online? List of Abbreviations ACHPR – African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights ACHPR – African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights CERD – Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination ECHR – European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR – European Court of Human Rights EU – European Union ICCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ISP – Internet service providers OSCE – Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe UDHR – Universal Declaration on Human Rights UN – United Nations Introduction “Do offensive neo-Nazi skinheads have the right to propagate their odious ideology via the internet?” That question was posed by the representative of United States Mission to the OSCE in her statement at the Conference on Hate Speech. The first answer that probably pops into many minds would be “no way”. However, the speech continues: “Our courts have answered that they do. Does a person have the right to publish potentially offensive material that can be viewed by millions of people? Here again, the answer is of course.”1 That is an example of the fact that the issue of hate speech regulation is by no means black and white. Free speech is a vital human right, it is the cornerstone of any democracy. So any kind of restrictions on free speech must remain an exception.
    [Show full text]
  • Race, Civil Rights, and Hate Speech in the Digital Era." Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media.Edited by Anna Everett
    Citation: Daniels, Jessie. “Race, Civil Rights, and Hate Speech in the Digital Era." Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media.Edited by Anna Everett. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 129–154. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262550673.129 Copyright: c 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works Unported 3.0 license. Race, Civil Rights, and Hate Speech in the Digital Era Jessie Daniels City University of New York—Hunter College, Urban Public Health and Sociology Introduction The emergence of the digital era has had unintended consequences for race, civil rights, and hate speech. The notion prevalent in the early days of new media, either that race does not exist on the Internet or that cyberspace represents some sort of halcyon realm of “colorblindness,” is a myth. At the same time MCI was airing its infamous commercial proclaiming “there is no race” on the Internet,1 some were already practiced at adapting white supremacy to the new online environment, creating Web sites that showcase hate speech along with more sophisticated Web sites that intentionally disguise their hateful purpose. Yet, there has been relatively little academic attention focused on racism in cyberspace.2 Here I take up the issue of racism and white supremacy online with the goal of offering a more nuanced understanding of both racism and digital media, particularly as they relate to youth. Specifically, I address two broad categories of white supremacy online: (1) overt hate Web sites that target individuals or groups, showcase racist propaganda, or offer online community for white supremacists; and (2) cloaked Web sites that intentionally seek to deceive the casual Web user.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Electoral Integrity in the Digital Age
    PROTECTING ELECTORAL INTEGRITY IN THE DIGITAL AGE The Report of the Kofi Annan Commission on Elections and Democracy in the Digital Age January 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Kofi Annan Commission on Elections and Democracy in the Digital Age ................. 1 VII. Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................. 91 Building Capacity ...................................................................................................................... 91 Members of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 5 Building Norms ......................................................................................................................... 93 Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Action by Public Authorities ................................................................................................... 94 Action by Platform ................................................................................................................... 96 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 14 Building Capacity ............................................................................................................................... 17 Building Norms ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]