Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Antisemitism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPORT OF THE ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO ANTISEMITISM FEBRUARY 2015 ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP AGAINST ANTISEMITISM 4189_PCAA_Antisemitism Report_v7 - cover&back.indd 2 29/01/2015 15:11 1 ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY INQUiry INTO ANTISEMITISM February 2015 London “We don’t know what to expect in the future, whether Jews will be able to live in Europe” — Jewish teenager speaking to the Inquiry “This parliamentary report is a plan for action, it must be implemented without delay” — John Mann MP Disclaimer: This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its committees. All-Party Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views expressed in this Report are those of an Inquiry commissioned by the chair of the APPG Against Antisemitism. 2 Foreword: This All-Party Parliamentary Report was commissioned by John Mann MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism. The terms of reference for the report were: 1. To consider the events of July/August 2014 and the causes and consequences of the highest-ever recorded number of antisemitic incidents during that period 2. To consider this in the light of the 2006 All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism report 3. To review the situation in the UK in the light of similar events in Europe and draw any lessons that can be learnt 4. To identify and review the effectiveness of existing legal and other frameworks for addressing antisemitism in the UK, with a view to avoiding the extreme anti-Jewish violence in Europe that resulted from the conflict 5. To identify models of best practice for guaranteeing intercommunal cohesion and Jewish communal welfare at times of increased tension. 3 The parliamentary team that undertook the policy review and authored the report included: Guto Bebb MP Rt Hon Dame Tessa Jowell DBE MP Conservative, Aberconwy Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP John Mann MP Labour, Salford and Eccles Labour, Bassetlaw Graham Brady MP Lord Mendelsohn Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West Labour Rt Hon Alistair Burt MP Ian Paisley MP Conservative, North East Bedfordshire DUP, North Antrim David TC Davies MP Baroness Richardson of Calow OBE Conservative, Monmouth Crossbench Rt Hon Lord Dholakia OBE Rt Hon Sir Andrew Stunell OBE MP Liberal Democra Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove Parliamentarians that accompanied inquiry visits, provided additional input to the report or joined regional community meetings that contributed to the evidence gathering process included: Lord Beecham Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP David Burrowes MP Ivan Lewis MP Luciana Berger MP Matthew Offord MP Louise Ellman MP Eric Ollerenshaw OBE MP Mike Freer MP Lord Sacks Lilian Greenwood MP Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP Whilst all the members of the investigatory team were parliamentarians and numerous meetings were held in parliament, the investigation held no official powers and the report is not an official parliamentary report. The parliamentarians involved in the project had widely varying outlooks on the conflict and were not selected on the basis of those views. The focus of this report is predominantly on the UK, however lessons and evidence were drawn from other European countries. The report was announced on 28 July 2014 and inquiries carried out between August and November. The report was written in the period following. 4 Contents: Overview 6 1. Introduction & Background 9 1.1 The Report 10 1.2 An Overview of Antisemitism 10 1.3 Defining Antisemitism 11 1.4 Free Speech 13 2. Antisemitism in the UK 14 2.1 Incident Figures: Statistics, Sources and Perceptions 15 2.2 Governmental, Parliamentary, Local and Civic Society Responses 21 2.2.1 Responses to Cyber Hate 30 2.3 Prosecuting Authorities and the Law 32 3. Evaluation of the Incidents and the Responses 39 3.1 The Events of July/August 2014 40 3.2 Incident Figures and Sources 40 3.3 Nature of Incidents 43 3.3.1 Assaults, Daubing and Abuse 43 3.3.2 Political Protests and Demonstrations 44 3.3.3 Interruption of Trade and Sale of Kosher Goods 45 3.3.4 Cultural Boycotts 48 3.3.5 Traditional and Social Media 49 3.3.6 The Example Set By Public Figures 53 3.4 Addressing the Incidents 56 3.4.1 Legal and Policing Response 56 3.4.2 Political Responses 66 3.4.3 The Jewish Community and Interfaith Responses 73 3.4.4 The Role of the Media 78 5 4. Antisemitism in Europe and the Events of July/August 2014 85 4.1 Overview 86 4.2 Germany 88 4.3 France 90 4.4 The Netherlands 92 4.5 Ireland 94 4.6 Learning Points and Recommendations 95 4.6.1 Education 95 4.6.2 Political Institutions 98 4.6.3 Policing 99 5. Addressing Antisemitic Discourse 101 5.1 Nazi and Holocaust Analogies 103 5.2 Accusations of Dual Loyalty and Malign Influence 104 5.3 ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Jews 106 5.4 Educating About Language 107 Final Conclusions 109 6. Summary of Conclusions & Recommendations 112 7. Appendix 117 6 Overview Antisemitism is not a new phenomenon but one that constantly mutates and finds new ways to infect society. Over the past ten years, we have developed and implemented national frameworks and local strategies to address anti-Jewish hatred and in the main these have been effective and in some cases exemplary. However, during the Isra el-Gaza war of July and August 2014 we witnessed a surge in incidents which highlighted areas in which more can be done and further steps that must be taken. The aims of our inquiry were: to review the state of antisemitism in the UK specifically in light of anti-Jewish hatred emanating from the Middle East conflict, to analyse the effectiveness of existing measures and make recommendations for further action rooted in national and European good practice. In the introductory chapter, we seek to establish some basic facts and history about antisemitism and discuss the various definitions of the term. We introduce one of several sub-reports that were commissioned to assist our deliberations and discuss our approach to the research. In addition, we emphasise the centrality of free speech to British life and the accompanying responsibilities. We also highlight that, as has been proven since the last report into antisemitism, the benefits in tackling anti-Jewish prejudice are almost never solely felt by the Jewish community but rather all victims of hate crime. Any serious analysis must begin with establishing facts and so chapter two begins with an overview of incident figures and statistics. We were pleased that the police had improved their data capture and analysis in recent years and that their numbers broadly tally with those of the Community Security Trust (CST), a key Jewish communal security organisation which records antisemitic incidents. We look at patterns in crime and incident figures nationally, regionally, and locally and establish that whilst there is a mixed picture, undoubtedly spikes in tension in the Middle East lead to an increase in antisemitic events. We also consider perceptions of antisemitism and uncover both reassuring and worrying data. We found that most British Jews feel a strong sense of belonging to the United Kingdom but that certain issues and events, particularly in relation to the Middle East conflict, can serve to undermine this. Since 2006, significant steps to combat antisemitism have been taken by government, parliament and civil society and we detail quite extensively the constituent parts of that body of work, covering ten different themes and make a specific recommendation about interfaith work. Separately, we analyse responses to cyber hate which was a major concern during the summer and finally review the role of prosecuting authorities and the law, making recommendations about regular reporting structures and effective communication. In chapter three, we provide an evaluation of those incidents that took place in July and August 2014 and the requisite responses. We begin by looking in a more targeted fashion at the incident figures relating to the summer months and subsequently seek to detail the nature of the incidents that occurred, which ranged from straightforward abuse to political protests and cultural boycotts. 7 It was a marked feature of the evidence we received that members of the Jewish community were profoundly affected by the example set by public figures and we review some of the most troubling cases which occurred across the parties. We also reveal worrying trends in social media that require further research, which we recommend. Having outlined the nature of the incidents, we move to addressing them. Specifically we look at the role of police and the adequacy of the law and find that whilst thorough, there are elements of training, guidance and procedure that could be improved. We make recommendations, for example, about the identification of flags and symbols and how police can be best equipped and informed in advance of major political protests. We also look at prosecuting authorities and the suite of tools available to them. We make recommendations about better data segregations and analysis, arrangements for the referral of cases to specialist prosecutors, the development of additional guidance on social media as regards religious and racial hatred and the suitability of the judicial bench book. We also seek to set out the limitations of the criminal justice process in addressing antisemitism. There are a number of other relevant themes which we consider in the chapter. These include the political responses to the conflict, the impact of cultural boycotts and the responsibility of local authorities to bring people together.