"Tolerance and respect:
preventing and combating anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe"
Contribution to the Consultation in preparation of
the First Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights
1-2 October 2015
By CEJI-A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe
For over 20 years, bringing the European Union renowned, sustainable
anti-discrimination initiatives that promote mutual respect
For further information, please contact CEJI Director at [email protected]
Forward
CEJI-A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe welcomes the initiative of First Vice President
Timmermans and Commissioner Jourova to hold an annual colloquium on Fundamental Rights and we
applaud your bravery to tackle two of the most pressing issues of today simultaneously: anti-Semitism
and islamophobia.
For more than 20 years, CEJI has been the leading European Jewish organization advocating for antidiscrimination policies while delivering award-winning anti-bias educational programmes. Since 2001 we
have been explicitly and directly confronting both islamophobia and anti-Semitism, as well as racism,
religious discrimination, homophobia and gender-based discrimination. We believe whole-heartedly in
our vision for an “inclusive and democratic Europe in which people enjoy their full potential with all their
diversity.” We must honestly name the problems and challenges, in their specificities and their
universalities, and we must consistently apply positive measures to create the world we strive to live in.
For CEJI, education and intercultural solidarity are keys to creating an inclusive Europe – in the long, and
the short-term. We pride ourselves on our capacity to respond to emerging social challenges through
the creation of quality training programmes that are easily transferrable and multiplied across the
European Union.
There are many complexities to the issues of anti-Semitism and islamophobia, independently of each
other and also in relation to each other, both within a wider European and global context. In order to
deal effectively with these issues in a way that can have a positive impact on the European community
and its various sub-communities as a whole, it is necessary to understand the differences and
commonalities in such a way that does not nourish feelings of competition or a hierarchy of suffering.
This is a great challenge which we at CEJI have embraced as a necessary one already for many years. We
have found that many appreciate this approach, especially those who are dealing pragmatically with
these challenges at the grassroots level. We also find that there can be fear or even anger expressed
because of this approach; these fears must be understood as part of the complexity of the challenge.
So, once again, we applaud the European Commission for its continuous and steadfast courage to search
for innovation and transformation through your initiatives.
Our contribution to the consultation is quite long, based upon over two decades of experience dealing
with all of the topics of the colloquium. We thank you in advance for your consideration of our input and
remain at your service for this endeavor and for the implementation of the results thereafter.
1 – Can you inform about new trends showing an increase in anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim incidents?
What are to your mind the underlying factors for each of these phenomena: religion, culture,
socioeconomic or political circumstances, prejudices, etc.?
The data and basic trends are already known to the European Commission DG Justice, motivating this
Colloquium, so CEJI will not be redundant on this question.
Both anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim prejudice and hatred are each complex with their own unique
cocktail of influencing factors. A few to highlight here:
Anti-Semitism stems from a deeply rooted ideology in Western culture going as far back as Biblical
times. More modern forms were spread through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion published in the 19th
century and later through Nazism, mixed together with Biblical legends, and were exported through the
Arab world where they have been exploited and propagated for political purposes since the
(re)establishment of the State of Israel in what was previously the British Mandate in Palestine. The
unilateral blame of Israel (scapegoating) for the problems in the entire region is all too convenient in a
Europe which is already fertile for the growth of anti-Semitic ideas. The media holds responsibility not to
propagate anti-Semitism through biased reporting, as do some national political parties and
intergovernmental structures who use political pandering for electoral gain. Political, educational and
even Jewish community leaders have a responsibility not to reduce anti-Semitism and knowledge
about the Jewish people to the Holocaust alone.
Anti-Muslim hatred (also known as islamophobia) is a rather modern day issue which is largely due to
the perception of a clash of cultures, religions and values. Discrimination and poverty act like fertilizer
for increasing racism against Muslims, but also for increasing cultural segregation as they search for
belonging and identity. Islamophobia seems to have increased dramatically since 2001 with examples of
the use of violence for political protest (via violent manifestations and terrorism) and concerns about
increasing religious extremism. The issue of religious extremisms is a crucial one to deal with in relation
to anti-Muslim hatred in Europe. There have been various evidences, including: research such as that
done by Berlin Technical University Professor Koopmans which demonstrates that there are elements of
Muslim communities in Europe who feel that religious law is more important than government law
(http://www.wzb.eu/en/persons/ruud-koopmans); the worsening position of women in some countries
or communities; and the various Fatwa which have been issued toward Muslims who speak freely about
democratic values. The wider Muslim community is a victim of extremisms within their own community
as well as from the far-right. Inter-community tensions, prejudices and a lack of mutual trust now run
rampant throughout European societies, as Muslims face increasing discrimination and radicalization of
Muslim youth continues to threaten European and Jewish security. But there is also the problem that
there are non-Muslims feeling rejected by Muslims when they make efforts to build social relationships
with them. At CEJI we call this the “birthday party phenomenon” as parents throughout Western
Europe have reported in our training their frustrations for a lack of reciprocity at trying to support their
childrens’ relationships with Muslim classmates. This is an example of an intercultural, or even
integration, issue, not necessarily a racism issue (although embedded in a context in which racism is a
contributing factor).
2 – To which extent do you think anti-Semitism and Muslim hatred require a specific or a common
response?
Both. Muslims and Jews are both being targeted by expressions of hatred, as are also Roma, migrants,
people of colour, LGBT people and others. The prevalence of racism and other forms of hatred in Europe
need to be addressed within the framework of guarding and promoting fundamental rights. In a society
that does not effectively achieve its “promoting” obligation, there is a higher likelihood that hatred will
flourish. The promotion of values needs to be done in ways that enter peoples’ conscious and
unconscious minds. The conscious part of our minds will know that violence is a criminal behavior; that
discrimination in the workplace can have negative legal repercussions. The unconscious minds must be
reached through transformational learning, via formal, non-formal and informal education, changing
hearts and minds. Very interesting research and experimental work has been done on assessing and
counteracting unconscious bias (see www.projectimplicit.org). CEJI has also explored this area and
incorporated many of its elements into our own diversity training initiatives.
Hate speech is yet to be clarified in its limits and consequences. However, the non-criminal dimensions
of hate speech are the ones that have the most impact on people’s values and beliefs about others.
Perhaps the greatest impact on the implantation of negative values are the insidious and perhaps lesser
forms of hatred (prejudice and negative bias).
We must prevent peoples’ tendencies to scapegoat their problems and believe, consciously or
unconsciously, in the superiority or inferiority of whole peoples. We need proactive measures in place
to reveal and thus counteract the prevalence of unconscious bias which has its impact on
discrimination: direct and indirect, institutional, economic, cultural and interpersonal.
Legislation and security and other “counter-” measures help to “guard” fundamental rights, they are not
going to help the implantation and infusion of positive values. Only through the mechanisms which
shape our values and beliefs are we going to prevent the vicious spiral of hatred. Education, media,
culture and strong leadership are the only measures through which the values of fundamental rights,
diversity, non-discrimination and inclusion will ever be achieved.
And yet, anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim expressions of hatred also have their particularities in terms of
origins and manifestations that require measures which are complementary to the ones described
above, using the same channels and tools to transform the current situation.
The historical and deeply-rooted origins of anti-Semitism need to be understood in relation with the
modern forms of hatred against Jews. Anti-Semitism comes from an ancient ideology which still
influences peoples’ negative and sometimes even violent reactions to Jews in the world today. The
academic and historical nature of anti-Semitism has resulted in complex rationalizations that are often
hard to recognize. Monitoring and sanctions are needed, but also educational and awareness raising
initiatives: for those on the front-line influencing minds and hearts: educators, media and community
leaders.
Anti-Muslim hatred is perhaps more emotional, very recent comparatively, and its origin is more rooted
in people’s fears today: fear of loss of identity, fear of a threat to core values, and fear of violence. Also
known as islamophobia, these fears have resulted in activating peoples’ fight or flight instinct which is
not rational and is located in the primitive brain. Logic will not be very effective until the perception of
threat is removed: by developing a greater sense of security, not only militarily and politically, but also
emotionally.
The loss of identity is something much larger however than anti-Semitic and Anti-Muslim attitudes, and
it needs to be addressed through means that will have an impact on the fundamental rights of all
peoples, including Jews and Muslims. Educational programmes and a culture at large that support the
development of basic anti-bias skills:




Healthy self-esteem
Critical thinking skills
Empathy
Capacity to learn and work cooperatively
In addition, providing positive exposure to diversity and diverse role models has been deemed crucial
to transforming people’s ideas about themselves and about others.
And certainly, addressing direct and indirect discrimination which can lead to economic instability is
another essential element to improving peoples’ sense of security.
Good Practice: The award-winning initiative Belieforama applies an anti-bias diversity approach to
issues of religion and belief diversity. Belieforama’s core programme, Religious Diversity and AntiDiscrimination Training, is complemented by several subject specific modules including: Overcoming
Anti-Semitism, Overcoming Islamophobia, and Reconciling Religion, Gender and Sexual Orientation.
Depending on the specific learning, action and contextual needs of a target group, one or more of the
programmes will be delivered. The philosophical approach of all is the same, but the specificities also
have room to be addressed.
3 – Beyond security measures, which are necessary to ensure the security of people and sites, how can
the feeling of security of Jewish and Muslim communities in European States be improved?
The rule of law guarantees the norms of European values and it must be enforced by governments and
justice departments, before arriving at a state of violence and insecurity.
The ability to visibly express one’s belonging and cultural heritage without fear of harassment or attack
is also essential to the feeling of security. Visible targets, Jewish men and Muslim women who wear
religious garb are most often the victims of aggression. There are several ways in which policy-makers
can reduce such incidents and thus create greater feelings of security:
1) Support the visibility of role models in the media, public institutions, school curricula and
educational personnel who are evidently from Jewish and Muslim communities. There needs
to be a reduction of the perception of “otherness” or “strangeness”, as well as a cultural and
institutional support for the acceptance of Jews and Muslims as part of the general population.
a. Good Practice: The BBC has several tv and radio presenters, including in children’s
programmes, who are visible minorities, thus bringing them into the range of cultural
norm.
2) Implement anti-bias, diversity and citizenship education in school curricula, including an
emphasis on critical thinking skills, fundamental rights and personal responsibility. Our notion
of who is part of “we” in our societies is essential.
a. Good Practice: The A CLASSROOM OF DIFFERENCETM Programme of the AntiDefamation League offers training and teaching materials that have made a proven
difference in the learning of these skills. CEJI has adapted this programme for several
national contexts in Europe.
3) Facilitate cultural festivals that develop appreciation for the richness and contribution of
Jewish and Muslim communities in cities.
a. Good Practice: Jewish festival in Budapest has provided a sense of freedom and pride
for Hungarian Jewish community as well as an opportunity for the general population to
enjoy the rich history and traditions of Jews in Hungary.
4) Provide positive reinforcement for all community leaders who reach out and open up to
others from beyond their own communities, paying special attention to those Muslim leaders
who take a stand against anti-Semitism, and Jewish leaders to take a stand against
islamophobia.
a. Good Practice: The political encouragement of cooperation between the Jewish
organization Community Security Trust and the Muslim organization Faith Matters, for
the purpose of hate crime monitoring in the UK, has resulted in authentic, exemplary
and meaningful displays of solidarity.
4 – Which measures do you think would be most effective in tackling the issue of hate speech,
including online, with a particular focus on expressions of anti-Semitism and islamophobia?
The online world highlights the globalized nature of hatred and the importance of a multi-pronged
approach to minimize its damage. Recently Ronald Eissens from INACH describe hate speech online as
“dealing with fruitflies: you think you killed them all but they just keep coming back”. The only problem
with this analogy is that hate speech online can have serious emotional and physical impact on the
people and communities concerned. So instead of fruitflies, it can be compared to mosquitos of which
some are malaria infected, or cockroaches or rats that carry disease, etc.).






Internet companies need to put up “mosquito nets”: filters that can deal with criminal hate
speech the way they have dealt with the issue of child pornography.
Children and youth need to be “vaccinated” through education so that they have the critical
thinking skills and respect for diversity that will not make them vulnerable to hateful ideas.
Victims’ services need to be available to help them targets of hatred recover (emotionally,
physically and materially) from the attack(s).
“Exterminators” are needed in dire (criminal situations), such as police and prosecutors.
Agencies need to monitor the situation, producing reports on trends, vulnerable areas and
coordinating prevention and intervention measures.
And we need “cats”, skilled people, lots of them, to counter-attack when the mice and rats
appear in our houses and in our streets.
For this reason, CEJI is launching a new initiative based upon the last five years of a successful train-thetrainer approach to hate crime monitoring. Facing Facts! Online will adapt the training into an on-line
course to build a greater mass of people who have the capacity, skills and information they need to
find, report and engage in counter-speech. Initial funding has just been confirmed from Facebook and
Google, and CEJI hopes, that a new call will be released by DG Justice this autumn so that we can once
again be financial partners in the Facing Facts project.
Research is currently being done by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue on the use of marketization
techniques in order to identify youth who enter into the realm of Islamist recruitment. Advertisers are
doing it already for commercial reasons, knowing if we like certain kinds of books or hobbies, and
targeting us with ads in our newsfeeds. Now they are researching the potential to identify people who
start to investigate certain sites or posts, and then send counter-thought messages and send in a kind of
online social worker for radicalization prevention.
How can we intervene in the early stages when someone begins to explore or engage with hateful
ideologies, by advertising for diversity and critical thinking?
5 – What are the main challenges and gaps in effectively combating racist, anti-Semitic and
islamophobic speech and crime in terms of legislation and its implementation? What should be done
to overcome these challenges and how do you think the EU could facilitate this?
There is still discrepancy across the EU in terms of grounds covered from one country to another (for
example in Belgium recognizing only “racist” crime in the recording system and not having data
specifically for anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim crime). Also, there are discrepancies in the distinction (or not)
between hate crime and discrimination, such as in France, which also conflates the data and prevents
decisions about the most effective courses of action for each. The European Union, in partnership with
the OSCE and the Council of Europe, can develop clear definitions and enforce higher expectations for
recording incidents.
There is the additional problem of raising awareness amongst law enforcement personnel about the
nature of hate crime and the rights of victims. In particular, prosecutors are not necessarily informed
about their obligations in this regard. The European Commission could evaluate the implementation of
hate crime legislation at member state level and support measures that will enable better
understanding of the rights and obligations of the different stakeholders involved.
6 – What would be the most effective avenues of cooperation to ensure greater effectiveness in
preventing and combating anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim discrimination and hatred (i.e. in the area of
investigation, prosecution, data collection, victims’ reporting and support, etc)? What would be the
role of civil society and national and local authorities and communities?
The Facing Facts! Project has been acknowledged as the only promising civil society initiative in the
report of the Fundamental Rights Agency on perceptions of anti-Semitism. Funded by DG Justice in
2009, it brings together civil society organizations across communities to build capacities for hate crime
monitoring and to strengthen cooperation with public authorities.
At the March 2015 Facing Facts! Forward conference held in Brussels, a group of 85 practitioners from
Ministries of Justice, Interior, law enforcement, intergovernmental and civil society organisations
identified the following practical steps towards creating long lasting partnerships and establishing
good quality hate crime national monitoring systems according to international quality standards.(see
report on Facing Facts! Forward conference at www.facingfacts.eu)
Effective data sharing
1. Effective data sharing across CSOs and government is necessary in order to make data about
hate crimes credible. We should be aware of the reluctance to share data because of various
data protection legislations, but these should not be a barrier to data sharing in this area. The
key aspects for effective data sharing are transparency, quantitative and qualitative data
gathering methods, support of academic research, along with compatibility and comparability of
data.
Sustainable funding of CSOs
2. CSOs need a better recognition of their role in governmental policies so that their work can be
properly funded. Sustainable funding is essential to CSOs’ work.
Common hate crime definition
3. Common hate crime definition and legislation must be extended among police authorities in
Europe and fully implemented. When talking about hate crimes, we should reframe the
terminology – moving from ‘victims’ to those whose rights have been violated. First, we can all
become victims, and some victims may also become perpetrators, and vice versa. Secondly,
thinking about « victimhood » may also personalize the issue at the cost of highlighting the
broader systemic issues that underlie hate motivated acts.
Citizen mobilization and education
4. Citizen mobilization and education are crucial to raise awareness about hate crimes. We need a
larger public awareness on how to recognize a hate crime, for example through campaigning or
human rights education on hate crimes targeting schools. The targets of hate crimes and the
witnesses can have a key role to play as actors of change by raising awareness among all
citizens.
Solidarity and coalition building
5. Cross-community solidarity is crucial. Hate crime affects us all, regardless of whether we are the
direct victims (e.g. increase of social cost dealing with the aftermath of hate crimes, further
deterioration of neighbourhoods, etc.). Solidarity and coalition building must be fostered
amongst CSOs. We can all be victims.
The role of minority community members
6. Minority community members should be encouraged to take on an active role in helping to
make hate crime central to government policy. Encouraging community members to take an
active role may change the culture of reporting. It is essential to educate the wider community,
and to be close to the communities on other topics than hate crime. It is crucial to facilitate a
greater involvement of communities in decision making and policy setting in this area. Longlasting relationships between the stakeholders and with victims’ communities are crucial.
Support services to the victims
7. Support, follow up and a streamlined advocacy service for victims have to be established by
offering different services. A more visible and explicit approach to providing support services to
the victims of hate crimes should be developed. Further research into victims’ needs across
target groups and in a number of countries is necessary to define the most appropriate support
services. Access to financial compensation for victims should be facilitated. (cf. the Victims’
Directive)
Cooperation between CSOs and law enforcement
8. A joined up approach between all agencies (police, communities, media, social workers) is
crucial in a process that also establishes trust. Strengthening the cooperation between CSOs and
law enforcement (for example through common trainings on hate crime and diversity in general,
data sharing and shared definitions of hate crime) is essential. An important means of data
sharing is to establish data sharing and information sharing protocols between police and NGOs.
CSOs and police need to develop joint strategies in order to protect isolated victim groups.
Guidelines for recording and reporting hate crimes
9. A comprehensive recording system to ensure reports do not go unrecorded is important.
Guidelines of international organisations are essential. Developing a consolidated, simplified
system of reporting accessible to victims is important in that matter. A consolidated list with the
contact details of prosecutors, police officers, but also victims associations would foster
communication and cooperation. Effective and standardized reporting and recording
mechanisms have to be implemented through campaigning and internal capacity building. (cf.
Facing Facts Guidelines for Monitoring of Hate Crimes and Hate Motivated Incidents; ODIHR’s
hate crime recording guidelines).
Restorative justice approaches
10. Working with the perpetrators should also be considered, through for example, restorative
justice programmes and approaches. Rehabilitative interventions with perpetrators of hate
crime might prevent the escalation of violent behaviour in the future. This area for possible
action deserves further research.
Recognise the Specific nature of hate crimes
11. Identifying, de-masking the driving forces lying behind and leading to hate crimes and singling
them out by identifying their specific nature. The tendency in politics to hide the nature of
specific forms of hate crime by means of generalizations leads to downplaying and / or a
minimization of certain types of hate crimes and their dimensions in society.
7 – How can social inclusion and inter-cultural cooperation contribute to actively combat anti-Semitic
and Anti-Muslim discrimination and promote equality? What can be done at local level to contribute
to actively combat such discrimination? Could you give some examples of best practices? What are in
your opinion the most effective tools to counter amalgams, stereotypes and negative perceptions?
Education that confronts and prevents bias while promoting the value of diversity and active
citizenship is essential to combat stereotypes and prejudices which lead to discrimination, community
tensions and hate violence. Education takes place formally, non-formally and informally and all of
those areas need to be addressed. Since 1996 CEJI has been a pioneer in the field of anti-bias diversity
education, offering curricula resources for teachers as well as training handbooks for youth and adult
educators. The following are examples of proven best practices as well as indications for new ways
forward.
1. With the license to offer the Anti-Defamation League’s A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE® Institute
programmes in Europe, CEJI has, with European Commission funding, adapted this renowned
anti-bias diversity education approach to the European context for schools and youth
movements.
a. Perhaps the first to introduce the concept of peer education as a tool to fight prejudice
in 1995, CEJI’s initiative has led to the legally independent and financially sustainable
European Peer Training Organisation (EPTO) which works with youth leaders and youth
workers throughout the Union. Many of the participants in EPTO’s programmes have
integrated their learning about diversity and discrimination into other professional
fields, including health care, communications, public services, community and
humanitarian development and political life. From all walks of life, including many of
migrant background as well as majority background, EPTO is a best practice for
developing citizenship for diversity.
Good Practice: From Amsterdam, the “Meet Your Neighbors” project launched by a
synagogue has reached thousands of local youth of immigrant background, reduced
tensions in the neighborhood, and won several local awards. The synagogue is now
running a Muslim and Jewish youth leadership project called Mo’s and Moo’s which is
using the Overcoming Anti-Semitism and Overcoming Islamophobia training described
below.
b. The A CLASSROOM OF DIFFERENCETM Programme for schools was piloted in 1997 and
well-evaluated by the University of Liege in 2000 as a teacher training approach and by
the European Institute for Education and Social Policy in 2007 for its school community
approach. Teachers consistently report greater understanding, confidence and
creativity to deal with intercultural conflicts in the classroom.
Good Practice: The school community approach was also applied at the Lycee Louis
Querbes in Southern France where the school Director took the necessary leadership to
infuse the ideals of A CLASSROOM OF DIFFERENCETM into the school culture from the
very first week of school with “Integration Days” built into the annual curriculum.
Training for administration and support staff (including maintenance), teachers and a
peer training programme for students gave them the resources needed to prevent
escalations of tensions thoughout the year. The school established a local radio station
focused on positive interculturalism which still runs 10 years later.
2. In response to escalating anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim hatred in 2000-2002, as well as tensions
between religions and beliefs more generally, CEJI transferred the anti-bias diversity education
approach to the interfaith field in order to reach those who do not normally go to interfaith
dialogue, or to religious services at all, and to learn how to live together from a pragmatic and
sociological perspective. The result is the 2-times award-winning initiative Belieforama: A
Panoramic Approach to Issues of Religion or Belief. Funded by the European Commission from
2004-2011, Belieforama offers a secular approach to resolve conflicts and generate appreciation
and personal responsible for inclusive diversity. The result is a suite of training programmes
offered to adult educators, social workers, youth leaders and school teachers that develop
confidence and capacity, as well as concrete teaching materials, to confront prejudice. The
training programmes offered include:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Religious Diversity and Anti-Discrimination
Overcoming Anti-Semitism and Overcoming Islamophobia
Reconciling Religion, Gender and Sexual Orientation
Facilitating Effective Action
The way to teach religion in schools is a national competency, however, the European Commission
must recognize that despite the differences in approach across the EU, there are many conflicts
around this subject that have a direct relationship to the issue of Muslims (and other religious
minorities) in Europe. More evaluation and research of the effect of different religion education
models needs to be undertaken to help inform good policy changes coming from Ministries of
Education.
3. Holocaust education needs be treated as a source of learning for the present and future, not
only a historical lesson. It is chance for youth (and adults) to understand the building blocks of
hatred, the value of being “righteous”, and to better deal with prejudices and discrimination in
the world around them. The Holocaust is a critical event in Jewish modern history, and the
trauma of this horror still has an impact on the Jewish collective soul, and this also should also
be respected through Holocaust education. But Jews have a history is which is much longer than
the 20th century, they have a religio-cultural identity that is rich and deep with meaning and
tradition, they have made contributions the development of modern-day Europe in every field
of life. And there were other victims in the Holocaust who are just now coming to terms with
this part of their history: the Roma. School curriculum and memorial sites should re-think their
approach to the topic of the Holocaust in order to best deal with contemporary forms of antiSemitism and hatred. Good examples of this are:
a. The new POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews is supporting formal and nonformal education with exactly this philosophy described above.
b. Abécédaire du sport sous le nazisme is a fascinating and groundbreaking work done by
teacher Nathalie De Sprit working with juvenile offenders in Paris prisons.
4. Education also takes place informally through daily life, through images, headlines, slogans,
sound-bytes, cultural role models and social media posts. Working with media industry leaders
on responsible behavior and policies is as essential as education for young people on critical
thinking skills and net citizenship. The role of the media as a conduit, perpetrator or
perpetuator of negative prejudice and hate speech cannot be denied and must be worked with
to fulfill the positive potential of the media as a social actor. Work with internet industry leaders
such as Facebook, Google and Twitter has already begun, as has some training for journalists.
However, CEJI would propose that more responsible leadership needs to be provided by
newspaper (online and offline) and television news industries, which means commitments by
editors and producers. The European Commission could facilitate this leadership, through
positive reinforcement, business incentive or negative repercussions in relation to socially
constructive or destructive media policies.
Intercultural cooperation should be the aim, and even primary method, for dialogue projects, so that
people come to understand each other through a common purpose. This principle has been fully
integrated in the Facing Facts! project which brings together activist organizations, militant about the
rights of their own communities, into a joint educational process on the issue of hate crime monitoring.
As a result, we have witnessed new cooperative initiatives and demonstrations of solidarity from
organizations who before was rather single-issue focused. For example, the Community Security Trust
in the UK and the Center for Information and Documentation on Israel in the Netherlands, two of the
leading organizations monitoring anti-Semitic hate crime in Europe, have both been actively supporting
Muslim community structures (and other communities as well) in establishing their own monitoring
systems. As a result, demonstrations of solidarity within those two communities, for the other
communities, have become commonplace. Regarding Jewish-Muslim cooperation, one excellent
initiative is the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding which is getting increasingly active in Europe.
8 – What are the main gaps and obstacles (legislative, political, administrative, or financial) to fill at
national/local level to counter discrimination based on religion, belief and/or ethnic origin in practice?
How can such gaps be tackled at EU level?
Passing of the Horizontal Directive bringing religion up to equal protection with grounds of race and
ethnicity in terms of discrimination would be an important step that the EU can take to fill the gaps
(with clear limitations which do not compromise the freedom of expression to criticize religions).
Implementation support would then be needed, such as that provided by the programme on AntiDiscrimination Measures following the passage of Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty which resulted in
a leap in awareness and government initiative to fulfill their anti-discrimination obligations within the
Employment Directive and the Race Directive.
One of the main obstacles, however, at national level, is the existence of different approaches to
understanding “neutrality”. That some member states perceive it to be the lack of religious expression,
and others perceive it to be an inclusive approach to religious expression is a major issue to resolve to
achieve consistency at EU level. Case law in the European Court of Human Rights would help to clarify
these different understandings in order to achieve greater consistency across the Member States.
Bias about specific religions, if not all religions, or the lack of religion, is an important obstacle to
overcome in the implementation of a culture of non-discrimination. Diversity training that effectively
deals with these unconscious biases, such as that provided by the Belieforama training programme, are
highly recommended.
9 – What role could leaders, including religious and community leaders, play in proposing social
representations and a narrative which are inclusive, based on common values and mutual
understanding? Which are the most effective practices taken that have effectively evidenced a
positive impact and a potential for replication, in particular at local level and amongst and by young
people? What could be the role of the media in this respect?
The role of the media in the creation and perpetuation of social representations is crucial. Newspapers
and television news sources focus on negative narratives for the most part, providing little if any balance
with the positive narratives which exist equally if not more. A sensationalist approach to reporting on
crisis, violence and devastation is a major contributor to feelings of fear and insecurity amongst the
general population, as well as a primary conduit for negative bias and prejudices against Jews and
Muslims. Responsible journalism is not only the obligation of journalists, but also of editors and
television producers as these are the people that determine which articles, which headlines and which
images to include in their regular editions. The European Commission and national authorities could
provide positive incentive for media outlets to change their approach (training, awards, subsidies) as
well as apply pressure (and sanctions) in response to over-negative or biased reporting.
Community leaders have a contribution to make in changing the narrative from one of “victim” or “they
are out to get us” to one in which they see themselves as valuable members of the wider society. There
is so much good news to share as well as the negative: why not circulate positive stories amongst
Jewish (and Muslim) community leaders as well as share data on hate crime and terrorist activity?
10 – What type of discriminatory obstacles Jewish and Muslims experience most frequently in the
field of education and employment?
Information on the discrimination experienced by Muslims in employment, housing and education
should be provided by other contributors to this consultation, such as ENAR.
Employment discrimination of Jews is not the main issue facing Jewish individuals in Europe today
largely due to their invisibility (which has other negative effects such as assimilation, loss of identity, or a
lack of connection to colleagues and wider society), or on matters related to religious practice (eg
holiday observance), or stereotypes expressed informally in the workplace which can lead to feelings of
isolation (or sometimes experiences of hostility or even harassment – often due to Israel-related
opinions). Concepts and policies in relation to reasonable accommodation in the workplace could be
developed at national and European levels to address such issues for Jews and for other religious
minorities. The importance of diversity training and clear anti-discrimination policies by employers
that incorporate a commitment to an inclusive organizational culture need to impressed upon the
corporate world in Europe.
There are, however, many examples of economic disadvantage or discrimination in service provision,
from CEJI’s own experience and that of some of our Jewish partners whose mission goes beyond antiSemitism. There have been many cases when non-Jewish funders will not consider CEJI because: 1)
the Jews have enough money to take care of themselves (stereotype); or 2) they refuse to collaborate
with a racist state, therefore Jews (inappropriate correlations rooted in anti-Semitic bias); or 3) they
refuse to collaborate with a religious organization despite the quality of the service offered (CEJI is not
a religious organisation, and even if we were, it is discrimination). Here is just one example from just
this week (May 25, 2015).
At the beginning of a training on religious diversity with social workers in Belgium, organized by a semipublic body which has engaged CEJI to train its staff on numerous occasions over the last 3 years, one
participant protested the fact of receiving a training by a Jewish organization. He has since written an
email to the management of the organization which could cause a formal complaints procedure,
providing a forum that legitimizes blatant anti-Semitism, and perhaps (if management is not strong in
its conviction or seeks to avoid conflict), CEJI could lose a very important fee-paying client and avenue
to help front-line social workers deal with discrimination. The complaint is:
“J’ai été très choque d’apprend que le (xxx) collaborait avec un institute juif pour la réflexion sur
les croyances religieuses! J’ai trouve ça énorme! … Pourquoi le (xxx) entreprend-t-il de pareilles
collaborations? Si vous étiez des Américains, j’aurais compris. Et je ne serais pas venu. Mais le
(xxx), collaborer avec des gens d’un Etat raciste et colonisateur, comme si de rien n’était, ca me
tue.”
Another more indirect example, also emblematic of a challenge CEJI has faced since 2001, with the
organizations who have followed CEJI train-the-trainer programmes, use them and benefit from them
economically. Also, an example from this week, an important acknowledgement of the quality of our
work and an indicator of success for our multiplier approach. Yet… there is sometimes a hesitancy to
acknowledge CEJI as the copyright holder, or to include our logo, or to let participants know that a
Jewish organization was behind the initiative.
“We organized in 2012-2013 with (xxx) trainings about Islamophobia. We trained moslim
women, professionals and Islamic organizations about how to tackle Islamophobia and how to
empower them against this phenomenon. We made during this training use of some exercises
which are developed by Belieforama in their exercise book regarding Islamophobia. This is the
first and only training in the Netherlands against combating Islamophobia. I am now offering
this training together with (xxx) in other cities of (country). We will hold a conference on (date)
to present our methodology book of this training. In this book we will explain our experience and
the exercises we have offered. We have translated the exercises of Belieforama and integrated in
this book. But we don’ want to do this without the permission of Belieforama. I hope you help me
solve this problem. Because without the exercises our methodology book will be useless.”
The indirect discrimination effect in this situation is that, due to a lack of solidarity or courage to
confront anti-Semitism, CEJI does not achieve a visibility that reflects is true outreach/impact, thus
having an influence on our attractiveness to donors and funders.
Ironically, CEJI also has trouble to get funding from Jewish communities and individuals because our
mission is broader than anti-Semitism and in particular because we also fight actively against
islamophobia (and we even use the word!). So in a sense, CEJI as a Jewish organization is in a unique
and tough position due to discrimination and prejudice. For this reason, the cooperation with the
European Commission and the funding support provided by DG Justice and DG Education over the years
has been very much appreciated so that we can continue to do innovative and transformational work.
Education discrimination faced by Jews however is more complex. Education is a core value for the
Jewish community and it has a way of taking care of itself in this regard through Jewish schools. The
problem boils down once again to security of Jewish pupils in school, security from bullying and
harassment and even physical violence. The incapacity or unwillingness of educators to deal with these
issues has resulted in a modern day “exodus” of Jews from the public school system which is a genuine
pity both for Jews and for the wider society. Educational approaches as described in previous sections
would be needed to address these issues.
The prevalence of BDS movements on university campuses (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) and
other anti-Israel manifestations in academic life (by both professors and students) have created a hostile
environment for Jewish university students in Europe. More responsible media and political
representation in relation to criticism of Israel would help to address this issue.
11 – How could the society adjust to an increasing diversity? What is the society at large ready to
accommodate for a better "living together"?
Unfortunately it usually takes a crisis for institutions and people to acknowledge the need for a change.
The new commitments by some Ministries of Education after Paris and Copenhagen are an example of
this trend. The attacks against Jews alone in Toulouse and Brussels were not enough to recognize the
need. Jewish organizations across Europe have been warning European and national leaders of the
threat of home-grown terrorism for years. The double-whammy in both Paris and Copenhagen (free
speech and Jewish location) seemed to drive home the reality of anti-Semitism as a part of the DNA of
Islamic extremism which also aims to break down the fundamental values of Western democracy. Now,
the security of Jews has become interdependent with the security of Europe, and so there is new
motivation to act against anti-Semitism. The security of Europe is threatened by Islamic extremism,
which is strengthened by the vulnerability of discriminated Muslim communities, making now
islamophobia also a question of security in Europe, and so there is new motivation to act.
Hopefully we do not need to live through more horrible incidents and escalating tensions before the
verbal commitments made recently can turn into long-term sustainable institutional changes
What can be most easily accommodated (with time and money added)?
1) Implementation of existing legislation at all levels of government and law enforcement
(continued transposition, training and awareness-raising).
2) Mainstream anti-bias, diversity and citizenship education into the official school curricula.
3) Implementation of existing mandates to develop diversity plans within public administrations,
so that they are better equipped to meet the needs of diverse communities (and create such
mandates where they do not yet exist).
4) Set standards for the collection of credible, disaggregated equality and hate crime data.
12 – What are/could be concrete measures with the greatest impact to be taken by businesses (in
public and private employment) and social partners to facilitate and encourage inclusion of ethnic and
religious minorities and foster mutual understanding, and how could they be disseminated?
One concrete measure would be more partnerships/mentorship/internship programmes that would
support the building of a more skilled workforce in general, more competitive recruitment and potential
diversity for the company, and decrease in social exclusion. Of course there needs to be jobs too for
more skilled people!
Recruitment is only one hurdle to overcome. Retention and advancement are equally important
challenges which require employers to look carefully at their organisations for unconscious bias and
indirect discrimination which can prevent a truly inclusive environment where all people can succeed.
13 – Which further initiatives could Member States, EU institutions and international organisations
take in order to promote common values and mutual understanding and counter stereotypes in the
educational sphere (e.g. citizenship education; education about the EU history, its fundamental values
and EU rights; intercultural workshops in school, training for teachers, guidelines for educators, etc.).
What are already existing best practices in this respect?
The Erasmus + 2016 workplan could include a well-funded action that specifically and explicitly
addresses the institutionalization of existing good practice within the educational sphere so that an
inclusive culture based upon common democratic values can be infused throughout school and local
communities. This requires authentic leadership at the level of ministries and school directors,
pedagogical and communication capacities of teachers, empowerment of pupils so that they can also
feel responsible to confront bigotry and bullying, and an effective role modeling of democratic
governance so that students experience a society that “practices what it preaches.”
Many good practices and effective pedagogical tools and trainings have been created which are
implemented at local level or at European level – often created with European funds. Yet these practices
are difficult to sustain without institutional commitment at national or local level. We must move
beyond a “project” approach to a social change approach.
Many good practices have already been mentioned here in questions 3 and 7 of this document, and
certainly there are others at local level.
These are some qualities that CEJI would recommend for greater impact of such a new call for
mainstreaming proposals:



A requirement for Ministry-level implication as well as grassroots implementation in order to
support the mainstreaming process.
A requirement for partnerships with civil society organizations and amongst different
departments, which may include:
o Wider dissemination of existing good practices (selected through transparent and
equal access procedures);
o Facilitating collaboration between providers of good practices which are
complementary to each other; and/or
o Innovating new approaches which build upon previous experience.
A requirement for a rigorous participative process from planning through implementation and
evaluation, including the target groups of the project outcomes (e.g. students, community
representatives, civil society service providers). This would require a long enough time frame
to see results (3 -5 years), and room for flexibility to adapt to lessons learned during the
course of the project.
It is also recommended the European Commission programmes return to a more equitable financial
distribution whereby more smaller grants are made as opposed to the fewer, larger sums which have
been the trend over the last few years.