"Tolerance and respect: preventing and combating anti-Semitic and
anti-Muslim hatred in Europe"
Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights
Questions for consultation with Stakeholders
1. Can you inform about new trends showing an increase in anti-Semitic and antiMuslim incidents? What are, to your mind, the underlying factors for each of
these phenomena: religion, culture, socio-economic or political circumstances,
prejudices etc?
1.1
Enclosed are our reports to the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
detailing anti-Muslim hate crimes in the UK in the years 2012 and 2013. Our 2014
report is currently under preparation and will be made available to the FRA as soon
as it is published. The enclosed reports illustrate the increase in all types of crimes
classified under sections (a) individuals (b) property/institutions and (c) hate speech.
The section on public discourse includes useful information on prevailing
environments which have contributed to the climate in which anti-Muslim hostility
and hate crime has emerged.
1.2
Official statistics from the Home Office annual report on Hate Crime in England and
Wales noted a 45% increase in religious hate crime over the period April 2013 March 2014. We await the publication of statistics by the Home Office for the period
April 2014 - March 2015 (the current year).
The Home Office report on Hate Crime in England and Wales in 2013-2014 notes the
following:
In almost 90% of police forces, religious hate crime was either the third or fourth most
commonly recorded strand of hate crime.
Of the total number of hate crimes, 37,484 (84%) were race hate crimes and 2,273
(5%) were religious hate crimes.
[P]ublic order offences and violence against a person were the two most common
offences associated with hate crime for all strands except religion. In particular,
public order offences amounted to 60% of race hate crimes.
For religious hate crime, public order offences were the most common (46%)
followed by more serious criminal activities such as criminal damage and arson
(25%).
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
The report presents two alarming trends in Islamophobic hate crime, which is derived
from datasets covering racial and religiously motivated hate crime: race and religious
hate crimes continue to account for the vast majority of recorded hate crime in the
UK; the type of criminal offences are severe in the case of religious hate crime where
criminal damage and arson as the second largest type of hate crime experienced.
Our ODIHR submissions detail some of the serious cases of criminal damage and
arson experienced by British Muslim communities in the last two years as a
consequence of acts of terrorism or political violence on account of which reprisal
attacks against British Muslims have occurred.
1.3
From our own Freedom of Information requests to police forces in England and
Wales, a more alarming picture emerges on the extent of hate crimes in which
Muslims are identified as victims. In the absence of clear recording systems on
Islamophobic hate crimes in the UK, as with anti-Semitic crime which is separately
recorded and annually reported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the
Home Office, statistics on Islamophobia have to be derived from datasets which do
not disaggregate and in which recording of religion or ethnic identity of the victim is
based on voluntary self-identification of ethnic identity.
Islamophobic hate crimes are recorded in the categories of both racial and religiously
motivated hate crimes deriving from the two bases on which bias motivations are
evinced: racial identity (real or perceived) and religious identity (real or perceived). In
many cases, anti-Muslim hate crimes are prosecuted as 'racially aggravated'
offences, when it is clear from the target or identity of the target that 'religiously
aggravated' is a more accurate depiction of the bias motivation.
A report by the Home Office, Office for National Statistics and Ministry of Justice
published in December 2013, an Overview of Hate Crime in England and Wales,
noted the intersectional bias of race and religion covering anti-Muslim hate crimes
with Muslims more likely to be victims of race based hate crime and religion based
hate crime:
The risk of being a victim of racially motivated hate crime in the 2011/12 and 2012/13
Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) was highest among adults in nonWhite ethnic groups than White groups. An analysis of racially motivated hate crime
by religion shows that Muslim adults were more likely to be a victim of racially
motivated hate crime than other adults.
CSEW showed adults in non-White ethnic groups were more likely to be a victim of
religiously motivated hate crime than adults in White ethnic group and Muslims were
most likely to be victims of religiously motivated hate crime.
In our FOI request we sought information on the number of race hate crimes in which
the victims' self-declared identity was 'Bangladeshi' or 'Pakistani', and the number of
religious hate crimes in which the victims' self-declared identity was 'Muslim'.
For purposes of more accurate detailing of information about anti-Muslim hate
crimes, we sought information from police forces across England and Wales. The
findings indicate the following:
There were 5,320 racial and religious hate crimes in 2013-2014 where the victim's
ethnic identity was Pakistani/Bangladeshi or religious identity was Muslim. This is
greater than the number for homophobic crime (4,622), disability hate crime (1,985)
and transgender hate crime (555) reported in that year. The number of anti-Semitic
crimes in 2013-2014, according to ACPO (available on the True Vision site) was 318
(for all forces in England and Wales, including Northern Ireland). The scale of hate
crimes in which Muslims are identified as victims and where the bias motivation
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
takes, as with anti-Semitism, the form of either racial or religiously motivated hatred,
is greater than for all other strands of recorded hate crime in England and Wales.
We are currently compiling responses to our FOIs for the period April 2014 - March
2015, to compare and contrast with the previous year.
1.4
A further, relevant, factor is the number of recorded hate crimes as a proportion of
total estimated hate crime in England and Wales. The Crime Survey of England and
Wales (CSEW) observes the disparity between police recorded hate crime and
reported hate crime to the annual Crime Survey stating that police recorded of hate
crime stands at 40% of the total number of offences declining from 51% since
2007/8 and 2008/9.
1.5
Analysis of time periods during which a high incidence of anti-Muslim hate crime is
recorded suggests a correlation between the following factors and hate crime:

acts of political violence or terrorism committed by individuals of religious
background; most notable among recent events is the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in
Woolwich, south London on 22 May 2013.

media reporting of incidents of domestic or international terrorism, and on criminal
conduct by Muslim individuals in which religion is foregrounded as a contributing
factor; in recent months this has taken the form of media reporting on cases of
grooming and child sexual exploitation.

political statements and other interventions that facilitate an anti-Muslim public
discourse; in recent years this has taken the form of anxieties around the provision of
religious schooling to Muslim pupils such as evidenced in the 'plot' allegedly involving
the 'takeover' of schools in Birmingham by 'hardline Islamist' groups or individuals,
submission of mosque planning applications to local councils and public debates
about the headscarf.

protests organised by far rights groups

election periods; local and national elections where anti-Muslim rhetoric in campaign
material has been evident and postings on social media sites by election candidates
evincing prejudice and hatred towards Muslims.
2. To which extent do you think anti-Semitism and Muslim hatred require a
specific or a common response?
2.1
There has been a considerable disparity evident in UK Government approaches to
tackling Islamophobia and tackling anti-Semitism.
The disparity is evident in public funding made available to projects and initiatives
which challenge these twin evils. The UK Government Hate Crime Strategy 2012
(and its revised later version) offer some detail about the comparative funding of
projects to tackle Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.
The Government's response to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Semitism
offers further insight into statutory interventions in regards to challenging antiSemitism and the paucity of reciprocal measures to tackle Islamophobia. The
disparity is stark in, for example, letters sent to local councils detailing statutory
obligations to deal with criminal conduct in relation of racially offensive graffiti daubed
on Jewish institutions or property; no reciprocal intervention has been forthcoming in
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
relation to Islamophobic graffiti (our ODHIR report documents some of these
Islamophobic incidents).
The disparity is also stark in the 'advice' that Muslim communities have been offered
in terms of securing premises and property against Islamophobic attacks in
comparison to the public funding of security for Jewish schools, synagogues etc.
It is important, at a time when Islamophobic and anti-Semitic hate crime is increasing,
that official responses to tackling threats to the security and well-being of religious
minorities do not privilege particular communities over others or do not give the
impression of privileging particular minority communities over others. Perceptions of
unequal treatment and a feeling of official disregard for the anxieties experienced by
one community can cause members of that community to further normalise instances
of hatred and prejudice such that reporting incidents of abuse, hate crime and
discrimination declines further. A fall in reporting of Islamophobic incidents gives the
false impression of falling levels of victim experiences of hostility when in fact, more
of these offences are hidden from view.
2.2
A further point of note in support of a common response is the tendency for events
overseas to affect communal relations between British Muslim and Jewish
communities with the latter experiencing a higher incidence of anti-Semitic hate crime
as a consequence of external factors.
2.3
A common response in the form of joint initiatives across all hate crime strands is to
be welcomed where victims of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender
based hate crime feel a common sense of confidence in the reporting of hate crimes
and in the cultivation of an environment in which bias motivation in the singling out of
individuals for discrimination, abuse or hostility on grounds of race, religion, sexual
orientation, disability and gender is repelled through collective endeavour to uphold
these protected characteristics.
Police force initiatives during National Hate Crime Awareness Week are an example
in point where all biases are integrated into a programme of public awareness,
confidence building exercises and community policing to cultivate trust and
confidence in local communities about police responses to all forms of hate crime.
The development by police forces, like North Yorkshire police force, of a dedicated
24 hour hotline for victims of hate crime, serving all victims regardless of race,
religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender, is a helpful intervention to cultivate
bonds of solidarity between the different groups and with wider society signalling that
no one type of hate crime is any more acceptable than another and that all
communities are equally served by a dedicated police division dealing with hate
crime. There is much to commend these practices, which allow for knowledge
exchange and information sharing across groups to improve victim reporting, police
investigation of hate crime, criminal prosecution and restorative justice.
2.4
Islamophobia and anti-Semitism share particular referent points with Jewish
communities alluding to the number of hate crimes in which the perpetrator's identity
is alleged to be Muslim and Muslim groups highlighting the work of pro-Israeli
advocacy organisations dovetailing with the facilitation and perpetuation of a hostile
environment against Muslims. The Center for American Progress and Council for
American Islamic Relations have documented the interlinking of pro-Israeli advocacy
organisations and Islamophobia in the US. A report by Spinwatch has asserted
similar links between pro-Israeli advocacy groups in the UK and the fomenting of
anti-Muslim prejudice. The communal space, in which US and UK based pro-Israeli
groups operate, makes both the UK and US spheres relevant to any exercise in
stemming the outpouring of anti-Muslim hostility. Co-operation between UK and US
based groups, seen in the invitation to Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, to attend
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
far right rallies in the UK, is a case in point as is the presence of a US based right
wing news agency, Breitbart, in the UK with its hosting of material originating in the
US and tailored for UK audiences.
A common response to Islamophobia and anti-Semitism is a useful means of
addressing victim perception of unequal treatment and of challenging the respective
environments in which hostility against Muslims or Jews ferments. A common
response setting out a zero-tolerance approach to Islamophobia and anti-Semitism
reverses the likelihood of supporting victims but not challenging the environment in
which hate crime, abuse and discrimination is made congenial. Addresses causes
and symptoms is vital if progress is to be made in challenging Islamophobia and antiSemitism involving the respective communities who suffer from bias motivated crime
and communal environments in which hostility of the respective 'other' is not robustly
challenged from within.
MP Ivan Lewis, Labour MP for Bury South, recently spoke up against Islamophobia
in the Jewish community arguing that there was no place for double standards on the
issue of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and Jewish communities who sought firmer
action by the state and police over anti-Semitism were just as responsible for tackling
Islamophobia festering in sections of Britain's Jewish communities.
It is a perspective we welcome and second. Muslim and Jewish communities in the
UK need to work harder to challenge expressions of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism
within these communities and without and both dimensions, internally and externally
generated hatred for religious minorities, should be shown short shrift by members of
both religious groups.
2.5
There are some small scale examples of Muslim and Jewish groups working
together, these need to be magnified, amplified and better supported so that
hatemongers in both communities find no place to seek solace or defence against
hate crime, hate speech and unlawful discriminatory behaviour. A commendable
recent example is demonstrated in the joint statement issued by the Muslim Council
of Britain and the Board of Deputies of British Jews during the Gaza war in the
summer of 2014 in which both communal representatives bodies called for their
respective communities to come together to "export peace, not import conflict".
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?
3.1
A major problem is the present high level of under-reporting of anti-Muslim hate
crime. Awareness of hate crimes committed against a member of the same group
can have an impact on others members of that group. Research currently under
investigation by academics working on the Hate Crime Project at Sussex University
details the types of avoidance or active positions taken by members of a group when
they become aware of hate crime incidents against a member of their group. Hate
crime and its under-reporting clearly have an impact on the sense of security felt by
members of victim groups, influencing their subsequent behaviour, so improving
under reporting with a view to increasing prosecution and the conviction rate are
significant factors affecting the feeling of security among Muslim communities.
Understanding why under-reporting is prevalent and addressing the causes of this is
vital. Many surveys suggest that the reason often given by hate crime victims for not
reporting their experience to the police is the belief that there is little that the police
can do about it, or the belief that the police will not take the matter seriously. The lack
of confidence evinced by victim groups needs to be addressed so that victims are
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
convinced that hate crime reports will translate into more than just a number in official
statistics. Multiagency work involving the police and prosecution service, is a
necessary step in this regard.
Furthermore, research shows a strong divergence between the number of incidents
brought to the attention of police and prosecution services and the actual rate of
conviction. The fall off rate, the number of incidents which are reported but which do
not pass successfully through the criminal justice system to point of conviction, needs
further attention. Among positive interventions noted by prosecution agencies to
improve victim engagement with the criminal justice system and conviction rate is
providing more information to victims to prepare them for trial and giving evidence,
including provisions available such as 'special measures' to protect victim identity or
alleviate fears about giving evidence in court. More work needs to be done to ensure
hate crime experiences are channelled through the criminal justice system and
justice being seen to be done by victim groups.
3.2
Statements of solidarity and common feeling when incidents of hate crime occur can
have a major impact on the confidence of Muslim communities that anti-Muslim
hatred will not be tolerated and statutory agencies are ready and prepared to provide
all necessary support when such incidents occur. For example, in the months
following the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, there were three bombs planted at
mosques in the West Midlands region one of which would have caused serious
fatalities if it detonated because it was set to go off during the Friday prayer. A major
incident was only averted because the timing of the prayer was adjusted by an hour
on account of daylight saving. Despite these major scares, and a number of other
incidents during the same period when mosques in various parts of the country were
targeted in arson and other criminal acts, Government officials did not issue a public
statement condemning reprisal attacks on British Muslims until a month after the first
bomb was discovered in the West Midlands. The reticence on issuing official
statements by the office of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or the
Communities and Local Government Secretary resulted in the Muslim Council of
Britain complaining in a letter to the Communities Secretary, stating “It cannot be
right that a minority community is allowed to be targeted in this manner" and
criticising the lack of a "coordinated national effort to ensure that these sorts of
attacks never happen again".
The importance of Government officials, at both national and local level, taking a
strong stand against hate crime targeting minority communities was evident in the
responses from the British Government to the Charlie Hebdo affair and its aftermath
in terms of the insecurity experienced by British Jewish communities. An equal effort
to assert zero tolerance of Islamophobic hate crime is vital to assuring Muslim
communities of their present and future security in European countries.
3.3
Supporting public awareness initiatives created and run by minority communities is a
useful way of allowing communities to present their experiences of hate crime and
hostility or discrimination to the wider society enabling them to appreciate the impact
hatred on grounds of race and/or religion has on the confidence, security, self-worth
and aspirations of minority communities. Initiatives such as Islamophobia Awareness
Month which is organised by MEND in collaboration with a number of British Muslim
organisations is a case in point. We have worked with local police forces, Police and
Crime Commissioners, local councils and local government officials, schools and a
variety of civil society actors to host our Islamophobia Awareness Exhibition and
deliver a programme of lectures and talks, some of which feature the personal
testimony of hate crime victims, during the month of November. The events are
organised nationally allowing for geographic and regional variances in the make up of
British Muslim communities and the nature or hate crime to be reflected in the
respective local/regional programme.
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
Our programme of events in 2014 included presentations by officials from the Crown
Prosecution Service which had a tremendous positive impact in terms of setting out
the work done by the prosecution service in prosecuting hate crime and the reliance
of the service on reporting and victim engagement in the criminal justice process to
deliver justice to victims. Outlining the CPS's Hate Crime Champions, who are
employed in each of the CPS regions, has boosted confidence in the perception of a
strong criminal justice response system to Islamophobic hate crime. Public
awareness campaigns of this nature instil a sense of security in minority communities
about the systems in place and the firm commitment to tackling Islamophobia.
3.4
National Hate Crime Awareness Week which is run in the UK over a week in January
has provided a useful platform for police forces, local communities, civil society
organisations, advocacy groups and victim support groups to come together for
public education drives on hate crime awareness as well as offer an opportunity for
the evaluation of progress on hate crime strategies implemented by local forces and
local government bodies. Tackling Islamophobia and anti-Semitism requires
engagement with wider society to impress a zero-tolerance approach to hatred and
hostility on grounds of race and/or religion. National Hate Crime Awareness Week is
one such means of engaging local communities to tackle hate crime and hostility
against Muslim and Jewish communities in their midst.
3.5
Sentencing requirements for aggravated offences and their use, consistency and
recording against the criminal record of perpetrators are useful deterrents which,
according to the Law Commission report, Hate Crime: Should the Current Offences
be Extended?, are not being effectively used by the courts.
Reporting hate crime can be a nerve wracking experience for victims, many of whom
are unfamiliar with or have had no prior encounter with the criminal justice system.
Ensuring that where crimes are reported and prosecuted, that they are sufficiently
dealt with in sentencing, reinforces the confidence in communities of law
enforcement and criminal justice upholding the rights of victims and deterring
perpetrators from committing bias motivated crimes against minority communities.
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 antiSemitism and Islamophobia?
4.1
The Society of Editors, with the Communities and Local Government Department,
have produced a guide for moderating online comments for use by local, regional and
national press. The guidelines were published in 2014 and it is too early to evaluate
whether the guidelines are having their intended effect. The guide contains a very
small section on Islamophobia on online forums and references no academic
research, such as that by Dr Imran Awan, a criminologist at Birmingham University
who has studied Islamophobia on far right forums. It would be useful to assess
whether the training programmes for moderators employed by national and local
newspaper titles are inducted in the findings of academic scholarship on
Islamophobia online; criminal offences and popular stereotypes, in order to address
the lack of detailed information included in the moderation guide itself.
4.2
The Crown Prosecution Service published interim guidelines in December 2012
outlining the procedures for prosecutors when dealing with cases of social media
communications. The guidelines assert a 'high threshold' when dealing with cases of
posts which are considered "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" in order to
uphold the right to free expression.
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
The case of postings which are swiftly removed, blocked or not intended for a wide
audience, are examples given where prosecution is not considered to be in the public
interest.
The Lords Communications Committee has, in a report on social media and criminal
offences has warned that the approach applied since the adoption of the interim
guidelines should not “have the effect that few offences committed under section 1 of
the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act
2003 will be prosecuted.” The report also proposes a role for the legislature in
“determining the circumstances in which such [social media] offences should be
prosecuted”.
While the right to free expression must be upheld, the right to religious freedom and
freedom from discrimination must also be upheld and criminal offences in regards to
incitement to racial or religious hatred and threats, or other public order offences, be
robustly tackled. There is a sense that the right balance has not yet been struck
between tackling Islamophobia online and respecting free speech.
4.3
A deeper point of relevance is the disparity that presently exists in legislative
protection on incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred. The latter
is hampered by a higher threshold for prosecution resulting, since the law was
enacted in 2006, in a single case of unsuccessful prosecution. Between the higher
threshold for the prosecution of crimes deemed to be incitement to religious hatred
and the protection of free speech, there is some concern about the rigour with which
Islamophobia online is being handled.
4.4
Current research by academics based at the Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social
Sciences (CASS) is a valuable contribution to evidence based analysis on tackling
Islamophobia and anti Semitism online. Work by CASS has been referenced in the
report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Semitism, informing policy
development on tacking anti-Semitism online.
We are in the process of concluding similar research with CASS on Islamophobia
online with a view to preparing an evidence base to better inform policy development
in relation to Islamophobia on online platforms.
An important measure is clear communication to online user communities and social
media companies about the criminal law and social media offences in order to tackle
offences when they occur.
Many incidents are reported to the police by individuals who come across offensive
comments online. Another important measure is to ensure that guidelines about
social media offences and the criminal law are easily accessible on social media
websites to enable individuals to report incidents if they feel they breach the law.
4.5
There has been some focus on the role of social media companies with the All Party
Group of Anti-Semitism in its 10 year review noting the progress by the InterParliamentary Coalition for Combatting Antisemitism (ICCA) on tackling antiSemitism online. It is notable that while the ICCA conference was held in London and
its London Declaration presented to the cross government working group on antiSemitism, there is little information available to assess whether the cross government
working group on anti-Muslim hatred has been jointly involved in initiatives to tackle
Islamophobia online as part of a wider Government policy of co operation between
the respective working groups on a joint area of concern.
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
One measure which would most effective is ensuring that work on challenging
Islamophobia online is done alongside, and not adjunct to, work on challenging antiSemitism online. There is commendable work that has been done with social media
companies to challenge anti-Semtism online. It is important that Islamophobia is part
of the same policy goal such that action is advanced in respect in the areas of both,
not one left lagging behind.
4.6
Comments posted on online national news sites respond and react to the nature of
the news content presented to the reader. Inflammatory or prejudicial reporting can
have the consequence of inviting prejudicial comments. For example, identifying the
religious identity of an individual in a news story when the faith identity bears little or
no significance to the thrust of the story, can invite a focus on faith identity in the
comments that are posted by readers. A case in point would be the identification in
news stories about criminal cases involving the prosecution of men of South Asia and
African origin for sex crimes against young girls of the Muslim or Pakistani identity of
these men. Religious identity becomes intertwined with a criminal offence, which in
many cases is far removed from the tenets of the religion, resulting in comments
posted to news articles which reproduce and reinforce this link. Responsible
reporting and upholding the Editors' Code of Practice in regards to the clause on
discrimination which bars prejudicial or pejorative reporting on an individual's racial
and religious identity, would contribute to reducing Islamophobia online that is a by
product of sensationalist reporting.
5. What are the main challenges and gaps in effectively combatting racist, antiSemitic 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?
5.1
The disparity in legislative protection outlined above, in relation to incitement to
religious hatred, is one area in which legislation has proved to be a particular
hindrance to the successful prosecution of incitement offences which, if directed at
groups defined by race, would likely be prosecuted.
The parameters of the incitement offences in relation to religion also suffer from a
narrow set of criminal offences than incitement to racial hatred. In the case of the
latter, the law extends to cover "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or
behaviour" while the provisions in relation to incitement to religious hatred, in addition
to requiring proof of intent, is limited to "use of threatening words or behaviour
intended to stir up religious hatred".
The impact of the higher threshold and the narrow parameters for prosecution need
to be fully reviewed in order to evaluate whether the law at is presently stands is
contributing to the perpetuation of Islamophobia. The history of incitement to racial
hatred, and revisions to the law to tighten the net to ensure incidents were not
slipping through, offers a lesson in history on legislation evolving to meet the needs
of victim groups for whom the law presented a problem not a solution.
5.2
The aforementioned report by the Law Commission suggests that sentencing
guidelines on aggravated offences, racial and religious, are not being sufficiently
applied to the detriment of deterrence and prosecution. Where the law provides
robust means to tackle Islamophobia and there is at the disposal of criminal justice
agencies the ability to exercise the law to the fullest extent to deter further incidence
of racial or religiously aggravated hate crime, it is important that these means are not
ignored or underutilised.
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
5.3
The adoption of the Equal Treatment Directive by the EU would be a constructive
step forward extending the current protections in the Race Equality Directive to other
protected characteristics in the vital areas of service provision, healthcare, housing
and education. It is a matter of deep disappointment that the Equal Treatment
Directive, building on the advance of equality and non-discrimination covered by the
Race Equality Directive, has not been adopted. There is a role here for the EU to
facilitate progress on protection of fundamental rights.
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?
6.1
Better reporting of anti-Muslim discrimination in all sectors: housing, education,
employment, service provision etc. A report by the Equalities and Human Rights
Commission on workplace discrimination on grounds of religion contains only a small
sample of Muslims but we know from other research, completed by Dr Nabil Khattab
of Bristol University on Muslims experiencing the highest levels of unemployment and
discrimination playing a part in this, that the experiences of Muslims in the workplace
is not being sufficiently well documented.
6.2
The use of trade union representatives or other industry initiatives on promoting
diversity in the workplace, to provide avenues for the reporting of discrimination to an
official with a mandate to uphold employee rights in the workplace.
6.3
Better recording of Islamophobia as a category of hate crime, ending the aggregated
data methods which presently obscures the actual level of Islamophobic hate crime
by police force area. Better recording can lead to better resource allocation to deal
with the nature and scale of the problem.
6.4
Outreach programmes to instil confidence in community policing and to alleviate
concerns or fears arising from policing linked to counter terrorism measures. The
Equality and Human Rights Commission have noted the experience of policing
affecting Muslim communities with stops under counter terrorism legislation
accounting for a high proportion of contact with police. It is important that negative
experiences do not get in the way of reporting, recording and investigating hate
crime. Efforts to engage in outreach programme, such as the holding of police
surgeries in mosques, can help build trust in policing and community confidence.
6.5
Providing victims of hate crime avenues to report experiences which into
consideration the fear or apprehension they may face in doing this at a police station.
The use of Third Party Reporting Centres (TRCs) in the UK has not been
successfully managed with many councils running TRCs that are not readily known
to local communities and which are not equipped to provide proper support to
victims. TRCs have an important role to play for minority communities who feel a
sense of unease about visiting a police station to report a crime. TRCs should be
better resourced, better trained, better equipped and proper accountability
procedures put in place to ensure victims receive a quality service funded by local
authorities.
6.6
Improve recruitment of BME officers in the police force so that the policing
community better reflects the makeup of the population. This is especially relevant in
areas with high ethnic minority population density. A police force that is more
reflective of the local community, is more likely to enjoy the confidence and cooperation of the community it is charged with protecting.
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
6.7
Preparing victims for prosecution trials and availing them of the measures available
to alleviate their fears or anxieties, so as to ensure they do not terminate co operation
with the prosecution case. Progressing cases through the criminal justice system is
an effective means of demonstrating to Muslim communities that Islamophobia will
be rigorously tackled by law enforcement agencies, just as its non-prosecution
contributes to feelings of despondency with law enforcement among Muslims, and
therefore keeping victims engaged in the process through support mechanisms is
important.
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?
7.1
Joint initiatives between Muslim and Jewish groups is instructive of good practice
shared and collaboration on issues of mutual concern. The statement issued jointly
by the Muslim Council of Britain and the Board of Deputies of British Jews in one
such example. The running of a soup kitchen by members of the Muslim and Jewish
communities in Nottingham; the Himmah Centre and the Nottingham Liberal
Synagogue have established 'Salaam Shalom' bringing together Muslims and Jews
in the local community to work together to tackle Islamophobia and anti-Semitism
while productively engaging in an act of charity (a central theme in both religious
tradtions).
7.2
Open Days hosted by mosques in the UK has been another initiative trialled in the
wake of the murder of Fusiier Lee Rigby and broadened since then to deal with
growing protests against mosque planning applications or general distrust about
Muslims. The 'VisitMyMosque' initiative organised by the Muslim Council of Britain
invited local communities to visit their local mosque on a designated national day.
Such an initiative, if rolled out annually, has the capacity to widen to incorporate
many more mosques and many more encounters between Muslims and their
neighbours in local communities.
7.3
Our Islamophobia Awareness Month programme of activities is developed to
enhance social inclusion and inter cultural co-operation with representatives from
other faith groups and the local community invited to participate in the month long
programme of activities.
7.4
Anti-racism associations developed by local communities to repel the arrival of far
right groups holding a protest, such as the English Defence League or PEGIDA, have
successfully cultivated a sense of community among many different peoples.
Solidarities of this sort project a unity of purpose in local communities to challenge
the hatred articulated by far right groups.
7.5
Other examples of good practice is the initiative of religious leaders to invite
members of other faith traditions to partake of religious festivals and thereby learn
more about other religions while fostering good relations and co-operative
friendships. Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, senior rabbi of Reform Judaism, invited
the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain to a Seder meal, along with
other Muslims, explaining the traditions of the festival and its meaning. Such social
gatherings, which offer insights into religion and provide opportunities for friendships
to form and deepen, are a valuable means to conducting inter cultural co operation.
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
Similar examples can be seen in the Iftar (breaking of the fast) ceremonies organised
by Muslim groups and mosques around the UK.
7.6
Professor Kim Knott in her co-authored study, Media Portrayals of Religion and the
Secular Sacred, asserts that "negative stereotypes reinforce negative perceptions". It
is also accepted that much of the knowledge about religion formed by individuals is
drawn from the media. Given the propensity of the media to indulge in negative
stereotyping of Islam and Muslims (see Paul Baker, Tony McEnery and Costas
Gabrielatos, Discourse Analysis and Media Attitudes: The representation of Islam in
the British Press), it is important that such stereotypes are countered as best as
possible.
A great burden of responsibility rests with the media industry and its regulation, in
order to root out bad practices that perpetuate prejudicial reporting on Islam and
Muslims, but Muslims and wider society bear a responsibility to not let the media
dictate what individuals know about Islam and what they know about Muslims living
among them.
The Visit My Mosque, Iftar dinners, joint initiatives between mosques and other
religious institutions are all examples of good practice. They need to be scaled up so
that pockets of good practice is more widely distributed and its positive effect more
widely felt.
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?
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?
10. What type of discriminatory obstacles Jewish and Muslims experience most
frequently in the field of education and employment?
10.1
The work of Dr Nabil Khattab from Bristol University sheds important light on the
negative experience of Muslims in the workplace and the high incidence of
unemployment among British Muslim men and women.
11. How could the society adjust to an increasing diversity? What is the society at
large ready to accommodate for a better "living together"?
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk
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?
12.1
Improving the representation of Muslims in public life would be one means of
demonstrating inclusion and fostering mutual understanding. This includes increasing
workplace diversity to improve the representation of BME people in the workforce
and at senior management level. Much good progress has been made in the regard
on gender equality. Similar work to improve BME representation needs to be
advanced.
12.2
Government has a role to play through the appointment of individuals to public
boards. Political parties have a role to play in widening the pool for candidate
selection and improving the recruitment of more minority and Muslim MPs. Charity
organisations, public institutions, museum boards all have a role to play in presenting
the social inclusion of Muslims by inviting their participation and representation in the
social and cultural life of the nation.
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?
13.1
13.2
Education is a key area of work with surveys showing the level of distrust young
people in Britain feel towards Muslims and the sort of prejudicial views they hold
about Muslims.
Initiatives such as the 1001 Inventions, that illustrates the mutually enriching
encounters and inventions which have developed from Islamic and European history
is one good resource to inculcate a sense of shared history and shared destiny,
recognising the contribution of Islam to European history, culture, language, science
and food.
13.3
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has developed Guidelines
for Educators providing a useful resource to the education sector on teaching young
people about Islamophobia. This resource should be more widely used and
disseminated.
13.4
Show Racism the Red Card have done tremendous work on educating young people
about the dangers of racial and religious prejudice. It is important that this work,
which involves tackling the basis on which prejudices are formed in young people
and inculcating in them critical reading skills, so that they readily challenge output - in
media, television, or spoken - which they understand to be based on stereotypes or
prejudice.
13.5
The Crown Prosecution Service has developed materials for teachers to educate
young people about hate crime through audio visual and interactive materials. These
resources need to be better integrated into classroom planning.
MEND | St Brides Chambers, 8 Salisbury Court, London EC4Y 8AA | Tel: Mobile: 020 7871 8430 | www.mend.org.uk