Tag Archives: All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism

MONITOR Event Report: UK Houses of Parliament – Islamophobia & Antisemitism

From Monitor:

In 2017, antisemitism and Islamophobia were, along with other racisms, on the rise around the world. In Charlottesville in the United States, far-right militants marched chanting against the world Jewish conspiracy. In Myanmar, Muslims fled for their lives to Bangladesh. In the UK and Europe, these racisms also continue to flourish. But are they connected? In the aftermath of 9/11, controversy has raged about whether Islamophobia is the new antisemitism.

MONITOR chose this pressing issue for its first public event. The location: the UK’s Houses of Parliament, hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism.

The magazine aims to bring cutting-edge research into global public debate, and this collaboration was the ideal place to start. The Editor, Monica Gonzalez Correa, flew in especially from Florence.

[READ THE REST]

Podcast:


Video: On my Monitor parliamentary event report on Islamophobia and antisemitism

This is a trailer for my article in the new website Monitor:

Follow the Monitor YouTube channel.


Parliamentary event: Understanding Islamophobia and Antisemitism in Europe and the UK in 2018

10 January 2018 10 am-11.30

This event presents recent academic research findings, based on the book Antisemitism and Islamophobia in Europe: A Shared Story?, newly published by Palgrave Macmillan and edited by Dr James Renton (Edge Hill University/European University Institute, Florence) and Dr Ben Gidley (Birkbeck, University of London). The discussion, aimed at politicians, policy-makers and civil society, will focus on questions such as:

  • How have antisemitism and Islamophobia related to each other in different European contexts, historically and today? How can we understand this connection?
  • How did the term “Semite” come to refer to the Jews, and how is it connected to the term “antisemitism”?
  • Is Europe a secular continent – or a Christian one? And what does this mean for Jews and Muslims?
  • How can we combat antisemitism and Islamophobia together today? What historical resources can we draw on in building solidarity against racism?

For details of the book, see http://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137412997.

Hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism. Co-organised by Monitor: Global Intelligence on Racism, based at the Robert Schumann Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute.

The event introduced and chaired by Nusrat Ghani MP, will include a short presentation of research by the co-editors, followed by a panel discussion and questions. Panellists will be Omar Khan (Runnymede Trust), Karen Pollock MBE (Holocaust Educational Trust) and Danny Stone MBE (Antisemitism Policy Trust).

Please email Ben to register to attend.


Some news items

Some items from May’s COMPAS newsletter:

 

Autumn Academy: Residential course on cities and integration
As part of the Action for Inclusion in Europe project COMPAS is running a five day residential course in Oxford, 5 – 9 October 2015, on cities and integration for practitioners and local policy makers working at city level. The course will cover a variety of issues including the role of cities and their partners in integration and the different approaches to policy intervention across Europe. See here for details and how to apply. Extended Deadline for application, 22 June 2015. [I am the course director for this.]

Breakfast Briefings
The COMPAS Breakfast Briefings Series continues its 5th session. The briefings present topical, cutting edge research on migration and migration related issues. These events are by invitation only, but if you would like to attend, just get in touch! In July the Migration Observatory team will talk about what the 2015 election means for migration to the UK.

UK Launch of MIPEX 2015
COMPAS is hosting the UK launch of MIPEX 2015, a global index of integration policy, on the afternoon of 11 June, in London. The last edition of the index was published in 2010 when the UK scored in the top 10. Five years later, after a period of fiscal austerity and changed political priorities, find out how Britain compares with other countries in areas such as citizenship, anti-discrimination, family reunion, migrant workers’ rights and the education of immigrant children. Coming shortly after the election and looking back over the five years of the previous parliament, the debate at the launch event will clarify the integration agenda for the coming parliament.

City Working Groups
This is a second initiative of the Action for Inclusion in Europe project. The City Working Groups element of this project aims to secure tangible reforms in city practices in Europe that address the exclusion of marginal communities via action-oriented learning exchange. Three working groups are being set up, each focusing on a particular area of city- or municipal-level policy and practice: 

  • Cohesion and belonging: building a shared civic identity [convened by Ben Gidley]
  • Education: engaging parents for better outcomes [convened by Caroline Oliver]
  • Homelessness: solutions for excluded migrants [convened by Jonathan Price]

DCLG integration round tables
As an initiative of the Global Exchange on Migration and Diversity, Sarah Spencer and Ben Gidley co-organised three closed-door roundtables on integration processes and integration policy with the Integration and Faith Division of the UK’s Department of Communities and Local Government, hosted at their London office. The aim was to inform understanding and stimulate debate on integration processes, outcomes and policy interventions. Three experts were commissioned to produce briefings on key evidence questions for each session: Professor Andrew Thompson, Varun Uberoi and Will Somerville on key concepts; Professor Anthony Heath, Nissa Finney and Professor Linda Platt on integration outcomes; and Professor Miles Hewstone, Professor Jenny Philimore and Vidhya Ramalingam on what works. The briefings are available on our website. Ben and Vidhya participated in a further informal workshop at the DCLG, giving evidence on what works in combating extremism.

Project Upstream
Upstream, a research project on municipal migrant integration policies across Europe whose UK research is led by Ole Jensen and Ben Gidley, will conclude this summer. The project’s new website is launching at projectupstream.wordpress.com. The website will soon feature Ole’s report on how UK cities are mainstreaming migrant education and social cohesion, and Ben’s report on comparing practices across Europe. In March 2015, COMPAS hosted a UK policy roundtable with participation from local and national government officials, and organised a study visit by integration experts from the city of Barcelona, hosted by the London Borough of Southwark and welcomed by the Mayor of Southwark (see Southwark press release).

Events and talks

  • Ben Gidley contributed to a major parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism, held by the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism. Ben was invited to give oral evidence to the inquiry, and then commissioned to write a sub-report to aid its deliberations. Ben’s sub-report focused on antisemitism in relation to protests during the conflict and was quoted extensively in the inquiry’s final report.
  • Ben Gidley was invited to speak at the Centre on Migration, Refugees and Belonging at the University of East London in April; his talk was entitled “I’m not racist but some of my best friends are: Paradoxes of xenophobia and structures of disavowal”.
  • In addition, Ben was invited to deliver a one-day intensive “MobilityLab” at Bilkent University in Ankara on migrant integration. The Lab series was organised by Professors Saime Ozcurumez and Can Mutlu of the Departments of Political Science and Public Administration and International Relations at Bilkent, with the support of the British embassy in Ankara.
  • In May, Mette Louise Berg and Ben Gidley were invited speakers at CRASSH in Cambridge; their talk was entitled “Welfare, neighbourhood and new geographies of diversity: rethinking the ethnography of superdiversity at the margins of the city”.
  • In the same month Ben hosted a study visit by Year 8 students from King Solomon High School in Ilford, as part of, “Jewish Migration Routes: From East End to Essex”,  an intergenerational oral history project led by Eastside Community Heritage, funded by the Rothschild Foundation Europe. The project explores Jewish migration into and out of the East End of London and Essex.
  • In October, Ben was also an invited speaker at the I International Conference on Cultural Diversity and Conflicts in the EU at the University of Valencia; his paper was entitled “Understanding conflict and conviviality in diverse European urban neighbourhoods: putting human rights and social justice back into the integration debate”.
  • At the end of April, Caroline Oliver spoke at the Key Concepts Roundtables series at the Institute for Superdiversity (IRiS) at Birmingham University. She spoke on “Intersectionality and superdiversity: What’s the difference?” together with Eleonore Kofman, Middlesex University and Ann Phoenix, Institute of Education.
  • Ida Persson and Vanessa Hughes participated in the Goldsmith’s Grad Fest 2015. The students from Capital City Academy who participated in the “Exploring Migration: Research and Drama in Schools” project revived their performance of “Undocumented Migrant Children’s Lives and Stories” for the festival. In June Ida and Vanessa will start work for this project with primary school students in Birmingham.

After Gaza: Contemporary antisemitism

My contribution to the latest report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism was quoted in, of all places, RT_com.

An extract: Continue reading


Fifty days in the summer: Gaza, political protest and antisemitism in the UK

The All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism has published a report they commissioned me to write.

This is the opening page:

On 12 June 2014, three Israeli teenagers were abducted in the West Bank, against a backdrop of heightened tension between the Israeli state and Palestinian forces, including a renewal of settlement-building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The abduction was followed by days of escalating violence, including a massive Israeli policing operation in the West Bank, the murder of a Palestinian teenager after the bodies of the kidnapped Israelis were found, and increasing numbers of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. A series of Israeli air strikes on targets in Gaza on the night of 30 June-1 July marked the start of sustained Israel’s military engagement, and Operation Protective Edge was launched on 8 July, comprising initially of airstrikes on targets associated with rocket fire (with around 200 people killed in the strikes), followed by ground engagement a week later. De-escalation began on 3 August, with Israel withdrawing ground troops from Gaza, and an open-ended ceasefire concluded this round of the conflict on 26 August. In total, over 2100 Palestinians were killed (with estimates of civilians ranging between 50% and 76% of the losses), along with 66 Israeli combatants, 5 Israeli civilians and 1 Thai national.

There were demonstrations against Israel’s prosecution of the conflict across the world, including several in the UK, as well as other manifestations of protest, such as public calls for and acts of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. There were some reports of antisemitic content in some of these demonstrations, against a broader context in which antisemitic incidents spiked dramatically. Over 130 antisemitic were recorded by the Community Security Trust (CST) in July, making it the highest monthly total since January 2009 (a previous period of war in Gaza and Israel’s Operation Cast Lead).

This short report examines the 2014 protests, exploring the extent and degree of antisemitism in the anti-Israel protests, as well as the reporting of this antisemitism and its impact on the Jewish community. It focuses in particular on the 50 days of Operation Protective Edge.

The research questions which this report attempts to address are:

  • What were the predominant discourses in the UK protests relating to Operation Protective Edge?

  • Were antisemitic discourses present? If so, how prevalent were they?

  • Are UK protests relating to Operation Protective Edge comparable in scale and in discourse to protests relating to other conflicts?

  • How do these issues relate to mainstream and Jewish media reporting on the conflict and on the demonstrations?

  • How do these issues and their media representation affect Jewish feelings about antisemitism?

My report was one of a series of sub-reports which are also available on the APPGAA’s website. These sub-reports were drawn on in the APPGAA’s own report and recommendations.

For the purposes of shameless self-promotion, here are extracts from the report which cite me: Continue reading


Integration, Disadvantage and Extremism: parliamentary report launch

Yesterday, the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism hosted a parliamentary launch of our report on integration, disadvantage and extremism, edited by David Feldman and me. David and I presented the report to the integration minister, Stephen Williams MP, and a small audience of MPs,  lords and officials. The event was chaired by John Mann MP. The report was published in May by the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism and COMPAS.

Here is the text of what I said.

My job today is to say a few words about the recommendations made in this report. David finished on the importance of the role of central government in promoting and shaping integration in the UK. Running through our recommendations is a commitment to two related principles: the responsibility of leadership in combating extremism and the importance of evidence in making policy.

One of the central recommendations of the report, therefore, is listening to the grievances that drive intolerance in our society. The evidence collected in this report shows that grievances relating to disadvantage provide fertile ground for intolerance and division. To combat intolerance, therefore, we need to understand and address its social contexts.

For instance, Oxford sociologist Professor Anthony Heath shows that disengagement from the British mainstream is a function of what he calls the “integration paradox”: This paradox sees not Muslim migrants, but their objectively more “integrated” British-born children, becoming more sensitive to the inequalities of opportunity facing them in British society. Similarly, Vidhya Ramalingam, in collecting the evidence on far right extremism, shows that the appeal of the far right is not necessarily to the most disadvantaged among the white working class, but to those who are socially integrated in their communities but feel left behind by a rapidly changing Britain and distrustful of authority. We make a mistake, therefore, if we simply dismiss as ‘prejudiced’ those who are drawn to racist and extremist programmes – whether among the white or Muslim populations – as if they are fantasists. Rather we should see them, in general, as responding to real problems but with the wrong answers.

This points to a second key recommendation too: the importance of a whole community approach to integration, led by national government, to re-engage with those feeling left behind or disengaged. Not by targeting ‘problem’ minorities – an approach which reproduces the flaws of a divisive state multiculturalism: stigmatising groups, driving grievances and competition, promoting division over cohesion. But instead by calibrating mainstream policy levers towards ensuring that no group is left out of a concern for social mobility and social justice. For example, it is not integration policy but housing and schools policy that will stop a drift towards segregation where it occurs; it is not integration policy but employment policy that will reduce the growing gaps in employment outcomes across the population.

As MPs know from their constituencies, integration – or a lack of it – is experienced at a local level, on the streets of Britain’s towns and cities. But a national strategy is critical if we are to have any chance of overcoming the barriers to integration that create the conditions in which extremism festers. A national strategy isn’t necessarily about a new national funding programme. A national strategy is settingout detailed, concrete, substantive actions – for example, to narrow gaps in socio-economic and educational outcomes, or to eliminate segregation in schools and neighbourhoods, or to build a shared civic culture – but also a coherent methodology for measuring progress based on robust data: such a smart approach is the only cost-effective approach to doing social policy in a time of austerity. Again: the responsibility of leadership, grounded in evidence-based policy-making.

A third recommendation to put this responsibility into effect is around the way we communicate these issues. The kinds of grievances which give rise to softer forms of racism are often driven by inflamed discourse, by debates based on perceptions and assertions rather than facts. To this end, we all have a responsibility to promote evidence-based, balanced and open discussion and debate. This means finding a way to re-engage communities while using language that does not alienate, but rather speaks to their concerns about fairness, equality and justice: not lecturing about prejudice or common values, not dismissing grievances as “bigoted”, for example, but instead addressing their substance.

This approach builds on the record of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, which has worked to develop guidelines on electoral conduct and on hate speech in campuses.

In widening the focus from antisemitism to other forms of intolerance and extremism, this might mean, for instance, taking care in the use of numbers – inaccurate presentation of information leads to divisive debates and bad policy-making.

It might mean avoiding terms such as ‘native population’ – which can obscure the contribution and strong British identification of long-settled minority populations and conflate nationality with ethnicity.

And it might mean avoiding speaking of Britain’s diverse population as if it is composed of discrete and homogenous entities – ‘Muslim communities’ or ‘white working class communities’ – given that similarities across and differences within such communities are often at least as significant. Such terms, in failing to recognise the diversity and range of voices and positions within such populations, also fail to address the real structures of disadvantage that shape their experiences.

Addressing these structures of grievance is the best – the only – way to take forward the imperative to tackle all forms of intolerance in our society.


Integration, Disadvantage and Extremism: press coverage and commentary

Here is a bit of coverage on the report edited by David Feldman and me, published at the end of May.

From Herald Scotland:

Academics issue new warning on extremism

Tuesday 27 May 2014

RADICAL Islamists and far-right extremists are often two sides of the same coin, leading academics have claimed.

A report also found radical ideologies are embraced by people who feel marginalised as they appear to offer an explanation for, or an answer to, a sense of grievance or lack of opportunity.

The report for the Commons All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-semitism, warns extremism and integration cannot be tackled at a local level alone.

It also says they cannot be addressed in isolation from tackling inequality. The report calls for MPs to implement a national strategy. Co-editor Professor David Feldman of Birkbeck, London University, said: ‘Xenophobia, Islamophobia and antisemitism are promoted by leaders to drive many forms of extremism.”

From the CST blog:

A new report (pdf) looking at connections between integration and extremism has been published by the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck, University of London; COMPAS, University of Oxford; and the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism.

The report includes a chapter by CST’s Dave Rich on the relationship between antisemitism and far right or Islamist extremism. Other chapters look at integration, extremism and British Muslims; drivers of far right extremism; and the relationship between ethnicity, economic disadvantage and class.

The full report can be downloaded here (pdf). An extract from Dave’s chapter is below.

The first and most obvious point to make is that far right and Islamist extremists try to use antisemitism for political purposes. It can be argued that this political mobilisation of antisemitism is its defining characteristic, which differentiates it from other forms of bigotry. This is most commonly found in antisemitic conspiracy theories that blame a Jewish ‘hidden hand’ for the ills of a particular society, party or community; and that accuse Jews of ‘dual loyalty’ – the idea that Jews are loyal only to each other or, nowadays, only to Israel.

This political use of antisemitism by far right parties and movements form a familiar and tragic part of European history. In recent years explicit antisemitism has largely disappeared from the public propaganda of Britain’s main far right movements, but the underlying ideas remain in euphemistic references to ‘international finance’ or ‘Zionist businessmen’. In 2000, British Nationalist Party (BNP) Chairman Nick Griffin advised BNP writers to get around the law by using “Zionists” as a euphemism for “Jews” when writing articles. This is not to suggest that anybody who criticises Zionism is antisemitic; just to note that genuine antisemites developed an antisemitic usage of the word “Zionism” a long time ago. Three years later, Griffin blamed the Iraq war on what he called Tony Blair’s “pro-Israeli big business backers”. In 2006 he changed tack, publicly denouncing antisemitic conspiracy theorists as “Judeo-obsessives”; only to return to their ranks a few years later in describing the English Defence League (EDL) as a “Zionist” plot. Continue reading


Integration, Disadvantage and Extremism: report published

This is the report based on the parliamentary symposium we organised last year for the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism. The report is introduced by John Mann MP with an afterword by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi. Press release:

Report explores what drives far right and radical Islamist movements in Britain

27 May 2014

A new report, ‘Integration, Disadvantage and Extremism’, produced by researchers from COMPAS and Birkbeck, University of London, for the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, examines what drives extremism in British society.

It suggests that Islamist and far-right extremism are often two sides of the same coin with radical ideologies being embraced by people who feel marginalised as they appear to offer an explanation for, or an answer to, a sense of grievance or lack of opportunity.

The report, which offers new insights from ten leading academics and thinkers, says extremism and integration cannot be tackled at a local level alone. Nor can they be addressed in isolation from tackling issues of disadvantage and inequality. It suggests a unified national strategy is required to build community cohesion and integration, incorporating legal and policy responses, and with a renewed commitment to improving social mobility and racial justice.

Professor David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck, University of London, who co-edited the report, said: ‘Xenophobia, Islamophobia and antisemitism are promoted by leaders and ideologues to drive many different forms of extremism. Their appeal to followers is rooted in social and political grievances. Intolerance and racism cannot be understood or fought in isolation from tackling their underlying causes.’

Report co-editor Dr Ben Gidley, Associate Professor in the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) at the University of Oxford, said: ‘Integration – or a lack of it – is experienced at a local level on the streets of Britain’s towns and cities. This research suggests a more effective national strategy is needed to overcome barriers to integration; otherwise, there is a risk that we create conditions within which extremism can flourish.’

One of the report contributors, leading sociologist Professor Anthony Heath from the University of Oxford, identifies what he calls ‘the paradox of integration’. He suggests that second generation British Muslims are becoming more aware of inequalities in British society than their parents’ generation were. ‘Simple caricatures of Muslims as leading separate lives will not do,’ concludes Professor Heath. ‘Non-Muslim British citizens must do their part too to live up to the ideal of providing equality of opportunity for their Muslim fellow citizens.’

Professor Heath, who led the Ethnic Minority British Electoral Survey (EMBES) in 2010, found that while 94% of Muslims born in Britain expressed their national identity as British or English, compared with 66% of first generation Muslims who migrated here, their perceptions of discrimination and exclusion have increased: 46% of second generation British Muslims felt there was prejudice against Muslims as compared with 27% of the previous generation; 20% of second generation Muslims also felt discriminated against because of their religion as compared with 8% in the first generation.

The reasons why people support far right organisations, as well as the UK Independence Party (UKIP), in Britain are also explored. Vidhya Ramalingam, from the London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), argues that there is ‘a wide reservoir of tacit support’ in Britain for ideas put forward by the far right. ‘The UK has historically been fertile ground for movements thriving on discontent with mainstream political institutions, popular xenophobia and euro-scepticism,’ she adds in the report. She suggests that although the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is not a right-wing extremist party, there are overlaps between its policy proposals and those of the far right. Her review of existing research concludes it is important not to stereotype these groups or their assumed support base as being from ‘the white working class’.

UKIP’s ‘narrative of divide and rule’ is explored by Professor Ben Rogaly from the Sussex Centre for Migration Research and Dr Becky Taylor from Birkbeck, University of London. They explore what is meant by the white working class, arguing that UKIP seeks to separate “strivers” from the “skivers” to justify cuts in benefits, and immigrants and ethnic minorities from the so-called indigenous population. Their research includes case studies in Peterborough of white working class individuals who have moved to the area, and assesses their views of international migrants. The authors suggest that politicians ‘should be bolder in articulating the structures which give rise to common experiences of inequality and disadvantage, rather than focusing on external markers of difference’.

Read the full report

Integration Disadvantage and ExtremisimMay2014FINAL

Continue reading


Integration, Disadvantage and Extremism: parliamentary symposium

On 8 May, with David Feldman of the Pears Institute, I co-organised a parliamentary symposium on disadvantage, extremism and integration, for the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism.  You can follow some of the debate on Twitter with the hashtag #IntSym.

Pictures from the APPG:

Here’s the full details on the Pears Institute website:

Details: The Symposium will reflect on the government’s integration strategy and to do so in the light of both contemporary developments and recent scholarship. It will bring the most current evidence-based research to bear on urgent issues of policy for an invited audience of academic experts, policy makers and parliamentarians.Welcome and Introduction

David Feldman, Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck, University of London John Mann MP, Chair, All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism

Session 1: Integration and Disadvantage Today

Introduction: Andrew Stunell OBE MP

Chair: John Mann MP

  • Ben Rogaly, University of Sussex and Becky Taylor, Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck, University of London
  • Rob Berkeley, Runnymede Trust
  • Anthony Heath, University of Oxford

Session 2: Integration and Extremism

Introduction and Chair: Baroness Sayeda Warsi

  • Vidhya Ramalingam, Institute for Strategic Dialogue
  • Nasar Meer, Northumbria University
  • Dave Rich, Community Security Trust

Session 3:  Is Localism Sufficient?

Introduction and Chair: Gavin Barwell MP

  • Maleiha Malik, Kings College London
  • Ben Gidley, COMPAS, University of Oxford
  • Dean Godson, Policy Exchange

Concluding Remarks

David Feldman, Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck, University of London

UPDATE: READ THE REPORT HERE

 

Podcasts:Click on a podcast to listen,
Right click to save

Session 3:  Is Localism Sufficient? [via Backdoor Broadcasting]