Search

Debates about Islamophobia have been blighted by the question of whether the prejudice can be defined as a form of racism or as hostility to religion (or a combination of the two). This paper sheds light on this debate by presenting the findings of a new nationally representative survey, focused on the UK, that contrasts perceptions of Muslims not only with perceptions of other ethnic and religious minorities but also with perceptions of Islam as a religious tradition. We find that prejudice against Muslims is higher than for any other group examined other than Travellers. We also find contrasting demographic drivers of prejudice towards Muslims and towards Islam. Across most prejudice measures we analyse, intolerant views are generally significantly associated with being male, voting Conservative and being older, although not with Anglican identity. We find, however, that class effects vary depending on the question's focus. Anti‐immigration sentiment – including support for a 'Muslim ban' – is significantly correlated with being working‐class. However, prejudice towards Islam as a body of teachings (tested using a question measuring perceptions of religious literalism) is significantly correlated with being middle‐class, as is negative sentiment towards Travellers. Using these findings, the paper makes an argument for supplementing recent scholarship on the associations between racism and Islamophobia with analyses focusing on misperceptions of belief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK government's 'Prevent' counter‐extremism policy was placed on a statutory footing in 2015, requiring specified authorities including NHS providers by law to work to 'prevent people being drawn into terrorism', leading to calls for a boycott on ethical grounds. Since 2016, mental health professionals have been embedded within counterterrorism police units in 'Vulnerability Support Hubs', to assist in the management of individuals referred to Prevent perceived to have vulnerabilities related to mental health. Drawing on data obtained through Freedom of Information requests, this paper examines these hubs in the context of Prevent's racial politics. It examines the pseudo‐scientific concept of radicalization through the lens of racialization theory and explores the whitewashing and colourblindness endemic to most research and practice at the nexus of counterterrorism and mental health. Four ethical issues arising from the hubs are highlighted: (a) the securitization of care, including the way counterterrorism concerns appear to influence medical treatment regimes; (b) harm, including potential criminalization; (c) the erosion of patient agency and confidentiality; and (d) the pathologization of political dissent. It is argued that due to the UK's status as a leading innovator in the field of counter‐radicalization, all of these highly racialized phenomena hold wider relevance and augur a troubling direction of travel for counterterrorism's turn towards mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In this paper, critical discursive psychology is used to analyse the Islamophobic discourse by the far‐right party Britain First in its “solidarity patrol” video. Britain First patrolled in Golders Green, North London, to show support for Jewish communities following the ISIS shooting at the kosher supermarket in Paris on January 9, 2015. The Charlie Hebdo shooting and the shooting at the kosher supermarket (as well as other attacks by members of the Islamic State) have led to Muslims being seen as a threat to Britain and exposed to Islamophobic attacks and racial abuse. This presents far‐right parties in the United Kingdom with the dilemma of appearing moderate and mainstream in their anti‐Islamic stance. The analysis focuses on how Britain First used the shooting at the kosher supermarket in order to construct Jews as under threat from Islam. The analysis also includes visual communication in the solidarity patrol video that was used to provide “evidence” that Britain First supported Jewish communities. Results are discussed in light of how Britain First used aligning with Jews in order to appear as “reasonable” in projecting its anti‐Islamic ideology and how critical discursive psychology can be used to show how conflicting social identities are constructed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The difficulties in defining hate crime, hate incidents and hate speech, and in finding a common conceptual basis constitute a key barrier toward operationalisation in research, policy and programming. Definitions disagree about issues such as the identities that should be protected, the types of behaviours that should be referred to as hateful, and how the 'hate element' should be assessed. The lack of solid conceptual foundations is reflected in the absence of sound data. These issues have been raised since the early 1990s (Berk, 1990; Byers & Venturelli, 1994) but they proved to be an intractable problem that continues to affect this research and policy domain. Objectives: Our systematic review has two objectives that are fundamentally connected: mapping (1) original definitions and (2) original measurement tools of hate crime, hate speech, hate incidents and surrogate terms, that is, alternative terms used for these concepts (e.g., prejudice‐motivated crime, bias crime, among many others). Search Methods: We systematically searched over 19 databases to retrieve academic and grey literature, as well as legislation. In addition, we contacted 26 country experts and searched 211 websites, as well as bibliographies of published reviews of related literature, and scrutiny of annotated bibliographies of related literature. Inclusion Criteria: This review included documents published after 1990 found in academic literature, grey literature and legislation. We included academic empirical articles with any study design, as well as theoretical articles that focused specifically on defining hate crime, hate speech, hate incidents or surrogate terms. We also reviewed current criminal or civil legislation that is intended to regulate forms of hate speech, hate incidents and hate crimes. Eligible countries included Canada, USA, UK, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Australia and New Zealand. For documents to be included in relation to research objective (1), they had to contain at least one original definition of hate speech, hate incidents or hate crimes, or any surrogate term. For documents to be included in relation to research objective (2), they had to contain at least one original measurement tool of hate speech, hate incidents or hate crimes, or any surrogate term. Documents could be included in relation to both research objectives. Data Collection and Analysis: The systematic search covered 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2021, with searches of academic databases conducted between 8th March and 12th April 2022 yielding 35,191 references. We carried out country‐specific searches for grey literature published in the same time period between 27th August and 2nd December 2021. These searches yielded a total of 2748 results. We coded characteristics of the definitions and measurement tools, including the protected characteristics, the approaches to categorise the 'hate element' and other variables. We used univariate and bivariate statistical methods for data analysis. We also carried out a social network analysis. Main Results: We provide as annex complete lists of the original definitions and measurement tools that met our inclusion criteria, for the use of researchers and policy makers worldwide. We included 423 definitions and 168 measurement tools in academic and grey literature, and 83 definitions found in legislation. To support future research and policy work in this area, we included a synthetic assessment of the (1) the operationalisability of each definition and (2) the theoretical robustness and transparency of each measurement tool. Our mapping of the definitions and measurement tools revealed numerous significant trends, clusters and differences between and within definitions and measurement tools focusing on hate crime, hate speech and hate incidents. For example, definitions and measurement tools tend to focus more on ethnic and religious identities (e.g., racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia) compared to sexual, gender and disability‐related identities. This gap is greater in the definitions and measurement tools of hate speech than hate crime. Our analysis showed geographical patterns: hate crime definitions and measurement tools are more likely to originate from Anglophonic countries, especially the USA, but hate speech definitions and measurement tools are more likely to originate from continental Europe. In terms of disciplinary fragmentation, our social network analysis revealed that the collaboration and exchange of conceptual frameworks and methodological tools between social sciences and computer science is limited, with most definitions and measurement tools clustering along disciplinary lines. More detailed findings are presented in the results section of the report. Authors' Conclusions: There is an urgent need to close the research and policy gap between the protections of 'ethnic and religious identities' and other (less) protected characteristics such as gender and sexual identities, age and disability. There is also an urgent need to improve the quality of methodological and reporting standards in research examining hate behaviours, including transparency in methodology and data reporting, and discussion of limitations (e.g., bias in data). Many of the measurement tools found in the academic literature were excluded because they did not report transparently how they collected and analysed the data. Further, 41% of documents presenting research on hate behaviours did not provide a definition of what they were looking at. Given the importance of this policy domain, it is vital to raise the quality and trustworthiness of research in this area. This review found that researchers in different disciplinary areas (e.g., social sciences and computer science) rarely collaborate. Future research should attempt to build on existing definitions and measurement tools (instead of duplicating efforts), and engage in more interdisciplinary collaborations. It is our hope that that this review can provide a solid foundation for researchers, government, and other bodies to build cumulative knowledge and collaboration in this important field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an overview of literature pertaining to anti‐blackness and racism in Poland. Much of the literature on anti‐blackness and racism in Europe has focused on certain hegemonic powers in Europe. This literature reviews seeks to add another country to explore the topic. The article first discusses how anti‐blackness conversations are formulated in general and then shifts to examine Poland, exploring how these conversations on immigration, economic issues and Islamophobia add to a broader discussion of Europe's problems with anti‐blackness more broadly. From here, the article examines and dismantles the notions that Poland is isolated from the African continent and that Poland's historical and contemporary population can be viewed as totally homogenous. Self‐identified Afro‐Poles are discussed as a focal population of Black Poles, showing that there are generational interactions between the African continent and Polish society in the last section. This review seeks to add a new case study into the discourse of anti‐blackness and racism in Europe. I argue that cases like Poland are valuable and necessary to develop fuller conceptualizations of anti‐blackness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'reactive transnationalism hypothesis' posits a relationship between discrimination and transnational practice. The concept has generally been studied using quantitative methods, but a qualitative approach augments our understanding of two context‐specific dimensions: the nature of the discrimination involved, and the types of transnational behaviour that might be affected. Drawing on in‐depth interviews with Bangladesh‐origin Muslims in London, Luton and Birmingham, in the UK, we demonstrate how anti‐Asian and anti‐Muslim racism have been conflated with intensified anti‐migrant racism in the context of 'hostile environment' immigration policies and the EU referendum (Brexit), producing an amplification of racist discourses associated with purging the body politic of its non‐white bodies. The insecurity generated is altering some people's relationships to Bangladesh, incentivizing investment in land and property 'back home'. While this represents an example of 'reactive transnationalism', we argue that 'protective transnationalism' might be a more appropriate way of describing the processes at work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author expresses opinion on the psychoanalytic construct of "the psychic uses of the ethnic other" as a way of understanding the features of anti-Muslim prejudice in the U.S. and its implications on U.S.-Middle East policy. She analyzes the roots of U.S. anti-Muslim prejudice which it claims to have sprung from White racist cultural tradition in the U.S. and the prominence of Christianity. She explains how the September 11, 2001 terrorism attacks in the U.S. raised antagonism against Arabs and Muslims.