Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism - Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU

Over 70 years after the Holocaust, Jews across the EU continue to experience antisemitism in the form of vandalism, insults, threats, attacks and even murder. The persistence and prevalence of antisemitism hinders their ability to live openly Jewish lives, free from fears for their security and well-being, as the survey from 2018 and the first survey from 2012 show.

Many antisemitic incidents are not reported. In addition, FRA found official data on reported antisemitic incidents to be missing in eight EU Member States for 2017. But only with robust and reliable data can the fight against antisemitism be effectively fought. These survey findings provide policymakers with the evidence they need to refine existing or devise new courses of action to prevent and counter antisemitism.

The online survey took place during May and June 2018. Based on experiences with the 2012 survey, FRA used online surveying. This allowed respondents to complete the survey when and where it was most convenient for them, at their own pace, and in their national language. The online method also allowed all interested self-identified Jewish people in the survey countries to potentially take part and share their experiences. In addition, it was the method which could be easily used to cover all selected countries equally.

FRA also carried out the survey in Latvia. Given the low responses to the online campaign in Latvia, a different methodology was applied. This limits the scope for comparisons between Latvia and the other survey countries.

The survey was open to individuals aged 16 years and over who consider themselves Jewish – based on religion, culture, upbringing, ethnicity, parentage or any other reason – and who were living in one of the survey countries. The results are based on 16,395 Jews in 12 EU Member States – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These Member States are home to over 96% of the EU’s estimated Jewish population. The Latvian results are annexed.

The survey report also contains quotes from respondents.

• 85% of respondents rate antisemitism as the biggest social or political problem in countries where they live.
• 89% feel that it has increased in their country in the five years before the survey.
• They assess antisemitism as being most problematic on the internet and on social media (89%), followed by public spaces (73%), media (71%) and in political life (70%).

• 28% of respondents have been harassed at least once in the past year.
• Those who can be recognised as Jewish are subject to more antisemitic harassment (37%) than those who are not (21%).
• 79% who were harassed did not report the most serious incident to the police or to any other organisation.
• 3% were physically attacked because they are Jewish in the five years before the survey.

• 47% of respondents worry about receiving an antisemitic verbal insult or being harassed in the next 12 months.
• 40% worry about being physically attacked in that same period.
• 34% avoid visiting Jewish events or sites because they do not feel safe.
• 38% have considered emigrating because they did not feel safe as Jews.
• 70% believe that their national governments’ efforts to combat antisemitism are ineffective.

• 11% felt discriminated against in employment, education, health or housing because they are Jewish.
• 77% of those who experienced discrimination did not report the most serious incident to any authority or organisation.
• This is consistent with findings of other victimisation surveys. FRA’s research has consistently shown that victims of discrimination and hate crime – LGBTI people, migrants and minorities, women who have been victims of gender-based violence – are often reluctant to report incidents to the the authorities or police.

Comparisons are possible for the seven countries included in both surveys – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Sweden and the UK. However, due to the nature of an open online survey, the comparison should be read with caution as it is affected by several factors.

• Member States should work closely with a broad range of stakeholders, including Jewish and non-Jewish communities and civil society, to develop and evaluate measures to prevent and combat antisemitism.
• Preventative measures should include awareness raising, particularly focusing on Holocaust education.
• Member States should continue keeping Jewish sites and communities safe.
• Member States should carry out regular victimisation surveys to help assess the effectiveness of laws and policies.
• Member States should fully and correctly transpose the EU Victims’ Rights Directive and the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia into their national law. This would ensure victims get the support they deserve and perpetrators are sentenced with effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. This would in turn encourage victims to speak out and report incidents.
• Member States should encourage victims of discrimination and hate crime to report incidents to the relevant authorities through awareness raising and information campaigns.

The survey was open to individuals aged 16 years and over who consider themselves Jewish – based on religion, culture, upbringing, ethnicity, parentage or any other reason – and who lived in the survey countries when the survey was carried out.

The survey asked respondents about their opinions on trends in antisemitism, antisemitism in everyday life, personal experiences of antisemitic incidents, witnessing antisemitic incidents and worries about becoming a victim of an antisemitic attack. The survey also provides data on the extent to which respondents consider antisemitic acts against the Jewish community – such as vandalism of Jewish sites or antisemitic messages in the broadcast media or on the internet – to be a problem in the countries.

The survey collected data on the effects of antisemitism on respondents’ daily behaviour and their feelings of safety, and how they respond to security fears. There were questions about personal experiences of specific forms of harassment or physical violence, including frequency, the number and characteristics of perpetrators, and reporting incidents to organisations or institutions. The survey collected data about personal experiences of feeling discriminated against on different grounds and in various areas of everyday life – for example, at work, school, or when using specific services, reporting incidents and the reasons for non-reporting. The survey also explored the level of rights awareness regarding antidiscrimination legislation, victim support organisations and knowledge of any legislation concerning the trivialisation or denial of the Holocaust.

The survey was carried out across 12 EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom between May and June 2018. These Member States are home to over 96% of the EU’s estimated Jewish population.

FRA also carried out the survey in Latvia. As there were only 30 responses to the online dissemination campaign in Latvia, changes in recruitment methodology and data collection were applied. In the end 200 responses were gathered but the results cannot be compared due to different methodology used. The results are annexed in the report.

The survey builds strongly on the experience and methodology developed for the 2012 FRA survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews (which covered eight Member States) and on stakeholder consultations carried out in 2017.

The survey collected data through an open online survey.

A consortium of Ipsos MORI and the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) managed the survey data collection under the supervision of FRA staff. FRA analyses the data in the current report.

FRA used online surveying due to the absence of comprehensive sampling frames for Jewish populations in the selected EU Member States and its experience with the 2012 survey. It allowed respondents to complete the survey when and where it was most convenient for them, at their own pace, and in their national language. The online survey also allowed respondents to find out about FRA, the organisations managing the data collection and how the collected data would be used.

Potentialy all interested self-identified Jewish people in the selected EU Member States could take part and share their experiences. It was also the method which FRA could most easily use to survey respondents from all the selected Member States under equal conditions.

This online survey guaranteed anonymity and confidientiality.

The open online survey approach adopted by FRA depended on individuals’ willingness to participate in the survey. Consequently, and in view of the interpretation of the results, it is particularly important to consider the composition of the sample and the profile of the respondents that the results represent.

To reach eligible respondents, awareness-raising activities both before and during the open online survey were carried out. Different Jewish organisations were mainly used to reach potential respondents. In most Member States the response rates exceeded or were in line with expectations given the relative size of the Jewish population in each country. A 13th country, Latvia, was originally selected to be covered in the survey. As the responses were low and the methodology used differed, the data from Latvia is summarised in an annex to the survey results report.

The online survey was therefore identified as the most appropriate methodology as Jewish populations tend to have high levels of internet access and are relatively well-educated. As respondents only needed an internet connection, respondents could participate in the survey when and where it was most convenient for them, limiting non-response due to inconvenient timing of interviews.

In total 16,395 people who identified themselves as ‘Jewish’ completed the survey. The sample sizes per country ranged from 526 in Austria to 4,731 in the UK.

Country	Respondents
Austria	526
Belgium	785
Denmark	592
France	3,869
Germany	1,233
Hungary	590
Italy	682
The Netherlands	1,202
Poland	422
Sweden	1,193
United Kingdom	4,731
Total	16,395

In terms of socio-demographic characteristics the respondents can be broken down as:

		%	Number
Gender	Women	48	7,865
	Men	52	8,484
Age	16-29	12	1,897
	30-44	18	3,020
	45-59	27	4,461
	60+	43	7,035
Education	No higher education	27	4,389
	Higher education	73	12,006

The average time for survey completion was 33 minutes.

Only internet access was needed to take part in the survey, ensuring all selected countries could be reached equally. The online survey methodology allowed all interested self-identified Jews in the survey countries to take part. However, it does not, deliver a random probability sample fulfilling the statistical criteria for representativeness. Although the results cannot be considered as representative of all Jewish people in the EU, they constitute by far the largest collection of empirical evidence on discrimination, hate crime and antisemitism against Jews in Europe since FRA’s first such survey in 2012.

The survey asked the respondents how they had heard about the survey. Most said they received an email from an organisation or online network (74%), and 18% said that somebody told them about it or sent a link. These and other results suggest that many of the respondents who participated in the survey are affiliated with Jewish community organisations. Unaffiliated Jews are difficult to reach for surveys in the absence of the sampling frames, and it can be assumed that they are underrepresented in the current sample, based on estimates and assumptions of affiliated and unaffiliated Jewish people in the 12 EU Member States.

FRA used several measures to guarantee data security, privacy and confidentiality of the survey respondents. All data collected, including respondents’ answers regarding personal experiences, perceptions, and views of discrimination and hate crime victimisation, were stored securely and kept confidential, according to European data protection guidelines.

Throughout the survey respondents had access to detailed information on how the data provided by them will be stored and processed, including information on possibilities to delete 'cookies' or to prevent their use by adjusting the browser settings on respondent’s computer.

No respondent can be identified in the survey results. The answers were combined with those of others who took part in the survey and only anonymous data are used for the report. The data collection and the analysis process were performed without reference to any personal or sensitive data capable of identifying people. This guaranteed full confidentiality of the information provided.

In a survey, online or not, it is not possible to verify the authenticity of respondent’s answers. The survey aimed to identify what self-identifed Jewish people themselves think and experience. Therefore, the survey started with a self-identification question that allowed only those identifying themselves as Jewish to continue. Neverthless, a number of survey questions were also used to filter and secure the participation of Jewish people.

The vast majority of drop-outs occurred at the beginning of the survey either during the language selection or main introduction. This suggests that respondents were just not interested in completing the survey either at that time rather than there was an issue with the survey the questions. Some did not meet the eligibility criteria (they did not consider themselves Jewish, were below 16 years, or did not live in one of the EU Member States surveyed).

Also, before data analysis, FRA checked the responses for consistency. If there were specific contradictions/inconsistencies, the cases were removed from the data set.

The survey builds strongly on the Agency’s first survey in 2012. Both surveys are based on non-probability samples from open online surveys. Due to the lack of comprehensive Jewish population statistics, and data relating to Jewish communities, in most countries the available information is based on educated estimates and assumptions, and it is not possible to ensure that the samples represent accurate demographic profiles.

Comparisons are possible for the seven countries included in both surveys – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Sweden and the UK. However, due to the nature of an open online survey, the comparison should be read with caution as it is affected by several factors, such as country coverage; sample sizes and their quality; as well as the changes in the questionnaire (e.g. adding new items or slightly changing the wording to address problems in question comprehension or to ensure comparability with other surveys).

To assess the trends between the 2012 and 2018 surveys, FRA carried out a detailed assessment of the quality of the samples achieved across the countries covered by both surveys. This aimed to clarify whether trends in perceptions and experiences of antisemitism can be identified on the basis of information collected, and whether any statistical adjustments to the data should be considered before comparing the data. Even when adjustments were applied, they did not change the overall results substantially. The presented results from the two surveys cannot be used to establish actual trends in the populations targeted.

FRA aims to make the raw data publicly available in 2019.

Member States should facilitate the integration of measures dedicated to preventing antisemitism into relevant national strategies and action plans. Measures developed to prevent antisemitism should include a specific focus on awareness raising, including an emphasis on Holocaust education. Member States should also ensure that the effectiveness of the measures developed is systematically evaluated. National coordinators on combating antisemitism, as well as a broad range of social partners, civil society organisations and community groups – including non-Jewish ones – should be closely involved in developing prevention measures, as well as in the evaluation of their effectiveness.

Member States should systematically cooperate with Jewish communities in the area of security and protection of Jewish sites. Member States should continue implementing security measures and ensure that Jewish community security organisations are appropriately funded. The EU and its Member States should closely and regularly monitor changes in hate crime prevalence and feelings of safety and security among Jews – including through conducting victimisation surveys – to help assess the effectiveness of the security measures that are taken.

Member States should fully and correctly transpose the Victims’ Rights Directive (2012/29/EU) into national law to ensure that victims of antisemitism get the support they need when they report incidents to the relevant authorities. Member States should also fully and correctly transpose the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia (2008/913/ JHA) into national law to ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties are consistently handed down to offenders. Criminal justice systems in Member States should also report regularly on the penalties handed down to offenders and on the reasoning of courts in relevant judgments.

The EU and its Member States should ensure that victims of antisemitic discrimination are encouraged and facilitated to report incidents to relevant authorities, equality bodies or third-party organisations. This could be achieved through the EU and its Member States funding dedicated awareness-raising and information campaigns. These campaigns could be organised by relevant ministries, in close cooperation with national equality bodies and Jewish community organisations, to ensure that their messages are better targeted. Such campaigns could highlight how antisemitic discrimination constitutes a serious violation of people’s fundamental and human rights and why it is worthwhile for them to seek redress. Any such campaign should also highlight that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are imposed on offenders.