ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS Report 2017 Antisemitic messages posted on a popular dating app, London, September The text and illustrations may only be reproduced with prior permission of Community Security Trust. Published by Community Security Trust. Registered charity in England and Wales (1042391) and Scotland (SC043612). Copyright © 2018 Community Security Trust. Front cover: The front cover is a word cloud taken from web-based social media incidents recorded by CST in 2017. The size of each word indicates its frequency in this genuine sample of social media incidents and demonstrates the range of antisemitic language, and the most common antisemitic words, that offenders use. CONTENTS Executive summary ................................................. 4 Introduction ............................................................. 10 Antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom in 2017 ....................................... 12 • Contexts and patterns ...................................... 12 Incident categories ................................................ 18 • Extreme violence .............................................. 18 • Assault ................................................................. 18 • Damage and desecration to Jewish property 20 • Threats ................................................................. 21 • Abusive behaviour ............................................ 22 • Literature ............................................................. 24 Information collection and suspicious behaviour ........................................... 26 Incident victims .................................................... 27 Incident offenders ............................................... 29 Discourse and motives ........................................ 30 Antisemitic or anti-Israel? .................................... 32 Geographical locations and differences ......... 34 Typology of incidents: Mission, opportunistic or aggravated? ............................. 36 Antisemitic incidents on social media .............. 39 • Categories of antisemitic incidents on social media .................................................. 39 • Types of antisemitic language online ............ 40 • Football-related online incidents ................... 41 Annual antisemitic incident figures ................... 42 • Antisemitic incident f igures by category, 2007–2017 ............................................................ 42 • Antisemitic incident f igures by month, 2007–2017 ............................................................ 42 • Antisemitic incident f igures, full breakdown, 2017 .......................................... 43 4 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk • CST recorded 1,382 antisemitic incidents in 2017, the highest annual total CST has ever recorded.1 The total of 1,382 incidents is an increase of three per cent from the 2016 total of 1,346 antisemitic incidents, which was itself a record annual total. The third highest annual total recorded by CST was 1,182 antisemitic incidents in 2014.2 • There has been a 34 per cent increase in the number of antisemitic incidents recorded in the category of Assaults in 2017: 145 incidents in 2017, compared to 108 in 2016. As in 2016, CST did not classify any of the assaults as Extreme Violence, meaning an attack potentially causing loss of life or grievous bodily harm. This is the highest annual total of Assaults recorded by CST, surpassing the 121 incidents recorded in 2009. • Antisemitic incidents recorded by CST occurred more in the first six months of 2017 than in the second half of the year. The highest monthly total in 2017 came in January with 155 incidents; the second highest was in April with 142 incidents; and the third highest was in February with 134 incidents reported. Every month from January to October, CST recorded a monthly incident total above 100 incidents. This continued an utterly unprecedented sequence of monthly totals exceeding 100 antisemitic incidents since April 2016, a run of 19 consecutive months. There were 89 incidents recorded in November and 78 in December. There is no obvious reason why November and December 2017 saw an end to this sequence, although historically CST has usually recorded fewer antisemitic incidents in December in comparison to other months. It is too soon to predict whether this decline in monthly incident totals towards the end of 2017 marks the beginning of a downward trend from the sustained highs of the past two years. • Previous record high annual totals in 2014 and 2009 occurred when conflicts in Israel and Gaza acted as sudden trigger events that caused steep, identifiable ‘spikes’ in antisemitic incidents recorded by CST. In contrast, in 2017 (as in 2016) there was not a sudden, statistically outlying large spike in incidents to cause and explain the overall record high. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. The numbers given in this report for previous years’ incident totals may differ from those previously published as this report includes incidents reported to CST after the publication of previous reports, and reflects the re-categorisation of some incidents after publication due to the emergence of new information. As well as affecting the annual totals, these adjustments mean that some of the monthly, category and geographical totals for previous years cited in this report differ from previously published data. CST has been recording antisemitic incident statistics since 1984. MONTHLY INCIDENTS, 2017 150 100 50 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 155 134 109 142 117 124 112 155 109 109 104 89 78 1. CST takes reports of incidents from a range of sources, including members of the public, the Police and security guards at Jewish buildings. Variations in methods and percentage rates of reporting will therefore always influence the total number of incidents recorded by CST. (For more details see p.10 and p.11). http://www.cst.org.uk 5Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk • The factors that influenced the general, sustained high level of antisemitic incidents in 2017 appear to be a continuation of those that similarly affected the level of incidents during 2016. In general terms, there was a rise in all forms of hate crime following the referendum to leave the European Union in June 2016. Regarding Jews specifically, there was unprecedented publicity regarding controversies about alleged and actual antisemitism in the Labour Party. As would be the case for any form of hate crime, both issues are likely to have emboldened offenders, whilst also causing victims to be more aware of the need to report incidents. • The terrorist attacks at Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park, and the failed bomb attack on a tube train at Parsons Green in 2017 did not directly cause spikes in antisemitic incidents reported to CST (which would have been revealed in the timings and content of incidents and conversation with victims). However, these terrorist attacks may have contributed in a more indirect way. 2017 was a year in which the UK faced its most severe threat of terrorism for many years. Twice in 2017, after the Manchester Arena bombing and the Parsons Green bombing, the threat level was raised to its maximum level ‘Critical,’ meaning an attack was imminent. This understandably caused concern within the Jewish community, which may have encouraged victims and witnesses to be more aware of hate crime and report antisemitic incidents to CST. Following the terror attacks, there was also an increased police and CST presence in Jewish community areas, which may have made people more likely to report incidents. • There have been some improvements in the reporting of antisemitic incidents which may have contributed to the continued increase in incident numbers. These improvements include a higher percentage of incidents being reported from victims and witnesses of incidents as a result of growing communal concern about antisemitism; an increase in the number of security guards at Jewish buildings in recent years (many of these commercial guards are funded by a government grant to provide security at Jewish locations that is administered by CST); and ongoing improvements to CST’s information sharing with Police forces around the UK. The number of antisemitic incidents reported to CST by security guards or security officers at Jewish locations has increased in comparison to 2016 and 2015. • In addition to the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2017, a further 872 reports of potential incidents were received by CST but not included in the total number of antisemitic incidents, as there was no evidence of antisemitic motivation, targeting or content. This is a ten per cent increase from the 791 potential incidents that were reported to CST in 2016 but not included in the antisemitic incident statistics for that year. Many of these potential incidents involve suspicious activity or possible hostile reconnaissance at Jewish locations. These potential incidents play an important role in CST’s provision of security protection to the Jewish community, but they are not classified as antisemitic for the purposes of this report. In total, CST staff and volunteers recorded, processed and analysed 2,254 incidents and potential incidents in 2017, most of which required some element of victim support or security response. • Three-quarters of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2017 took place in Greater London and Greater Manchester, the two largest Jewish communities in the UK. CST recorded 773 antisemitic incidents in Greater London in 2017 compared to 835 during 2016, a decrease of seven per cent. In Greater Manchester, CST recorded 261 incidents in 2017 compared http://www.cst.org.uk 6 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk to 206 in 2016, an increase of 27 per cent. This is the opposite pattern to that seen in 2016, when the number of recorded antisemitic incidents rose in London but fell in Manchester. It is not clear why the two cities have displayed different trends during these two years, other than natural variation over time. Beyond these two centres, CST recorded 348 antisemitic incidents in 80 locations around the UK in 2017, compared to 305 incidents from 96 different locations in 2016 (an increase of 14 per cent in the number of incidents). The 2017 total included 40 antisemitic incidents in Hertfordshire (of which 18 were in Borehamwood), 32 in Gateshead, 22 in Leeds, 15 in Brighton & Hove, 14 in Cambridge and 12 in Liverpool. • It is likely that there is significant under-reporting of antisemitic incidents to both CST and the Police, and that the number of antisemitic incidents that took place is significantly higher than the number recorded in this report. A 2013 survey of Jewish experiences and perceptions of antisemitism in the EU found that 72 per cent of British Jews who had experienced antisemitic harassment over the previous five years had not reported it to the Police or to any other organisation; 57 per cent of British Jews who had experienced antisemitic violence or the threat of violence had not reported it; and 46 per cent of British Jews who had suffered antisemitic vandalism to their home or car had not reported it (despite this, UK reporting rates were the highest of the eight countries polled). The same survey also found that, over the previous 12 months, 21 per cent of British Jews had suffered antisemitic harassment, three per cent had suffered antisemitic violence or the threat of violence and two per cent had experienced antisemitic vandalism to their home or car.3 Similarly, the Crime Survey for England and Wales estimates that around 40 per cent of all hate crimes come to the attention of the Police.4 • There were 145 violent antisemitic assaults reported to CST in 2017, an increase of 34 per cent from the 108 violent incidents recorded in 2016 and the highest number CST has ever recorded in this category. The previous record high was 121 antisemitic assaults in 2009. A wide spectrum of incidents falls within the category of Assault, from minor acts to more violent ones. None of the violent incidents recorded in 2017 were classified as Extreme Violence, which would mean incidents that involved grievous bodily harm (GBH) or a threat to life. CST did not record any Extreme Violence incidents in 2016, and recorded four incidents of Extreme Violence in 2015 and one in 2014. • Incidents of Damage and Desecration to Jewish property increased by 14 per cent, from 81 incidents in 2016 to 92 incidents in 2017. There were 65 incidents in this category in 2015 and 81 in 2014. • There were 95 incidents reported to CST in the category of Threats in 2017, which includes direct threats to people or property, rather than more general abuse. This is a decrease of six per cent from the 101 incidents of this type recorded in 2016, which was the highest total CST had ever recorded in this category. CST recorded 79 incidents in 2015 and 91 in 2014. • There were 1,038 incidents of Abusive Behaviour recorded by CST in 2017, just one fewer than the 1,039 incidents recorded in this category in 2016 and the second highest total CST has ever recorded in this category. Incidents of Abusive Behaviour include verbal abuse, hate mail, antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property and antisemitic content on social media. CST recorded 717 incidents in this category in 2015 and 899 in 2014. • There were 12 incidents recorded in the category of Literature in 2017, which comprises mass-produced antisemitic mailings and emails, rather than individual 3.Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: experiences and perceptions of antisemitism (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013). 4.An Overview of Hate Crime in England and Wales (London: Home Office, Office for National Statistics and Ministry of Justice, 2013). http://www.cst.org.uk 7Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk hate mail. This is a decrease of 29 per cent from the 17 incidents recorded in this category in 2016. CST recorded 12 incidents in this category in 2015 and 30 in 2014. • The most common single type of incident in 2017 involved verbal abuse directed at random Jewish people in public, a form of antisemitism that is more commonly associated with anti-social behaviour or local patterns of street crime than with political activism or ideologies. In 356 incidents, the victims were Jewish people, male or female, attacked or abused while going about their daily business in public places. In at least 283 of these incidents, the victims were visibly Jewish, usually due to their religious or traditional clothing, school uniform or jewellery bearing Jewish symbols. A total of 670 antisemitic incidents out of the 1,382 incidents in 2017 involved verbal antisemitic abuse. • CST recorded 247 antisemitic incidents that involved the use of social media in 2017, which represents 18 per cent of the overall total of 1,382 antisemitic incidents. For comparison, CST recorded 289 incidents in 2016 that involved the use of social media, which was 21 per cent of the overall incident total that year. This shows that the number of social media incidents recorded by CST declined in 2017. However, this figure should not be taken as an absolute measure of the amount of antisemitism on social media platforms. CST does not proactively ‘trawl’ social media platforms to look for incidents of this type and will only record social media incidents that have been reported to CST by a member of the public, where the offender is based in the UK or the incident involves the direct antisemitic targeting of a UK- based victim. The decline in the number of antisemitic incidents on social media in 2017 may be a positive consequence of social media companies trying to improve the way they tackle hate speech online, which, combined with arrests and prosecutions, have removed some antisemitic users from social media platforms and restricted the activities of others. It could also be a result of CST’s ongoing efforts to identify where offenders are based in order to determine whether antisemitic content should be included in CST’s statistics: if neither offender nor victim is based in the UK, CST will not include antisemitic social media content in its figures. NUMBER OF INCIDENTS, 2012–2017 20162015201420132012 2017 1,500 1,000 500 0 535 650 1,182 960 1,346 1,382 http://www.cst.org.uk 8 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk • Seventy-six antisemitic incidents in 2017 targeted synagogues, and a further 44 incidents targeted synagogue congregants on their way to or from prayers, compared to 64 and 25 incidents respectively in 2016. • In 141 incidents, the victims were Jewish community organisations, communal events, commercial premises or high-profile individuals, compared to 169 such incidents in 2016. • Eighty-eight incidents targeted Jewish schools, schoolchildren or staff in 2017, compared to 82 incidents relating to schools and schoolchildren in 2016. Of the 88 incidents of this type recorded in 2017, 40 affected Jewish schoolchildren on their journeys to or from school; 31 took place at the premises of Jewish faith schools; and 17 involved Jewish children or teachers at non-faith schools. • In 22 antisemitic incidents, the victims were Jewish students, academics or other student bodies, compared to 41 such incidents recorded in 2016. Of the 22 incidents recorded in this sector in 2017, 20 took place on campus, while there were two incidents that affected students, academics or student bodies off campus. Two of the 22 incidents recorded in this sector were in the category of Damage and Desecration, there was one Threat, 18 incidents in the category of Abusive Behaviour and one incident in the category of Literature. • Similar to the Police’s perpetrator description system of IC1, IC2, IC3, IC4, IC5 and IC6, CST will ask incident victims or witnesses if they can describe the person, or people, who committed the incident they are reporting. Interactions between perpetrators and victims may be crude and brief, leaving little reliable information and while it is often possible to receive reports regarding the apparent appearance or motivation of incident offenders, this is not absolute proof of the offenders’ actual ethnic or religious identity, nor of their motivation. In addition, many incidents do not involve face-to-face contact between offender and victim, so there is no physical description of the offender. With these caveats, CST does provide data regarding the ethnic appearance of incident offenders, and the discourse they use to abuse or threaten Jews. • CST received a physical description of the incident offender in 420, or 30 per cent, of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded during 2017. Of these, 225 offenders (54 per cent) were described as ‘White – North European’; 13 offenders (three per cent) were described as ‘White – South European’; 77 offenders (18 per cent) were described as ‘Black’; 74 offenders (18 per cent) were described as ‘South Asian’; one offender (0.2 per cent) was described as ‘Far East or South East Asian’; and 30 offenders (seven per cent) were described as ‘Arab or North African’. • There were 221 antisemitic incidents which showed far right, anti-Israel or Islamist beliefs or motivations alongside antisemitism in 2017, making up 16 per cent of the overall total of 1,382 Antisemitic tweet sent to a Jewish charity, London, August http://www.cst.org.uk 9Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk antisemitic incidents, compared to 246 incidents showing such ideas or motivations in 2016 (18 per cent of the overall total for that year). Of the 221 antisemitic incidents in 2017 showing ideological motivation or beliefs as well as antisemitism, 140 showed far right motivation or beliefs; 67 showed anti-Israel motivation or beliefs; and 14 showed Islamist motivation or beliefs. • There is no straightforward correlation between the ethnicity of incident offenders and the antisemitic language they use; contemporary antisemitic incident offenders will select from a range of Jewish-related subjects, particularly insults related to the Holocaust or Israel, for language or imagery with which to abuse, insult or threaten their Jewish victims. • CST receives reports of antisemitic incidents from a range of sources, including directly from victims or members of their family; from witnesses; from CST’s own national volunteer structure; from security guards at Jewish buildings; and via incident data sharing programmes with Police forces around the UK. In 2015 CST signed a national information sharing agreement with the National Police Chiefs’ Council (under its former name of the Association of Chief Police Officers), that allows for the systematic sharing of antisemitic incident reports between CST and the Police, so that both agencies have sight of incidents that had not otherwise been reported to them. The incident reports are fully anonymised to comply with data protection requirements. This national agreement follows bilateral agreements with Greater Manchester Police (since 2011), the Metropolitan Police (since 2012) and Nottinghamshire Police (2014). • Five hundred and three of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST nationally in 2017 came to CST via information sharing agreements with the Police, representing 36 per cent of the incidents included in this report. A total of 394 incidents, or 29 per cent of the total, were reported directly to CST by the victims of antisemitic incidents, or by a friend or family member of an incident victim. In addition, 232 antisemitic incidents (17 per cent of the total) were reported to CST by people who had witnessed the incident but were not the direct victims of it. One hundred and thirteen antisemitic incidents were reported by CST staff or volunteers throughout the UK. CST received reports of 89 antisemitic incidents from security guards and security officers at Jewish buildings and organisations. Twenty-six antisemitic incidents were recorded by CST during 2017 on the basis of media reports. The remaining incidents were reported to CST by other Jewish community or hate crime monitoring organisations. • The 872 potential incidents reported to CST that were not included in the annual total for 2017 included 424 cases of potential Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour at Jewish locations, compared to 327 such incidents in 2016. The 424 cases of potential Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour recorded in 2017 included 139 incidents of photography or videoing of Jewish buildings, while in 65 cases suspicious people tried to gain entry to Jewish premises. These types of incidents are not categorised as antisemitic by CST as it is often not possible to determine their motivation, and many are likely to have innocent explanations. However, identifying and preventing the potential hostile reconnaissance of Jewish buildings or other potential terrorist targets is an important part of reducing the possibility of future terrorist attacks. http://www.cst.org.uk 10 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Definition of antisemitic incidents The statistics in CST’s annual Antisemitic Incidents Report include antisemitic hate crimes and antisemitic non-crime incidents. CST defines an antisemitic incident as any malicious act aimed at Jewish people, organisations or property, where there is evidence that the act has antisemitic motivation or content, or that the victim was targeted because they are (or are believed to be) Jewish. This is a narrower definition than that used by the criminal justice system, which defines an antisemitic hate incident as “Any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race/religion or perceived race/religion.”5 Antisemitic incidents can take several forms, including physical attacks on people or property, verbal or written abuse, hate mail (including antisemitic emails), antisemitic leaflets and posters or abuse on social media. CST does not include the general activities of antisemitic organisations in its statistics. CST does not record as incidents antisemitic material that is permanently hosted on internet websites or that is generated by mainstream media, nor does CST ‘trawl’ social media platforms to look for antisemitic comments. CST will, however, record antisemitic comments posted on internet forums or blog talkbacks, or transmitted via social media, if they have been reported to CST by a member of the public who fulfils the role of a victim or witness; if the comment shows evidence of antisemitic content, motivation or targeting; and if the offender is based in the United Kingdom or has directly targeted a UK-based victim. Examples of antisemitic expressions that fall outside this INTRODUCTION Community Security Trust Community Security Trust (CST) is a UK charity that advises and represents the Jewish community on matters of antisemitism, terrorism, policing and security. CST received charitable status in 1994 and is recognised by government and the Police as a best practice model of a minority- community security organisation. CST provides security advice and training for Jewish schools, synagogues and Jewish communal organisations and gives assistance to those bodies that are affected by antisemitism. CST also assists and supports individual members of the Jewish community who have been affected by antisemitism and antisemitic incidents. All this work is provided at no charge. An essential part of CST’s work involves representing the Jewish community to Police, legislative and policy-making bodies and providing people inside and outside the Jewish community with information to combat antisemitism. CST has recorded antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom since 1984. 5. The Agreed Definition of ‘Monitored Hate Crime’ for England, Wales and Northern Ireland www. report-it.org.uk/ files/hate_crime_ definitions_-_v3_0. pdf Antisemitic graffiti sprayed onto the grounds of a synagogue, Leeds, October http://www.cst.org.uk http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_definitions_-_v3_0.pdf http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_definitions_-_v3_0.pdf http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_definitions_-_v3_0.pdf http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_definitions_-_v3_0.pdf http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_definitions_-_v3_0.pdf 11Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk definition of an antisemitic incident can be found in CST’s annual Antisemitic Discourse Reports, available on the CST website. Reporting antisemitic incidents Antisemitic incidents are reported to CST in a number of ways, most commonly by telephone, email, via the CST website, via CST’s social media platforms, by post or in person to CST staff and volunteers. CST staff have undergone specialist training, in order to provide the best possible response to incident victims and witnesses who contact CST. Incidents can be reported to CST by the victim, a witness, or by someone acting on their behalf. In 2001, CST was accorded ’Third Party Reporting’ status by the Police, which allows CST to report antisemitic incidents to the Police and to act as a go-between for victims who are unable or unwilling to report to the Police directly. CST works closely with Police services and specialist units in monitoring and investigating antisemitic incidents. CST regularly exchanges anonymised antisemitic incident reports with Police forces around the United Kingdom and compares antisemitic incident trends with analysts from the National Community Tension Team, which is part of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. The Crime Survey for England and Wales estimates that around 40 per cent of all hate crimes come to the attention of the Police.6 It is likely, therefore, that most antisemitic incidents go unreported either to CST or to the Police, and therefore the true figures will be higher than those recorded in this report. No adjustments have been made to the figures to account for this. It is likely that this non-reporting also varies from category to category: a 2013 survey found that 72 per cent of British Jews who had experienced antisemitic harassment over the previous five years had not reported it to the Police or to any other organisation; 57 per cent of British Jews who had experienced antisemitic violence or the threat of violence had not reported it; and 46 per cent of those who had suffered antisemitic vandalism to their home or car had not reported it.7 If an incident is reported to CST but shows no evidence of antisemitic motivation, language or targeting, then it will not be recorded as antisemitic and will not be included in CST’s annual antisemitic incident total. In 2017, CST received 872 reports of potential incidents that were rejected for this reason, and are not included in the total number of antisemitic incidents. These incidents involved criminal damage to, or theft from, Jewish property; criminal assaults on, or theft from, Jewish people that do not show antisemitic motivation; suspicious activity or potential information-gathering around Jewish locations; or anti-Israel activity which did not involve the use of antisemitic language or imagery and was directed at pro-Israel campaigners, rather than being directed at Jewish people, buildings or organisations chosen solely because they were Jewish. This is a ten per cent increase from the 791 potential incidents of this nature that were reported to CST in 2016, but not included in the antisemitic incident statistics for that year. CST always prioritises the needs of incident victims, both individuals and the heads of Jewish organisations or communal buildings. CST treats the issue of victim confidentiality as a top priority. If an incident victim chooses to remain anonymous, or wishes there to be no publicity about an incident, CST will respect their request whenever possible. 6. An Overview of Hate Crime in England and Wales (London: Home Office, Office for National Statistics and Ministry of Justice, 2013). 7. Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: experiences and perceptions of antisemitism (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013). Antisemitic incident reported to CST via social media, Bournemouth, August http://www.cst.org.uk 12 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Contexts and patterns The 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2017 continue the previous pattern of 2016 and reflect a general, sustained high level of recorded antisemitic incidents. The 2017 total of 1,382 antisemitic incidents were spread throughout the year with CST recording over 100 incidents in ten out of the twelve months. However, there was a gentle decline in recorded incidents towards the end of 2017 with the months in which CST recorded the highest number of incidents occurring in the first half of the year. November and December were the first months since March 2016 in which CST recorded fewer than 100 incidents, which may indicate the beginning of a downward trend from the sustained high levels seen throughout most of 2016 and 2017. As was the case in 2016, there is no obvious single cause for the high number of incidents recorded in 2017. CST recorded a record total of antisemitic incidents in 2017 without there being a specific ‘trigger event’ to cause a sudden ‘spike’ in the number of incidents reported. Often increases in antisemitic incidents have been attributable to reactions to specific trigger events that cause identifiable, short-term spikes in incident levels. However, this was not the case in 2017. Instead, it appears that the factors that led to a general, sustained high level of antisemitic incidents in 2016 have continued throughout much of 2017. These factors range from those affecting all hate crime, to factors specific to antisemitism. A general factor is the rise in all hate crime that followed the referendum to leave the European Union in June 2016. The Home Office figures show that hate crime across all the strands has increased following the EU Referendum. Moreover, hate crime levels were 44 per cent higher in July 2016 compared with the previous year.8 This does not mean that, for example, most people who voted to leave the EU are racist or antisemitic, and these figures should not be used as evidence for such a suggestion. Rather, it is that an atmosphere of heightened public discussion of antisemitism, racism, immigration, hate crime and other issues related to minorities can excite activity amongst those people who are already predisposed to carry out hate crimes, while also causing heightened concern about antisemitism amongst potential victims and witnesses of hate incidents. ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM IN 2017 CST recorded 1,382 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2017, the highest total that CST has ever recorded in a single calendar year. This is an increase of three per cent from the 1,346 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2016, which was itself a record annual total. Before 2017 and 2016, the previous record high total came in 2014, when CST recorded 1,182 antisemitic incidents. Antisemitic tweet, January 8. https://www.gov. uk/government/ uploads/ system/uploads/ attachment_data/ file/652136/ hate-crime-1617- hosb1717.pdf http://www.cst.org.uk https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf 13Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, which were widespread in 2016, have continued into 2017. Therefore, antisemitism has attracted public debate and been reported on extensively in the national media, while being a point of argument and contention amongst Labour Party supporters on social media and elsewhere. For example, the Labour Party disciplinary hearing into Ken Livingstone’s comments about Adolf Hitler and Zionism was held at the end of March 2017 and his suspension was announced during the first week of April 2017. These events generated a large amount of news coverage and commentary in mainstream and social media, which may help to explain why 142 antisemitic incidents were reported to CST in April, the second highest monthly total in 2017. Additionally, the issue of antisemitism on university campuses attracted commentary in the national media during this period. These factors have led to regular, high-profile discussion of antisemitism, racism and hate crime in general in mainstream media, politics and on social media during the year. Such discussions are likely to have contributed to more antisemitic incidents occurring and to a greater level of reporting of those incidents to CST and the Police. Another, less tangible, factor is that the prevalence of antisemitism in public debate can encourage more antisemitism, if people perceive that the taboo against expressing hostility or prejudice towards or about Jews is weakening. The more people hear and read antisemitic comments and views, the more likely they are to have the confidence to express such views if they hold similar attitudes themselves. CST did not record a significant increase in antisemitic incidents following the Westminster terrorist attack in March, the Manchester attack in May, the London Bridge and Finsbury Park attacks in June or the Parsons Green attack in September. Any correlation with those attacks would have been revealed in the timings and content of incidents, but no such ‘spike’ occurred (unlike other strands of hate crime). However, these terror attacks, and the subsequent increase in the UK threat level to its maximum level ‘Critical,’ may have increased the public’s awareness of racism and hate crime in general, resulting in better reporting of antisemitic incidents from CST’s various reporting sources. Home Office figures show hate crime rose by 29 per cent, with there being an immediate increase following the Westminster Bridge terrorist attack in March 2017.9 Therefore, even though the terror attacks did not act as a direct, sudden trigger causing a specific rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK, they may have contributed in a more indirect way. Antisemitic incidents recorded by CST occurred more in the first six months of 2017 than in the second half of the year. The highest monthly incident total in 2017 came in January, when CST recorded 155 antisemitic incidents. This followed directly on from a high figure of antisemitic incidents in December 2016, when CST recorded 145 antisemitic incidents, which was the highest monthly total of antisemitic incidents reported in 2016. CST recorded over 100 incidents in every month from April 9. https://www.gov. uk/government/ uploads/ system/uploads/ attachment_data/ file/652136/ hate-crime-1617- hosb1717.pdf Antisemitic graffiti “DEATH 2 JEWS” on the wall of a pub, London, February http://www.cst.org.uk https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf 14 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk 2016 to October 2017, an unprecedented run of 19 consecutive months. For context, in the decade prior to April 2016, CST had only recorded a monthly incident total of 100 or higher on six occasions. There was a gradual decline from August 2017 to the end of the year in the number of antisemitic incidents recorded in comparison to the earlier part of the year. November and December both recorded under 100 incidents, with 89 and 78 incidents respectively. These are still relatively high monthly totals: the total for November is the second-highest November total ever recorded, and the December figure is the third-highest December total. Historically, CST usually records lower numbers of antisemitic incidents in the month of December in comparison to the rest of the year. For example, in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2012, CST recorded the lowest number of antisemitic incidents for that year in December. This could be for a number of reasons, not least the short hours of daylight and cold weather keeping people indoors. The 145 incidents recorded in December 2016 is the highest figure that CST has ever recorded for the month of December. There is no obvious reason why incident totals should have started to fall towards the end of 2017, if that is indeed what is happening. It is difficult to predict which direction 2018 will follow: whether the frequency of monthly totals below 100 incidents (as CST recorded before April 2016) will resume or whether 2018 will immediately return to the most recent pattern of recording over 100 incidents per month, thus rendering November and December 2017 as anomalies. This will be monitored as CST records antisemitic incidents into 2018. The monthly total of 78 antisemitic incidents in December is surprising for another reason. It may have been expected for CST to have recorded an increase in the number of antisemitic incidents reported in December 2017, considering the strong reactions to President Donald Trump’s announcement on his intention to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This announcement caused political unrest in the Middle East and related activism in this country, and such political unrest has in the past acted as a catalyst for antisemitic incidents in the UK. For example, 2014 was dominated by a single, large spike in July and August, due to antisemitic reactions to the conflict in Israel and Gaza. Almost half of the 1,182 incidents recorded in 2014 came in July and August, the two months when that conflict occurred. However, this was not the case in December 2017 as there does not seem to have been any significant spike in reported antisemitic incidents. This is not to say that CST did not receive any incidents related to President Trump’s announcement or that it had no impact at all. There were street protests in major cities across the UK including Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester, Nottingham and Sheffield. Whilst protesting against Israel is not automatically antisemitic and is not recorded as an antisemitic incident by CST, some of the rhetoric involved in these protests was targeted towards Jewish people. Antisemitic image shared on social media, Nottingham, December http://www.cst.org.uk 15Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Specifically, on Friday 8th December, during a protest outside the United States Embassy in London, some of the protesters chanted, “Jews, remember the Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning.” This references the battle of Khaybar in the year 628, in which Jews were killed and expelled from a town of the same name. This specific chant was recorded as an antisemitic incident by CST and a complaint was accordingly made to the Police. There were other global events that, similarly to President Donald Trump’s announcement, did not cause a significant spike in reported antisemitic incidents but can be connected to a few incidents recorded by CST in 2017. The Unite the Right rally (also known as the Charlottesville rally), which occurred in Virginia, United States, from 11th-12th August 2017, and where protesters included white supremacists, white nationalists and neo-Nazis, does not seem to have caused a significant spike in antisemitic incidents recorded by CST, but did nevertheless have some impact. CST recorded two incidents in the category of Damage and Desecration a few days after the Charlottesville rally; two synagogues in London were vandalised with far right stickers connected with the Charlottesville rally. CST recorded 145 incidents in the category of Assaults during 2017, a 34 per cent increase from the 108 incidents in the category of Assaults recorded in 2016. This is the highest number of incidents in this category that CST has ever recorded. A significant proportion of this increase occurred in Greater Manchester. There was a spate of incidents, whereby fireworks were thrown at visibly Jewish people in public, in Greater Manchester in November. In 2017, CST recorded 53 Assaults in Greater Manchester, in comparison to 22 Assaults recorded in Greater Manchester in 2016. It should also be noted that whilst CST recorded its highest number of incidents in the category of Assault in 2017, there is a wide spectrum of what is classed as an Assault by CST. There were no incidents classified as Extreme Violence. Social media is a significant forum for the dissemination and reporting of antisemitism. Two hundred and forty-seven of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2017 took place on social media. This amounts to 18 per cent of the overall incident total, compared to 289 incidents on social media recorded by CST in 2016 (21 per cent of the overall total for that year). This shows that the number of social media incidents recorded by CST declined in 2017. These numbers are only indicative, rather than being a guide to the actual number of antisemitic tweets, comments and posts, which is likely to be far higher. Nevertheless, CST still recorded more antisemitic incidents in public places in 2017 (356 incidents) than on social media, and many more incidents involved verbal abuse (670 incidents) than digital abuse. The decline in the number of antisemitic incidents on social media in 2017 may be a positive consequence of social media companies trying to improve the way they tackle hate speech online by removing content quickly and suspending accounts. A number of arrests and prosecutions have also helped to remove some prolific antisemitic accounts from social media platforms. Alternatively, it may reflect a variation in the amount and type of social media content being reported to CST, and CST’s ongoing efforts to identify where offenders are based (if neither offender nor victim is based in the UK, CST will not include antisemitic social media content in its statistics). 2018 will show whether this decline in recorded social media incidents is the beginning of a welcome trend or simply a short-term blip. Antisemitic tweet, London, January http://www.cst.org.uk 16 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk It is always necessary, when analysing an increase in recorded antisemitic incidents, to investigate whether this increase reflects an improvement in the reporting of incidents as well as an increase in the actual number of incidents taking place. As stated above, the sustained public profile given to antisemitism in the media and politics in 2017 may have played a role in increasing the motivation and awareness of incident victims to report their experiences. It is also possible that an increased security presence at Jewish buildings since the middle of 2015 has contributed to the higher levels of antisemitic incidents recorded by CST. This increased security presence is partly a result of high Jewish communal concern about terrorism, and partly due to government funding for security guards at Jewish communal buildings that was made available from April 2015 and continued throughout 2016 and 2017.10 For instance, even though CST did not record a direct correlation between the terror attacks and antisemitic incidents reported to CST in 2017, CST did increase physical patrols in neighbourhoods with large Jewish populations in the periods immediately following those attacks, which may have encouraged the reporting of antisemitic incidents. It is likely that reporting is higher when there is an increased visible presence, as people can report incidents directly. Indirectly, it may well serve to remind or motivate people to report incidents to CST or the Police. Eighty-nine of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2017 were reported by security guards or security officers at Jewish locations, compared to 59 in 2016 and 33 in 2015. Since 2011, CST has exchanged anonymised antisemitic incident data with Greater Manchester Police, and since 2012 CST has done so with the Metropolitan Police Service in London. These agreements allow for the systematic sharing of individual incident reports between CST and the Police to give both agencies sight of incidents that had not previously been reported to them. The reports are fully anonymised to comply with data protection requirements, and any duplicates – incidents that had been reported to both CST and the Police – are eliminated to ensure that there can be no ‘double counting’. In 2014, CST signed a similar information sharing agreement with Nottinghamshire Police and in 2015, CST signed a national information sharing agreement with the National Police Chiefs’ Council (under its former name of the Association of Chief Police Officers). As a result of this national agreement, CST now shares anonymised antisemitic incident data with several Police forces around the UK and intends to expand this area of its work further in 2018. In 2017, 503 antisemitic incidents were reported to CST by this method, which had not been reported directly to CST from any other source, compared to 482 in 2016 and 307 in 2015. The number of incidents reported to CST by the Police therefore increased by four per cent in 2017, roughly in line with the overall increase in antisemitic incidents. This may reflect the fact that CST is continuing to strengthen its relationship with the Police and information sharing with Police Forces in 2017, or it may reflect an improvement in reporting of antisemitic incidents to the Police, which has then filtered through to CST’s antisemitic incident statistics via the information sharing agreement. The number of antisemitic incidents reported to CST by the Police comprised 36 per cent of the overall incidents recorded by CST in 2017. Antisemitic incidents reported by the Police also comprised 36 per cent in 2016, compared with 32 per cent in 2015. Prior to the introduction of these information sharing agreements, antisemitic incidents had been shared by the Police with CST on an ad hoc basis, for operational or community engagement purposes; but most incidents reported to the Police would not have been shared with CST and therefore were not counted in CST’s antisemitic incident statistics. Consequently, these new and significant sources of antisemitic incident reports must 10. Government funding has been provided for security guards at voluntary aided faith schools since 2010 and was extended to other Jewish buildings in 2015. In 2016/17, government funding for security guards across the Jewish community amounted to £13.4m. The fund is administered by CST and the guards are supplied by commercial guarding companies. http://www.cst.org.uk 17Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk be taken into consideration when comparing CST’s antisemitic incident totals since 2011 with those from 2010 and earlier. The 1,346 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2016 differ from the figure (1,309 incidents) previously published in the 2016 Annual Incident Report. There is always the possibility of incident figures for a particular year changing after the report for that year is published, due the late reporting of some incidents to CST by incident victims, witnesses or other sources. The reason the 2016 incident figure has increased to 1,346 from 1,309 is because CST received a backlog of anonymised antisemitic incidents from British Transport Police (BTP) after the Antisemitic Incident Report 2016 was published. In January to June 2017, CST received 43 anonymised antisemitic incidents from British Transport Police, but unfortunately for resource reasons BTP was not able to continue sharing anonymised antisemitic incident reports in the second half of 2017. Whilst it is impossible to ascertain how many incidents are missing from CST’s 2017 overall figure as a result of this, it seems based on what CST received during the first half of this year that a similar number of antisemitic incidents from BTP may be missing for the second half of 2017. This may ultimately affect the total number of antisemitic incidents recorded in 2017. Despite improvements in reporting, it is to be expected that antisemitic hate crime and hate incidents, like other forms of hate crime, are significantly under-reported. This is particularly the case where the victims are minors; where the incident is considered of ‘lesser’ impact by the victim; and for incidents that take place on social media. Consequently, the statistics contained in this report should be taken as being indicative of general trends, rather than absolute measures of the number of incidents that actually take place. Answering the questions of why antisemitic incidents take place, who carries them out and who suffers from them is not always straightforward. Sometimes the evidence of victims or witnesses concerning what may have been a shocking, traumatic and brief experience can be vague and disjointed. Many antisemitic incidents, particularly those that take place on social media or via graffiti in public places, do not have a specific victim and the offender is often unknown. While allowing for all these caveats, it is still possible to analyse the data contained in the individual incident reports received by CST during 2017, and the picture they show is one of complexity. In short, there is no single profile of an antisemitic incident victim, nor of an antisemitic incident offender, nor is there a single explanation as to why antisemitic incidents take place. This is explained in more detail in the sections “Incident victims”, p.27; “Incident offenders”, p.29; and “Discourse and motives”, p.30. Antisemitic graffiti in a toilet on a university campus, Birmingham, March http://www.cst.org.uk 18 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Extreme Violence Incidents of Extreme Violence include any attack potentially causing loss of life or grievous bodily harm (GBH). GBH is the most serious form of assault that anyone can commit. There were no incidents of Extreme Violence in 2017, compared with none in 2016, four in 2015 and one in 2014. Assault Incidents of Assault include any physical attack against a person or people, which does not pose a threat to their life or causes GBH but instead may be considered actual bodily harm (ABH) or lower common assault. CST recorded 145 incidents of Assault in 2017, compared to 108 in 2016, an increase of 34 per cent. This is the highest number of incidents in this category that CST has ever recorded, surpassing the 121 assaults in 2009. It should be noted that a wide spectrum of incidents are categorised as Assault in keeping with the general legal meaning of the term. Eighty-five of the 145 incidents of Assault recorded in 2017 were random attacks on Jewish people in public places, of which 72 targeted people who were visibly Jewish, usually due to their religious or traditional clothing. Eight assaults targeted synagogue congregants on their way to or from prayers, five assaults targeted congregants or staff outside synagogues, 16 targeted Jewish schoolchildren away from school and three targeted Jewish schoolchildren on their way to or from school. CST received a description of the gender of the victims in 123 of the incidents of Assault. Of these, the victims were male in 88 incidents; in 22 incidents they were female; and in 13 they were mixed couples or groups of males and females. INCIDENT CATEGORIES CST classifies antisemitic incidents by six distinct categories: Extreme Violence; Assault; Damage and Desecration of Property; Threats; Abusive Behaviour; and Antisemitic Literature. The definitions of these categories, and examples of incidents recorded in each one during 2017, are given below.11 11. A more detailed explanation of the six antisemitic incident categories can be found in the CST leaflet “Definitions of Antisemitic Incidents”, available on the CST website: http://www.cst. org.uk INCIDENT CATEGORIES 1,038 Abusive Behaviour 12 Literature 145 Assault 95 Threats 92 Damage & Desecration 0 Extreme Violence http://www.cst.org.uk http://www.cst.org.uk http://www.cst.org.uk 19Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk CST received a description of the age of the victims in 102 of the incidents of Assault. Of these, in 55 incidents the victims were adults; in 40 incidents the victims were minors; and in seven incidents they were mixed groups of adults and minors. CST received a description of the gender of the offenders in 86 of the incidents of Assault, of which 67 involved male offenders, 13 involved female offenders and six involved male and female offenders acting together. CST received a description of the age of the offenders in 84 of the incidents of Assault. Of these, the offenders were adults in 46 incidents; in 37 incidents they were minors; and one incident involved adults and minors offending together. Seventeen of the incidents involved objects, usually eggs, being thrown at visibly Jewish people from passing cars. Particular targets for this kind of incident are the Strictly Orthodox communities in Salford and Bury in north Manchester; Golders Green, Hendon and Stamford Hill in north London; and in Gateshead. CASE STUDY Schoolchildren assaulted on bus, London, January A group of young Jewish schoolchildren were physically and verbally attacked on a bus coming home from school. They were sat on the top deck of the bus when they were confronted by a group of teenagers, who persistently asked the victims if they were Jewish, if they attended a Jewish school and why they were not wearing “those silly hats.” The attackers then hit, kicked and punched the Jewish schoolchildren who tried to get the attention of the bus driver but were ignored and remained trapped on the bus as the violence continued. The Jewish schoolchildren fled the bus at the next stop, but were followed and chased. The victims ran into a kosher shop at which point security intervened and reported this to the Police, who arrived shortly afterwards. Parents of the children who had been attacked subsequently reported this incident to CST, who supported the victims and their families through the police investigation and criminal justice process. One offender immediately pled guilty and therefore never went to court. Another received a 12-month youth rehabilitation order. These perpetrators were also sentenced to 60 hours of victim awareness and a Restorative Justice programme, which aims to make the offender realise the impact of their actions on the victim and the victim’s wider community; and nine months of supervised appointments with an officer who monitors the offender and supports them to ensure their behaviour remains in check. A relative of one of the victims gratefully told CST that they were assigned “a fantastic [Police] officer who was very supportive and helpful and conscientious all the way through.” ASSAULTS 2012–2017 108 2016 83 2015 69 2013 67 2012 145 2017 80 2014 http://www.cst.org.uk 20 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Other incidents in the category of Assault in 2017 included: • Manchester, June. Eggs were thrown at congregants outside a synagogue. • Manchester, July. A visibly Jewish man and his son were walking in a park when 15 youths shouted, “Jew” and threw stones at them. • London, August. A man hurled a glass bottle towards a group of visibly Jewish teenage girls. As the bottle smashed and the girls ran for cover, he chased after them and shouted, “Hitler is a good man, good he killed Jews.” • London, September. A visibly Jewish elderly man was walking to synagogue when a white man aggressively grabbed his prayer book and skullcap, and threw them both on the ground. • Hertfordshire, October. A visibly Jewish boy was confronted at his home by a group of boys who then proceeded to grab and push him on the ground whilst shouting abuse, including “F**king Jew” and “You’re different.” Damage and Desecration to Jewish Property This category includes any physical attack directed against Jewish-owned property, or property that is perceived to be connected to Jews, which is not life-threatening. This includes the daubing of antisemitic slogans or symbols (such as swastikas) – including fixing stickers and posters – on Jewish property; and damage caused to property where it appears that the property has been specifically targeted because of its perceived Jewish connection, or where antisemitic expressions are made by the offender while causing the damage. There were 92 incidents of Damage and Desecration in 2017, an increase of 14 per cent from the 2016 total of 81 incidents in this category. There were 65 antisemitic incidents recorded in this category in 2015 and 81 in 2014. Of the 92 incidents recorded in 2017, 46 affected the homes of Jewish people or vehicles parked at their homes, and 26 involved the daubing or graffiti of Jewish property. Nine involved desecrations of, or antisemitic damage to, synagogues. There were three incidents in 2017 that involved antisemitic damage to, or desecration of, a Jewish cemetery, eight that involved stones or bricks being thrown and eight incidents that involved eggs being thrown at Jewish property. Three incidents in this category involved the antisemitic hacking of websites of Jewish organisations and two involved the use of arson. CASE STUDY Synagogue daubed with antisemitic stickers, London, August Antisemitic stickers were found on the front doors of a synagogue. The stickers included an image of a Jewish person with a hook nose and a yellow Star of David. This incident was reported to CST, which rapidly identified that the stickers were from the Daily Stormer, an American neo-Nazi and white supremacist website linked to a far right rally that had taken place in Charlottesville, Virginia a few days previously. This rally had featured white supremacists, white nationalists and http://www.cst.org.uk 21Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Other incidents of Damage and Desecration in 2017 included: • London, February. A Jewish woman found the words “Kill the Jews” scraped in the dust on the roof of her car. • London, April. Bacon was thrown over the wall of a synagogue and found in the grounds. • Manchester, June. A Jewish restaurant was vandalised in a targeted attack, by a man who smashed the window and threw in a home-made fire bomb. • Manchester, August. A visibly Jewish man heard shouting of an antisemitic nature from the alley behind his house. Upon closer inspection, the victim then found a swastika and “F**k Jews” graffiti written on his wall by a group of white children. • London, August. Graffiti that read “F**k Yids” was found on the entrance to a Jewish school. Threats This category includes only direct antisemitic threats, whether verbal or written. There were 95 incidents reported to CST in the category of Threats in 2017, a six per cent decrease from the 101 incidents of this type recorded in 2016. The 95 incidents recorded in this category in 2017 is the second highest total ever recorded by CST. There were 79 antisemitic incidents recorded in this category in 2015 and 91 in 2014. Twenty four of the 95 threats recorded in 2017 took place in public and eight threats took place at victims’ homes. Eleven threats targeted synagogues and seven targeted Jewish organisations and events. Fifty-three incidents in this category involved verbal abuse, eleven involved a vehicle being used as a weapon and seven included hate mail. neo-Nazis chanting racist and antisemitic slogans. CST reviewed CCTV footage of the synagogue and, with the Police, identified the apparent perpetrators as two white men. The following day, the same antisemitic stickers were found on the external noticeboard of another synagogue. CST reported this to the Police, and made the Police aware of the previous similar incident and both of the incidents’ connection to the Daily Stormer and the Charlottesville rally. The fact that the desecration of both synagogues with antisemitic stickers of neo-Nazi provenance immediately followed the Charlottesville rally strongly suggests a link between the two events, demonstrating how antisemitism is motivated and influenced by wider global politics and events, not just what is occurring in the UK. Antisemitic tweet, London, August “Kill the Jews” written into the frost of a car belonging to a Jewish person, London, November http://www.cst.org.uk 22 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Incidents in the category of Threats in 2017 included: • London, March. A Jewish couple received threatening hate mail through their door. A week before this occurred, in a separate incident, their mezuzah (Jewish prayer doorpost) had been removed from their front door and burnt. • London, June. A man shouted, “F**king Jews. Kill all the Jews” whilst wielding a crow bar in a Jewish neighbourhood. • London, July. A visibly Jewish woman was walking in public when a group of men acting in an aggressive and intimidating manner, shouted, “Let’s go after the Jews. Look there’s one.” • London, August. A Jewish organisation received an email that read, “You will be destroyed.” Abusive Behaviour This category includes verbal and written antisemitic abuse. The verbal abuse can be face to face or via telephone calls and voicemail messages. The category also includes antisemitic emails, text messages, tweets and social media comments, as well as targeted antisemitic letters (that is, one- off letters aimed at and sent to a specific individual), irrespective of whether or not the recipient is Jewish. This is different from a mass mailing of antisemitic leaflets, pamphlets or group emails, which is dealt with by the separate Literature category. Antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property is also included in this category. There were 1,038 incidents of Abusive Behaviour reported to CST in 2017, the second highest total CST has ever recorded in this category. This is one fewer than the 1,039 incidents of Abusive Behaviour that CST recorded in 2016, which is the record high in this category. There were 717 antisemitic CASE STUDY Elderly Jewish man harassed with threatening calls and emails, May, Oxford A Jewish man was harassed with antisemitic and aggressive phone-calls and emails from his plumber, who demanded to know when the victim was going to settle his invoice. The first phone-call included lots of shouting and swearing, including calling the victim a “F**king Jewish C**t.” Further calls included similar antisemitic and aggressive comments. On the fourth phone-call, the plumber threatened that he would come over to the victim’s house and would “F**king murder” him. The victim felt shaken and feared for his and his wife’s safety. He then discovered two emails from the plumber, one of which included similar threatening and antisemitic language. In the second email, the plumber admitted that he had in fact received the money that he had claimed was outstanding and attempted to apologise for his behaviour. Nevertheless, this apology was accompanied with further racially offensive language. The victim reported this incident to CST and to the Police, who arrested the plumber. The alleged offender was charged under the Malicious Communications Act (charges under this act cannot be racially or religiously aggravated). CST advised the victim on this charge and on his rights at court, and attended court with him. The offender received a fine of over £500 to be paid within 14 days and a Restorative Justice recommendation. A member of CST’s Incident Department who attended court with the victim explained the outcome to him and went through potential next steps, including Restorative Justice. http://www.cst.org.uk 23Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk incidents recorded in this category in 2015 and 899 in 2014. In 244 of the incidents of Abusive Behaviour recorded in 2017, the victims were random Jewish people in public places; in at least 189 of these, the victims were visibly Jewish. Verbal antisemitic abuse was used in 534 incidents in this category, 31 of which were by phone. There were 244 incidents of Abusive Behaviour recorded that took place on social media. Twenty-six incidents of Abusive Behaviour involved the use of paper hate mail and 13 occurred via email. One hundred and seventy-two incidents in this category involved antisemitic daubing, graffiti or stickers on non-Jewish property. Other incidents of Abusive Behaviour in 2017 included: • London, May. A Jewish man was on the underground when a group of men started chanting and shouting, “Jew boy,” “F**king Jew boy,” and “We’re running around Tottenham with our willies hanging out, I’ve got more foreskin than you, F**king Jew.” The group then made a prolonged hissing noise to mimic Nazi gas chambers. • London, June. A Jewish organisation received hate mail containing various Jewish conspiracy theories, including “The Rothschilds are extremely powerful and are one of the top ranking members of the illuminati. Do not let their appearance fool you, they are extremely evil people, and sacrifice children to Satan on a weekly basis.” • Gateshead, June. A man shouted, “Jews piss me off. Go back to Israel” at attendees at a Jewish funeral. • London, August. A Jewish organisation received a tweet that read, “The Holocaust is fake history.” CASE STUDY Persistent Holocaust denial graffiti, throughout 2017, multiple locations in London Holocaust denial graffiti using the same language and handwriting appeared over a prolonged period of time in the same location and then in neighbouring London boroughs. The graffiti included language such as “The Holocaust is a lie” and “Holohoax” as well as swastikas, a Star of David, and the words “Banks”, “media” and “9/11.” On one occasion, this graffiti was reported to CST along a canal in 20 different locations. CST ensured that the graffiti was removed by the council as and when it reappeared. CST also informed the Police of the connection between the multiple graffiti incidents and provided the Police with locations, documentation and images to help them with their investigation. Antisemitic graffiti “*BANKS*MEDIA*LAW* *911*HOLOHOAX*” found along a canal, London, October http://www.cst.org.uk 24 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Literature This category covers mass-produced antisemitic literature which is distributed in multiple quantities. This can involve a single mass mailing or repeated individual mailings, but it must involve the multiple use of the same piece of literature in order to fall into this category. This is different from one-off cases of hate mail targeted at individual people or organisations, which would come under the category of either Abusive Behaviour or Threats (depending on the hate mail’s content). This category includes literature that is antisemitic in itself, irrespective of whether or not the recipient is Jewish, and cases where Jews are specifically targeted for malicious distribution, even if the material itself is not antisemitic. This would include, for instance, the mass mailing of neo-Nazi literature to targeted Jewish organisations or homes, even if the literature did not mention Jews. This category also includes antisemitic emails that are sent to groups of recipients. The statistics for this category give no indication of the extent of distribution. A single mass mailing of antisemitic literature is only counted as one incident, although it could involve material being sent to dozens of recipients. Thus the number of incidents reflects the number of offenders, rather than the number of victims. There were 12 incidents recorded in the category of antisemitic Literature in 2017, a 29 per cent decrease from the 17 incidents recorded in this category in 2016. There were 12 incidents recorded in this category in 2015 and 30 in 2014. Ten of the Literature incidents recorded in 2017 involved the distribution of paper leaflets or pamphlets, one involved a mass message and one involved a mass email. Out of the 12 antisemitic incidents recorded in the category of Literature, five incidents targeted synagogues and five incidents involved Jewish organisations or events. CASE STUDY Holocaust denial leaflets distributed on UK university campuses, February At Cambridge, Edinburgh and Glasgow universities, the London School of Economics and University College London, leaflets denying and belittling the Holocaust were distributed on campus. These leaflets were found pinned onto students’ and academics’ cars, as well as inside university buildings. One leaflet entitled, “Who’s telling us our story?” denied the existence of gas chambers and cited the film ‘Denial,’ which portrays the libel trial from 2000 between Holocaust denier David Irving and historian Deborah Lipstadt. http://www.cst.org.uk 25Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Incidents in the category of Literature in 2017 included: • London, February. Hate mail was sent to multiple Jewish organisations. The hate mail was 18 pages long and consisted of images and text relating to conspiracy theories about Jewish domination. • London, July. An email was sent to multiple Jewish organisations. It read, “Zionist Israel is an apartheid racist state and guilty of war crimes against the Palestinian populations. You people are acting as Zionist/racist stooges. Remember your ‘perennial victim’ six million Holohoax figure – reflect on the Palestinians Shoah – and be ashamed!’ Another leaflet, entitled “The Greatest Swindle of All Time,” referenced Professor Norman Finkelstein, who has argued that Holocaust survivors exploit the memory of the Holocaust. These leaflets were distributed during the promotional publicity of ‘Denial’ and a week before the film’s release into UK cinemas. This incident is an example of how an event, on this occasion the release of the film ‘Denial,’ can motivate and provoke potential incident offenders. As well as Holocaust denial leaflets, during the same week CST received reports of other incidents related to the release of ‘Denial.’ For instance, film posters for ‘Denial’ were found defaced with antisemitic markings at multiple stations on the London underground, including the actors being defaced with stickers to make them look like Hitler (this particular incident was recorded in the category of Abusive Behaviour). http://www.cst.org.uk 26 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk One of the most important jobs CST does is to record and analyse incidents of potential hostile reconnaissance (categorised by CST as ‘Information Collection’) and Suspicious Behaviour around Jewish locations. Although these potential incidents are not included in CST’s antisemitic incident statistics, they still form a vital part of CST’s work. The recent tragic history of antisemitic terrorism against Jewish schools, synagogues, shops, museums and other buildings in Copenhagen, Paris, Brussels, Toulouse, Kansas City, Mumbai and elsewhere attests to the importance of this work. It is well known that terrorist actors often collect information about their targets before launching an attack. Identifying and preventing the gathering of this information is an integral part of CST’s work in protecting the UK Jewish community from terrorism. In order to do this, CST relies on information from the public and encourages the Jewish community to continue reporting suspicious activity to CST, as well as to the Police. Due to the terrorist attacks at Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park and the failed bomb attack at Parsons Green, 2017 was a year in which the UK faced its most severe threat of terrorism for many years. Twice in 2017, the threat level was raised to its maximum level, ‘Critical,’ meaning an attack was imminent. CST works in consultation with the Police to gather, record and investigate incidents of Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour. CST does this in order to keep the Jewish community safe and allow it to carry on as normal. Jewish communities have long been the targets of terrorists of different and varied political and religious motivations. Since the late 1960s, there have been over 400 terrorist attacks, attempted attacks and foiled terrorist plots against Diaspora Jewish communities and Israeli targets outside Israel.12 In the UK, several terrorist plots targeting Jewish communities came to trial or were publicised via the media in recent years. Most recently, a family of three was convicted in 2017 of planning a terror attack and researching potential Jewish targets including Birmingham’s Central Synagogue. Ummarayiat Mirza was jailed for 16 years, his wife for ten years and his sister for 30 months. This planning is said to have occurred in the days following the Westminster Bridge terror attack. Cases of potential Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour are not included in CST’s antisemitic incident statistics, as the motivation for many of them is not possible to determine. The vague and uncertain nature of many of these incidents means that they are easier to analyse if the two categories are combined, rather than treated separately. Taken together, there were 424 such incidents reported to CST in 2017 (327 in 2016). Of the 424 incidents of potential Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour reported to CST in 2017, 139 involved the photography or videoing of Jewish buildings, while in 65 cases suspicious people tried to gain entry to Jewish premises. These incidents are not categorised as antisemitic by CST as many are likely to have innocent explanations and it is often not possible to determine their motivation. However, neither CST nor the Police underestimate the threat posed to Jewish communities by various terrorist organisations and networks. Identifying and preventing the potential hostile reconnaissance of Jewish buildings or other potential terrorist targets is an important part of reducing the possibility of future terrorist attacks and is integral to the work of CST. 12. For a full chronology and analysis of this history of modern anti-Jewish terrorism, see the CST publication “Terrorist Incidents against Jewish Communities and Israeli Citizens Abroad 1968–2010”, available at http:// www.cst.org.uk INFORMATION COLLECTION AND SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR http://www.cst.org.uk http://www.cst.org.uk http://www.cst.org.uk 27Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk The most common single type of incident involved verbal abuse randomly directed at visibly Jewish people in public. Such incidents are more commonly associated with anti- social behaviour or local patterns of street crime rather than with political activism or ideologies: 16 per cent of all antisemitic incidents recorded in 2017 showed evidence of political motivations or beliefs, while 84 per cent did not. In 356 incidents, the victims were ordinary Jewish people, male or female, attacked or abused while going about their daily business in public places. In at least 283 of these, the victims were visibly Jewish, usually due to their religious or traditional clothing, school uniform or jewellery bearing Jewish symbols. Seventy-six incidents targeted synagogue property and staff, compared to 64 in 2016, and a further 44 incidents targeted congregants on their way to or from prayers, compared to 25 in 2016. There were 141 incidents that targeted Jewish community organisations, communal events, commercial premises or high-profile individuals, compared to 169 in 2016, while 89 incidents happened at people’s private homes (96 in 2016). Fifteen antisemitic incidents took place in the workplace or were work-related, compared to 56 in 2016. A total of 88 antisemitic incidents took place at schools or involved Jewish schoolchildren or teaching staff, compared to 82 in 2016. Of the 88 incidents of this type in 2017, 31 took place at Jewish schools, 17 at non-faith schools and 40 affected Jewish schoolchildren on their journeys to and from school. Twenty-one of the 88 school-related incidents were in the category of Assault; five involved Damage and Desecration of Jewish property; five were in the category of Threats; 56 were in the category of Abusive Behaviour and there was one in the category of Literature. There were 22 antisemitic incidents in which the victims were Jewish students, academics INCIDENT VICTIMS The victims of antisemitic incidents come from the whole spectrum of the Jewish community: from Strictly Orthodox to Liberal, Reform and secular Jews; from the largest Jewish communities of London and Manchester to small, isolated communities all over the United Kingdom; and from Jewish schoolchildren to Members of Parliament. WHO AND WHAT IS BEING TARGETED Jewish community organisations, communal events, commercial premises or high-profile individuals 141 Individuals in public 356 Visibly Jewish individuals 283 Homes, inc. people and vehicles at their homes 89 Synagogues 76 http://www.cst.org.uk 28 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk or other student bodies, compared to 41 campus-related antisemitic incidents in 2016. Of the 22 incidents of this type reported to CST in 2017, 20 took place on campus and two off campus. Out of the 22 incidents involving students, academics or student bodies, two were in the category of Damage and Desecration of Jewish property, one of which occurred on campus; there was one incident in the category of Threats; 18 in the category of Abusive Behaviour and one incident in the category of Literature. There were no incidents involving students, academics or student bodies in the category of Assault. Of the 20 antisemitic incidents that took place on campus, 14 involved graffiti or other daubing on non-Jewish property; there were three incidents that involved verbal abuse and one that involved hate mail. Thirteen involved the use of language or imagery related to the Holocaust or the Nazi period. CST received a description of the gender of the victim or victims in 733 (53 per cent) of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents reported to CST during 2017. Of these, the victims were male in 436 incidents (59 per cent of incidents where the victim’s gender was known), female in 241 incidents (33 per cent) and groups of males and females together in 56 incidents (eight per cent). CST received a description of the age of the victim or victims of 640 (46 per cent) of the 1,382 incidents recorded during 2017. Breaking this down into adults and minors (while acknowledging the difficulty in accurately categorising incident victims who may be merely described by witnesses as “youths” or “teenagers”) shows that in 485 incidents, the victims were described to CST as adults (76 per cent of incidents where the victim’s age was described), in 114 incidents they were described as minors (18 per cent) and in 41 cases (six per cent) the victims were described as adults and minors together. Antisemitic graffiti on a sign at the entrance of a synagogue, Leeds, October http://www.cst.org.uk 29Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk While it is possible to collect data regarding the ethnic appearance of incident offenders, this data is not direct evidence of the offenders’ religious affiliations. The content of an antisemitic letter may reveal the motivation of the offender, but it would be a mistake to assume to know the ethnicity or religion of a hate mail sender on the basis of the discourse they employ. Social media platforms afford a level of anonymity to offenders, should they wish to hide their identity, but can also provide some personal details of offenders, such as their name, photograph or approximate location. Bearing in mind all these limitations regarding the availability and reliability of this data, a description of the ethnic appearance of the offenders was obtained in 420, or 30 per cent, of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2017.13 Of these, 225 offenders were described as ‘White – North European’ (54 per cent); 13 offenders were described as ‘White – South European’ (three per cent); 77 offenders were described as ‘Black’ (18 per cent); 74 offenders were described as ‘South Asian’ (18 per cent); one offender was described as ‘Far East or South East Asian’ (0.2 per cent); and 30 offenders were described as being ‘Arab or North African’ (seven per cent). These figures partly reflect the fact that Britain’s Jewish communities tend to live in relatively diverse urban areas, and that street crime offenders (where the most common type of antisemitic incident takes place) make up a younger, and more diverse, demographic profile than the population as a whole. CST received a description of the gender of the offender or offenders in 662 (48 per cent) of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2017. Of these, the offenders were described as male in 554 incidents (84 per cent of incidents where the offender’s gender was known), female in 90 incidents (13 per cent) and mixed groups of males and females in 18 incidents (three per cent). CST received a description of the approximate age of the offender or offenders in 532 of the 1,382 incidents reported during the year (38 per cent). Of these 532 incidents, and allowing for the same caveats as when attempting to analyse the ages of incident victims, the offenders were described as adults in 421 antisemitic incidents (79 per cent of incidents where the offender’s age was estimated), minors in 108 incidents (20 per cent) and three incidents included adults and minors together (0.6 per cent). Younger antisemitic incident offenders appear to be more likely than adults to be involved in violent incidents (albeit usually using relatively limited violence): minors were responsible for 44 per cent of the incidents recorded by CST in the category of Assault in 2017 where an age description of the offender was provided, INCIDENT OFFENDERS CST is often asked by journalists and members of the public to identify the ethnic or religious background of incident offenders. This can be a difficult and imprecise task. CST will ask incident victims or witnesses if they can describe the person, or people, who committed the incident they are reporting, but many antisemitic incidents involve public encounters where the antisemitic abuse may be generic, brief and sometimes non-verbal. The evidence of victims of, and witnesses to, these antisemitic incidents may rely on their interpretation of the offender’s physical appearance, language or other indicators. Many other incidents do not involve face-to-face contact between offender and victim, such as graffiti or hate mail incidents, so it is not always possible to obtain a physical description of the offender. 13. CST uses the ‘IC1-6’ system, used by the UK Police services, for categorising the ethnic appearance of offenders. This uses the codes IC1, IC2, IC3, etc for ‘White – North European’; ‘White – South European’; ‘Black ’; ‘South Asian’; ‘East or South East Asian’; and ‘Arab or North African’. This is obviously not a foolproof system and can only be used as a rough guide. http://www.cst.org.uk 30 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk but for only 16 per cent of the incidents in the categories of Abusive Behaviour (where an age description of the offender was provided). Similarly, minors were the victims of 39 per cent of Assault incidents recorded by CST where the age of the victim was obtained, but they were the victims of only 15 per cent of incidents of Abusive Behaviour (where the age of the victim was obtained). Analysing the content of incidents can help to identify the motives of incident offenders, although the link between the discourse used in an incident and the motivation of the offender or offenders is not always obvious. For example, consider these two incidents: • London, January. A Jewish charity that promotes and supports Holocaust Memorial Day was targeted online on Holocaust Memorial Day. The offender targeted this charity with Nazi imagery, messages in admiration of Adolf Hitler, such as “Hitler was right,” and quotes in German said by Adolf Hitler. • Scotland, November. Upon hearing a Jewish woman’s accent, the shopkeeper asked the Jewish woman where she was from and if she was from Israel to which she replied, “yes.” The shopkeeper then raised the price of the item, and said “I don’t usually serve you Zionist scum in my shop. Plus, Jews have got lots of money. You shouldn’t be bothered if I raise the price.” In the first case, a Holocaust commemoration charity’s online profile has been publicly targeted on Holocaust Memorial Day. The offender has picked that specific day to target the charity with expressions of support for Hitler and Nazism. The choice of date heightens the offence caused to people remembering the Holocaust who may decide to visit the charity’s online profile. This incident appears, therefore, to be motivated by neo-Nazi political beliefs. In the second incident, the offender seems to have initially targeted the victim due to their anti-Israel sentiment, upon hearing the victim’s accent. Upon finding out that the victim was from Israel, the offender then expressed overtly anti-Jewish attitudes to verbally abuse the victim, making antisemitic comments about Jewish people and money. It seems that in this case there is a connection between the initial anti-Israel motivation and the subsequent antisemitic discourse used. However, in other incidents the connection between the discourse used and any political motivation is not so clear. For example, consider this incident: • Hertfordshire, January. A visibly Jewish man was verbally attacked at a gym. The male offender said, “You lot think you own the world. Jews own all the banks. Jews own Hilary Clinton.” Then the offender shouted, “If I was Palestinian I would blow myself up. Free Palestine.” In this incident, even though the offender refers to Palestine whilst verbally abusing the victim, it is hard to tell whether the offender deliberately targeted the victim primarily because of their anti-Israel sentiment or whether their primary hostility was towards Jewish people, which was then expressed via reference to Palestine. The political motivation is also less clear because the offender accompanies his references to Palestine with other antisemitic language, regarding Jewish domination. DISCOURSE AND MOTIVES http://www.cst.org.uk 31Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk In other incidents, discourses relating to Jews are more indicative of a general conspiracist mindset than of a coherent political ideology. For example: • London, June. A letter reading “The problem is a movement called the New World Order, which is run by the very rich and powerful who are usually involved with the banking system and the other powerful institutions (eg. Rothschilds, who finance both sides in wars)…if you look at what is happening today in the world globally and compare it to certain theories, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion etc. The dots seem to connect, revealing a pretty bad picture” was delivered to a man’s home. • London, October. Graffiti reading “Banks, Media, Holohoax and 9/11” was found along a canal. In these incidents, fragments of political discourse are present, but they do not add up to a coherent, identifiable political outlook that would indicate the offender subscribes to one political viewpoint or another. Rather, both incidents reflect a belief in conspiracy theories on different parts of the political spectrum. Sometimes, different political discourses are mixed together in a way that reveals a more basic antisemitism: • London, January. A man posted messages on social media saying, “Hitler was right” and “you’re a baby sacrificing, blood drinking, economy ruining Zionist lord.” This particular incident is typical of contemporary antisemitic incident offenders, who will often select from a range of Jewish- related discourses or imagery with which to abuse, insult or threaten their Jewish victims. Sometimes the specific language used is of secondary importance, compared to the desire to insult or abuse Jews. Rather than being limited to prejudice rooted in traditional, far right beliefs, or fuelled exclusively by more contemporary extremisms or anti-Israel sentiment, the antisemitic incidents reported to CST in 2017 represent the multifaceted nature of contemporary antisemitism. In 277 of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents reported to CST in 2017, the offenders employed discourse based on the Nazi period, including swastikas and references to the Holocaust. Of these, 140 showed evidence of far right motivation or beliefs. For comparison, in 2016, Nazi-related discourse was used by offenders in 341 antisemitic incidents, of which 172 showed evidence of far right motivation or beliefs. In 2017, discourse relating to Israel or the Middle East was used in 104 antisemitic incidents, of which 67 showed evidence of anti-Israel motivation or beliefs; compared to 106 incidents using Israel-related discourse in 2016, of which 63 showed evidence of anti-Israel motivation or beliefs. In addition, language or images relating to Islam or Muslims was present in 27 antisemitic incidents in 2017, the same as 2016, while 14 incidents showed evidence of Islamist motivation or beliefs in 2017 (11 in 2016). Overall, 30 per cent of antisemitic incidents recorded in 2017 involved the use of political language alongside antisemitism, while 16 per cent of incidents in 2017 showed evidence of a particular ideological motivation or belief. This compares to 35 per cent in 2016 that used political language, and 18 per cent that showed political motivation. It is necessary for there to be evidence of antisemitic language, targeting or motivation, as well as any political or ideological motivation for the incident to be recorded by CST as antisemitic. Tweet including a range of antisemitic discourses, Cambridge, April http://www.cst.org.uk 32 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk CST received reports of 872 potential incidents during 2017 that, after investigation, did not appear to be antisemitic and were therefore not included in the total of 1,382 antisemitic incidents. These 872 potential incidents included examples of anti-Israel activity directed at organisations involved in pro- Israel work, which did not involve explicitly antisemitic language or imagery and were therefore not classified by CST as antisemitic. Examples of anti-Israel incidents during 2017 that were reported to CST but were not recorded as antisemitic include the following: • London, August. A pro-Palestinian video was put on in a museum. • London, October. Anti-Israel posters were found in public nearby to the TLV in LDN celebration; a celebration of Tel Aviv culture in London. Sometimes the targeting of a particular incident can suggest an intention to intimidate or offend Jews on the part of the offender. For example, if the above example of the anti-Israel posters had been placed in close proximity to a synagogue or Jewish school, or in an area with a large, visibly Jewish population, or was handed out to visibly Jewish people, then it is likely that it would have been classified as an antisemitic incident. On the above occasion, however, it was not counted as antisemitic because these posters appeared to have been targeted towards the general public and not deliberately at Jews. The posters were found at the nearest underground station, and outside the entrance, to the Tel Aviv celebration. This occurred in Camden, which is not an area of London that is readily associated with the Jewish community. If anti-Israel material is sent unsolicited to a synagogue at random then it may well be recorded as an antisemitic incident (because the synagogue was targeted on the basis of it being Jewish and the offender has failed to distinguish between a place of worship and pro-Israel political activity). Similarly, if a synagogue receives hostile anti-Israel verbal abuse this may well be recorded as an antisemitic incident because the offender has intentionally targeted a Jewish place of worship. For example: • Brighton, September. A man approached a synagogue and shouted towards congregants, “Free Palestine.” If, however, anti-Israel material (containing no antisemitic slander) is sent unsolicited to specifically pro-Israel organisations then this incident would not be classified as antisemitic. Similarly, if a Jewish individual or group is engaging in public pro-Israel advocacy and ANTISEMITIC OR ANTI-ISRAEL? CST is often asked about the difference between antisemitic incidents and anti-Israel activity, and how this distinction is made in the categorisation of incidents. The distinction between the two can be subtle and the subject of much debate. Clearly, it would not be acceptable to define all anti- Israel activity as antisemitic; but it cannot be ignored that contemporary antisemitism can occur in the context of, or be accompanied by, extreme feelings over the Israel/Palestine conflict, and that criticisms of Israel may draw upon antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Discourse relating to the conflict is used by antisemitic incident offenders to abuse Jews; and anti-Israel discourse can sometimes repeat, or echo, antisemitic language and imagery. Drawing out these distinctions, and deciding on where the dividing lines lie, is one of the most difficult areas of CST’s work in recording and analysing hate crime. http://www.cst.org.uk 33Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk subsequently receives anti-Israel material, this would most likely not be classified as antisemitic (again, unless it contains antisemitic slander). The political discourse used in an incident may also be the reason why the incident is accepted or rejected as antisemitic. In particular, incidents that equate Israel to Nazi Germany would normally be recorded as antisemitic because the comparison is so deeply hurtful and abusive. However, incidents that compare Israel, for instance, to apartheid South Africa, normally would not be recorded as antisemitic incidents. While the charge that Israel practises apartheid upsets many Jews, it does not contain the same visceral capacity to offend Jews on the basis of their Jewishness as does the comparison with Nazism, which carries particular meaning for Jews because of the Holocaust. CST received reports on 33 incidents (in the category of Abusive Behaviour) where a comparison was made between Israel and Nazis. For example: • London, September. A man targeted a Jewish charity online and posted the following message: “You lot are ZioNazis. Zionism equals Nazism.” Irrespective of whether or not these incidents are classified as antisemitic by CST, they are still relevant to CST’s security work as they often involve threats and abuse directed at Jewish people or organisations who work with, or in support of, Israel, and therefore have an impact on the security of the UK Jewish community. Antisemitic and anti-Israel tweet, London, November Antisemitic and anti-Israel tweet comparing Israel with Nazis, Scotland, February Antisemitic and anti-Israel tweet, London, May http://www.cst.org.uk 34 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk A total of 282 antisemitic incidents, 36 per cent of the incidents in Greater London, were recorded in the borough of Barnet, which has the largest Jewish community of any local authority in the UK. There were 92 antisemitic incidents recorded in Hackney, 51 antisemitic incidents recorded in Westminster, 45 in Camden, 31 in Haringey, 26 in Harrow, 23 in Redbridge, 17 in Islington, 14 in Waltham Forest and 12 in Tower Hamlets. In Greater Manchester, 92 antisemitic incidents (35 per cent of the Greater Manchester total) were recorded in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury. There were 90 antisemitic incidents recorded in the Borough of Salford and 29 in the Borough of Manchester. Outside Greater London and Greater Manchester, CST received reports of 348 antisemitic incidents from 80 locations around the UK in 2017, compared to 305 incidents from 96 different locations in 2016. There were 40 antisemitic incidents in Hertfordshire (of which 18 were in Borehamwood), compared to 36 in 2016; 32 in Gateshead (16 in 2016), 22 in Leeds (21 in 2016); 15 in Brighton & Hove (nine in 2016), 12 in Liverpool (13 in 2016), and 12 in Birmingham (three in 2016). Going by Police region rather than specific locations, and in addition to the figures already given for London, Manchester and Hertfordshire, CST recorded 25 antisemitic incidents in West Yorkshire (28 in 2016), 39 in Northumbria (18 in 2016), 22 in Sussex (14 in 2016), 16 in Scotland (15 in 2016), 14 in Cambridge (13 in 2016), 12 in Merseyside (14 in 2016), 13 in the West Midlands (eight in 2016) and ten in Lancashire (eight in 2016). CST also recorded 50 incidents in places that fall under the jurisdiction of British Transport Police, which includes the national rail network, the London Underground, Docklands Light Railway, the Midland Metro tram system, Croydon Tramlink, Sunderland Metro, Glasgow Subway and the Emirates Air Line cable car (compared to 47 such incidents in 2016). Further differences between incident types in Greater London and Greater Manchester can be drawn out of the statistics. Taken broadly, and allowing for rough generalisations, the statistics show that antisemitic incidents in Greater Manchester are more likely to involve random street racism – what might be called antisemitic hooliganism – against individual Jews; while ideologically motivated antisemitism – which normally takes the form of hate mail, abusive phone calls or antisemitic graffiti – tends to be concentrated in Greater London where most of the Jewish community’s leadership bodies and public figures are based. For example, 47 per cent of antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in Greater Manchester targeted individual Jews in public, compared to 23 per cent of the incidents recorded in Greater London; whereas 16 per cent of incidents recorded in Greater London targeted Jewish organisations, events or communal leaders, compared to five per cent of the incidents in Greater Manchester. Incidents in Greater GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS AND DIFFERENCES Seventy-five per cent of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2017 took place in Greater London and Greater Manchester, the two largest Jewish communities in the UK. In Greater London, CST recorded 773 antisemitic incidents in 2017 compared to 835 during 2016, a decrease of seven per cent. In Greater Manchester, CST recorded 261 antisemitic incidents during 2017, an increase of 27 per cent compared to the 206 incidents recorded there during 2016. http://www.cst.org.uk 35Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk London are more likely to involve hate mail, abusive emails or online antisemitism: there were 179 such incidents in Greater London in 2017 (23 per cent of incidents in Greater London), compared to 30 in Greater Manchester (11 per cent of incidents in Greater Manchester). One hundred and thirty-two antisemitic incidents (17 per cent) recorded in Greater London showed some form of political motivation, compared to 34 incidents recorded in Greater Manchester (13 per cent). INCIDENT LOCATIONS 773 London 261 Greater Manchester 40 Hertfordshire 32 Gateshead 22 Leeds 22 Sussex 14 Cambridge 12 Liverpool 12 Birmingham http://www.cst.org.uk 36 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk The Metropolitan Police Service study referred to above defined ‘mission’ incidents as those in which “the offender takes some premeditated action to instigate the incident by engineering their interaction with the victim. In addition, antisemitism seemingly drives the offender’s actions – as manifest by their language or symbols they use”. Applying this definition to the 1,362 antisemitic incidents categorised by CST in 2017 reveals that 1,111 incidents, or 82 per cent of those incidents that CST was able to categorise, showed evidence of being mission incidents. This does not mean that in every case the offender embarked on a lengthy and planned course of action in order to find a Jewish person or building to attack, although this did happen in several cases. Rather, it relates to incident offenders who, in the moments preceding an antisemitic incident, take some action to make contact with a person, organisation or property they believe to be Jewish, in order to express their bigotry. Examples of mission incidents recorded in 2017 include: • Hertfordshire, July. A group of visibly Jewish boys were followed by a group of boys and girls who shouted repeatedly, “I’m Hitler. I’m gonna gas you.” • Birmingham, August. A man approached a synagogue and shouted towards the security guards, “Is this the Jews’ place? Is this the place where the Jews are? Give us Palestine back. You’ve stolen our Palestine.” • Suffolk, August. A visibly Jewish man was followed into a pub by a man who made a gun gesture and shouted at him, “I’m going to kill you F**King Jews. I know where you are.” The 1,111 mission incidents recorded by CST in 2017 can be further broken down by type of incident. The three examples given above are all what can be referred to as ‘mission-direct’, which involves direct, face-to-face contact between offender and victim. Other incidents, which do not involve this face-to-face contact, TYPOLOGY OF INCIDENTS: MISSION, OPPORTUNISTIC OR AGGRAVATED? Antisemitic incidents take place in a range of contexts and for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the offender’s actions are premeditated; sometimes they are spontaneous; and sometimes they arise out of day-to-day conflicts that initially have nothing to do with antisemitism. Using a typology set out in a study of antisemitic hate crimes recorded by the Metropolitan Police Service from 2001 to 2004,14 it is possible to separate these into ‘mission’ incidents, ‘opportunistic’ incidents, and ‘aggravated’ incidents. CST received sufficient information to categorise 1,362 of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2017 by one of these three types. 14. Paul Iganski, Vicky Keilinger & Susan Paterson, Hate Crimes against London’s Jews (London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research, 2005). Swastika keyed into a Jewish person’s car, parked near a Jewish school, Essex, November http://www.cst.org.uk 37Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk can be classified as ‘mission-indirect’, of which these are examples: • London, March. Handwritten posters were put up on a Jewish location by a man of south Asian appearance, that read, “Jews are scum, die.” • London, May. A Jewish man’s home was hit with pork and eggs. • London, May. A Jewish man was called a “Jewish B***ard” on the phone. • London, June. A Jewish charity was targeted with the tweet, “The Holocaust is a lie.” Other mission incidents do not target a specific victim, but rather take place in a public area – where the victims can be any members of the public who happen to pass by – or on social media where the offending comments are publicly visible to many people. Examples of these ‘mission-indiscriminate’ incidents include: • London, January. Posters have been found in multiple underground stations covered in swastikas and the wording, “All Jews are rubbish,” “God loves Hitler,” and “No Jews.” • Manchester, February. A Twitter user posted the message, “The truth about this myth (and lies) is gradually coming out. People are questioning it now. Good having it looked into. I am aware it never occurred and that six million Jews were never gassed.” • London, July. Graffiti was found on a bus stop that read, “Adolf Hitler was right.” • London, August. Two men were standing in the street holding a poster that read, “Dictators of today: Rothschild” and a book with a red Star of David titled, “Synagogues of Satan.” • London, August. A man posted the following message on Twitter: “Every F**king Jew that died in the #Holocaust was a blessing. Imagine how bad the world would be now if six million more of them had survived.” • London, September. A white man walked down a street in a neighbourhood with a large Jewish population and shouted, “All these crazy Jews, they are all F**king yucks. They run the world.” The final type of mission incident that made up the 1,111 mission incidents in 2017 was ‘mission-inadvertent’, whereby the offender’s expression of antisemitism is inadvertently overheard or seen by somebody who the offender did not intend to directly abuse. Examples of this from 2017 include: • London, April. In a café, a Jewish man overheard a group of people in front of him making comments about the Jewish community, such as “they are all brain washed. It’s a disgusting religion.” • Hertfordshire, June. A woman in a supermarket was overheard saying, “This place is full of Jewish people. Best leave before the Jewish people come. I can’t walk past this street because it’s full of Jewish people.” Brick with antisemitic graffiti thrown through the window of a Jewish home, London, January http://www.cst.org.uk 38 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk • London, September. A man in his local pub overheard a conversation between two men who denied the existence of gas chambers and the Holocaust. In contrast to these ‘mission’ incidents, 189 incidents, or 14 per cent of the 1,362 antisemitic incidents categorised in this way by CST in 2017, appeared to be ‘opportunistic’, whereby “the offender takes immediate advantage of an opportunity that presents itself to vent their antisemitism, rather than engineering the incident in a premeditated way” (Iganski, Keilinger & Paterson, 2005). Examples of opportunistic incidents from 2017 include: • London, April. A visibly Jewish man was walking when two white men on motorbikes shouted, “Hitler should have killed them.” • London, June. A visibly Jewish girl was standing on the pavement when a black man shouted from his car, “Jewish C**t.” • London, September. A Rabbi was walking in public when two men of Middle Eastern appearance shouted from their vehicle, “F**k off back to Israel, you Israeli C**t.” Sixty-two incidents, or five per cent of the 1,362 incidents CST was able to categorise by type, were what may be called ‘aggravated’ incidents, whereby “the offender and victim are caught up in a conflict situation that initially does not involve antisemitism. However, in the course of the conflict the offender’s bigotry emerges” (Iganski et al., 2005). Examples of aggravated incidents recorded by CST in 2017 include: • London, February. When a visibly Jewish man asked a man to move his vehicle that was blocking the way, the man shouted “G-d will kill you all.” • London, July. A black man had a problem with a transaction in a bank and started to shout and swear at staff and other customers, including a visibly Jewish boy who the man called a “F**king Jewish C**t.” • London, August. Following an argument between a woman and a white man over a parking space, the man shouted, “You f**king dirty Jew.” • London, October. A visibly Jewish man was at home when a white man came to his door and asked for a petition to be signed. Following the Jewish man apologising due to being in the middle of dinner, the white male looked at the mezuzah on the door and shouted that “You’re Jewish, so you’re greedy. The Jews are the greediest people in the world.” http://www.cst.org.uk 39Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk CST recorded 247 incidents during 2017 on social media, which represent 18 per cent of the overall total of 1,382 antisemitic incidents in 2017. This is a decrease from 2016 when CST recorded 289 antisemitic incidents on social media, representing 21 per cent of the overall total of antisemitic incidents in 2016. In 2015, CST recorded 185 antisemitic incidents on social media (19 per cent of the overall total of 959 antisemitic incidents recorded that year) and in 2014, CST recorded 235 antisemitic incidents on social media (20 per cent of that year’s overall total of 1,182 incidents). These numbers are only indicative, rather than being a guide to the actual number of antisemitic tweets, comments and posts, which is likely to be far higher. Nevertheless, CST still recorded more antisemitic incidents in public places in 2017 (356 incidents) than on social media, and more incidents involved verbal abuse (670 incidents) than digital abuse. The reason for the decline in the number of reported antisemitic incidents on social media may be because social media companies have improved the way they tackle hate speech online by removing content quickly and suspending accounts. There have also been a number of arrests and prosecutions that have helped to restrict the online activities of prolific antisemitic accounts. It may also be the result of CST’s ongoing efforts to identify where offenders and victims are based, in order to determine whether antisemitic content should be included in CST’s incident figures. If neither the offender nor the victim is based in the UK, CST will not include that incident in its statistics. Despite the apparent decline in the number of social media-based antisemitic incidents in 2017, antisemitism online is significantly under-reported, as is the case with all forms of antisemitism and hate crime in general. In addition, many users that post antisemitic tweets, which are then reported to CST, typically have a history of antisemitism on social media that far outweighs what is actually reported. Categories of antisemitic incidents on social media The majority of incidents on social media fall into the category of Abusive Behaviour. However, some users post threatening language indiscriminately or towards particular users, which would place those incidents in the category of Threats. ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA Social media users, protected by the anonymity of social media platforms, are able to directly threaten, abuse, harass and target Jews on social media, or post antisemitic content indiscriminately. http://www.cst.org.uk 40 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Types of antisemitic language online Just as with other forms of antisemitic behaviour, antisemitic incidents online include a variety of antisemitic language themes. These include: • Holocaust-related language such as Holocaust denial; • Comparisons between Nazis and Jews; • Conspiracy theories such as the notion that Jews run the world; • The Blood Libel, a medieval accusation that Jewish people kidnap and murder Christian children for Jewish practice and ritual; • Language including mentions of Zionism. Antisemitic private message sent directly to victim on social media, London, March http://www.cst.org.uk 41Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Football-related online incidents Social media has become a way to disseminate information and voice opinions, and this is often done during and following football matches. CST receives many social media incidents related to football, often targeting Tottenham Hotspur FC; a club associated with having a Jewish fan base. “Yid” is often part of the language included in these football related antisemitic online incidents. “Yid” has a history of use as an antisemitic insult and whilst some Tottenham fans refer to themselves as “yids,” it is often deliberately used as an insult by other football fans, and in antisemitic incidents that are unrelated to football. When the term is used alongside discourse about the Holocaust, for example, it is done to upset and degrade Jews. CST works closely with Kick It Out, football’s anti-discrimination, anti-racism and equality organisation, to combat antisemitism in football, including on social media. Antisemitic tweet directed at fans of Tottenham Hotspur, London, July Football-related antisemitic tweet, Liverpool, April http://www.cst.org.uk 42 Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Some of the numbers in the tables may differ from those previously published by CST, due to the late reporting of incidents to CST by incident victims and witnesses, or the recategorisation of some incidents due to new information. Antisemitic incident f igures by category, 2007–2017 Category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Extreme Violence 1 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 4 0 0 Assault 116 87 121 115 93 67 69 80 83 108 145 Damage and Desecration 65 76 89 83 64 53 49 81 65 81 92 Threats 24 28 45 32 30 39 38 91 79 101 95 Abusive Behaviour 336 317 611 391 413 477 374 899 717 1,039 1,038 Literature 19 37 62 25 7 12 5 30 12 17 12 TOTAL 561 546 931 646 609 650 535 1,182 960 1,346 1,382 Antisemitic incident f igures by month, 2007–2017 Month 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 January 33 44 289 30 45 39 33 53 109 80 155 February 40 52 114 48 54 52 38 43 88 66 134 March 36 40 73 54 49 75 23 39 83 79 109 April 59 39 52 61 45 48 44 58 75 100 142 May 36 62 52 50 58 44 48 51 60 135 117 June 42 40 49 82 43 54 37 66 86 129 124 July 60 52 46 63 43 59 59 317 87 129 112 August 49 20 40 47 37 42 48 229 72 123 109 September 81 47 87 83 73 60 54 105 76 118 109 October 55 58 45 52 52 60 67 87 61 111 104 November 37 45 54 48 53 83 40 78 79 131 89 December 33 47 30 28 57 34 44 56 84 145 78 TOTAL 561 546 931 646 609 650 535 1,182 960 1,346 1,382 ANNUAL ANTISEMITIC INCIDENT FIGURES http://www.cst.org.uk 43Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 www.cst.org.uk Antisemitic incident f igures, full breakdown, 2017 Category Month Extreme Violence Assault Damage and Desecration Threats Abusive Behaviour Literature MONTH TOTAL January 0 8 10 11 125 1 155 February 0 10 11 6 104 3 134 March 0 10 5 10 82 2 109 April 0 20 7 11 104 0 142 May 0 12 9 10 82 4 117 June 0 19 11 9 85 0 124 July 0 17 1 8 85 1 112 August 0 9 12 9 79 0 109 September 0 12 6 5 86 0 109 October 0 10 8 5 81 0 104 November 0 9 5 4 71 0 89 December 0 9 7 7 54 1 78 CATEGORY TOTAL 0 145 92 95 1,038 12 1,382 http://www.cst.org.uk Published by Community Security Trust. Registered charity in England and Wales (1042391) and Scotland (SC043612). TWITTER @CST_UK FACEBOOK Community Security Trust NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER (24-hour) 0800 032 3263 LONDON (Head Off ice) 020 8457 9999 MANCHESTER (Northern Regional Off ice) 0161 792 6666 WEBSITE www.cst.org.uk YOUTUBE CSTmedia CST’S SUPPORT SERVICES • Third party report to the Police • Keep victims updated with the Police investigations • Advise on legal rights • Facilitate the removal of graffiti • Liaise with other agencies, including housing authorities, universities, schools, the Charity Commission, and Ofsted • Support victims with Victim Impact Statements and Community Impact Statements • Support victims navigate the Criminal Justice System, including attending court and explaining legislation • Facilitate the suspension of online accounts and removal of hate speech • Provide security and safety planning • Facilitate Restorative Justice services (volunteer practitioner with Restore: London) • Provide emotional and practical support • Provide referrals and signposting • Support victims who suffer multiple forms of hate crime through multi-agency meeting • Advocacy help to London-based victims via CATCH (Community Alliance to Combat Hate); working with other community organisations across all the hate crime strands http://www.cst.org.uk