Search

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

The Glock and Stark theoretical framework on Christian beliefs and anti-Semitism implies that orthodox religious beliefs perpetuate secular anti-Semitism via particularism and religious anti-Semitism. Several critics have argued that the major weakness of this study is its failure to examine explanatory variables other than religious beliefs. This paper addresses these issues using data from a 1990-91 national Dutch survey. Although the results tend to support the assumption that nonreligious variables are far more important to the explanation of anti-Semitism and, too, that they attenuate the impact of Christian orthodoxy, the effects of the latter are by no means spurious. The most important conclusion of this paper is therefore that there still is, in Holland at least, a religious factor at work, albeit a modest one, generating anti-Semitic beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite their high degree of economic, educational, social, and political success, most American Jews in the early 2000s see anti-Semitism as a problem, and significant percentages see anti-Semitism as a very serious problem. How do we explain these perceptions of anti-Semitic threat given the comparative success of Jews in so many aspects of American life? This paper uses annual surveys from the National Survey of American Jews from 2000 through 2005 to address this question. Results indicate a multiplicity of factors affect perceptions of the seriousness of anti-Semitism. Those with a stronger sense of Jewish identity, lower income, and older people are more likely to see anti-Semitism as a very serious problem. Respondents also tend to see anti-Semitism as a more serious threat if they live in states with higher anti-Semitic incidents rates and when use of anti-Semitic terms in the news media increases. The conclusion puts the findings into perspective and suggests what we can learn by studying successful minority groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sombart's belief that double-entry bookkeeping was essential to the development of capitalism has been criticized by both accounting and economic historians. His substantive conclusions concerning double-entry bookkeeping have been rejected mainly because they result from his selective and self-serving rendition of history. Accounting historians have been preoccupied especially with denouncing his exaggerated appreciation of double-entry bookkeeping. They argue that he attributes far too much importance to its potentialities in preference to the more sober reality found in the historical record. This paper shows that in their denunciation of Sombart's conclusions and his faulty history, accounting history researchers have been seemingly oblivious to the way in which Sombart's anti-Semitism shaped his appreciation of double-entry bookkeeping. He accuses Jews, as exceptional exponents of rational profit calculation, of perpetrating the evils of capitalism. His views of double-entry bookkeeping and the history of economic systems betrayed a strong attachment to a romantic conception of German history which supported German anti-Semitism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Sombart's denunciation of Jewish influences extended from their business practices to observations of Jews that were consistently anti-Semitic and sympathetic to those of the Nazis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses different views on how anti-Semitism was used as a means of silencing the criticism of the international and Zionism policies of Israel against the Palestinians. It notes that the Jews relate every criticism of Israel to the anti-semitic conspiracy. It cites the book "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" which relates the anti-semitic consciousness to the calamity of the Jewish conspiracy. It adds that anti-semitism has been used as an excuse of the abuse and blind support to Israel's discrimination, racist and genocidal policies towards the Palestinians.

Drawing on religious coping theory, we examined whether the appraisal that Jews desecrate Christian values (the stressor) is linked to anti-Semitic attitudes (the response). Further, we considered whether religious ways of understanding and dealing with this stressor (religious coping) mitigate or exacerbate the ties between religious appraisals of Jews and anti-Semitic responses. College students completed measures of desecration, anti-Semitism, and religious ways of coping with appraisals of Jews as desecrators of Christianity. Greater desecration was associated with greater anti-Semitism, after controlling for demographic variables and dispositional measures (e.g., particularism, pluralism, church attendance, Christian orthodoxy, fundamentalism, and authoritarianism). Religious coping in ways that emphasized expressions of Christian love were associated with lower anti-Semitism; ways of coping that emphasized being punished by God and Jews as demonic were tied to greater anti-Semitism. Perceptions of Jews as desecrators were predicted by higher levels of authoritarianism and religious orthodoxy, less closeness to Jews, greater exposure to messages of desecration, and less exposure to messages that counter the perception of desecration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study used data from the 1990 General Social Survey to investigate the extent to which anti-Semitism had syndromic relationships with other authoritarianism-related attitudes among American White non-Jews. The correlational and factor analytic connections between four measures of anti-Semitism and the other attitudes were generally weak. There were no clear-cut differences between respondents high and low in education in the strength of these connections. Moreover, when the scores of respondents favorable and unfavorable to Jews were compared on a number of authoritarianism-related scales, the differences were usually small. The results suggest a diminished role for anti-Semitism in authoritarian attitude syndromes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]