Search

Official failure to safeguard minorities endangers the stability of liberal democracies by legitimizing the far-right's message that it is white Christian nationhood that is under attack and in need of law enforcement protection, not minorities or immigrants. This paper analyzes the link between institutional avoidance of hate crime law enforcement and the rise of alt-right fight-clubs including the Proud Boys and Rise Above Movement in the United States, and the National Socialist Underground in Germany. Despite the virulence and frequency of their violence, far-right hate groups are not currently the targets of federal suppression efforts in the United States. Until 2016 both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) monitored domestic extremism. It is no longer a primary focus of DHS, and the FBI now takes a reactive stance (Guardian, 2017). In Germany the head of the domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, was recently ousted in the face of his apparent unwillingness to investigate far-right extremists (NYT, October 1, 2018) and violent vigilante groups wearing a far-right mantle have radicalized anti-immigration mass movements toward violence (Koehler, 2016). This paper details the poor quality as well as haphazard recording and publication that characterize official data on hate crimes in both the United States and Europe. Some European states, such as France and Sweden, have since 2014 curtailed reporting protocols that led to publication of the count of incidents of far-right violence. Lack of attention to bias offenses desensitizes both perpetrators and the public to their exclusionary effect, creating a permissive environment in which white Christian nationalist extremists practice for mass casualty attacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from the Banting/Kymlicka Multiculturalism Policy Index project and from the European Social Survey are utilized in this assessment of the relationship between states' multicultural policy orientation and the backlash against it. The impact of specific areas of multicultural policy on those who identify as majority group members, ethnic minorities, and Muslims is examined. Focusing on fourteen European states, this paper provides a quantitative multivariate examination of the influence of state level multicultural policies on individuals' sense of being in a group that is discriminated against, as well as their feeling of safety, satisfaction with the national government and satisfaction with life. Background factors are controlled. For each of the three groups of respondents, the paper offers conclusions as to which areas of multicultural policy trigger the most adverse reactions. These data help to explain the backlash against multiculturalism and the shift in terminology in European states toward "mainstreaming" integration programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the European Social Survey (2010) for fourteen European states with scores on the Banting/Kymlicka Multiculturalism Policy Index (MPI), we operationalize well-being in terms of the Council of Europe's (2003) specification of the key areas of life (cf. Jackson and Doerschler, 2012) and focus on the dimensions of well-being involving equality, antidiscrimination and involvement in the political system. Greater well-being of minority populations is seen to result from reductions in disparities and polarizations between them and the majority population (European Parliament, 2007). We use scores for the eight dimensions of multicultural policy development (Banting/Kymlicka, 2012) to consider the effects that specific state policies have on targeted areas of minority well-being. We furthermore examine the possibility that the situation of majorities also improves when states turn toward multiculturalism because these policies foster economic growth and free up societal resources from security functions. Our analyses demonstrate the utility of the Banting/Kymlicka MPI Index of multiculturalism and its dimensions as quantitative tools enabling regular assessment of the effect of specific realms of policy change on important aspects of individual well-being. The results reported here suggest several areas of positive impact on minority well-being of the dimensions of multicultural policy, as well as the unease of those who do not identify themselves as ethnic minorities. This investigation provides a basis for evaluating social policies in terms of their impact on well-being and the reduction of disparities and polarizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data from the European Social Survey, 2002-2008, this paper examines the multiple discrimination experienced by Muslims in four European states: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. We compare these results to those from the Eurobarometer and EU-MIDIS. In its 2012 report, Amnesty International underscores the problem of discrimination against Muslims in Europe. "Multiple discrimination" is a special focus of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Discussion of the need for a "'Horizontal Directive'" (EU-MIDIS, 2010 (5): 5) and the "Genderace" project of the 7th Framework Programme both highlight the problem of multiple discrimination and the "intersectionality" (Genderace, 2010: 272) of axes of discrimination. The GendeRace report (2010: 32) uses the term intersectionality "to define a situation . . . in which several grounds of discrimination interact concurrently." This report follows the European Commission's 2007 study, in which the problem of multiple discrimination and the significance of intersectionality on the impact of discrimination are investigated. We examine over time discrimination faced by Muslims on the basis of their religion, race, nationality, ethnicity and gender, and discuss policy changes warranted by the data to enable European Muslims to fully utilize their talents and abilities to the benefit of Europe and its member-states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Intolerance (EUMC, 2006: 3) notes in its recent study, "European Muslims are a highly diverse mix . . ." The report (EUMC, 2006:4) warns that anti-terrorism security measures risk disrupting the integration of Muslim communities. Without reliable statistics the effects of these measures will not be known, and fears of Muslim radicalization can be exploited. Despite these acknowledged concerns, research on the situation of Muslims in western democracies relies on "mostly 'proxy' data, referring to nationality and ethnicity" (EUMC, 2006: 8; cf. OECD, 2007). The European Commission (2005: 3) has initiated an effort toward "the systematic production of harmonized Community statistics," admittedly confined for now to just such proxy data, but with a view to improving knowledge of immigrants' socioeconomic integration in the long term. Our paper examines data available on the integration of Muslims in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Britain—and, as a non-EU point of comparison, the United States. We consider the available data and their comparability, investigating not only the interests and misgivings of EU member states concerning the collection of these data in the purely domestic context, but also the influence of their European policy agendas on harmonization efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the steadiness of criminal justice systems and policies in the institutional, cultural and historical situations that occurred during the 1970-2001 period in Germany and France. During restrictive immigration period, minorities are more likely to be incarcerated than natives for in-significant offenses such as the illegal use of drugs or gambling. Thus there is a direct link between national policy initiatives relating to immigration and minority integration and the processing of a nation's permanent foreign work force by the criminal justice system.

There is no greater domestic socio-political struggle in Germany and France than what these nations have defined as ?the problem? of the integration of their Muslim populations into the society. This problem is exacerbated by the sluggish economic situation faced by twenty-first century post-industrial nations, especially those providing a social welfare cushion to the cyclical shocks of capitalism. The interaction of the visibility and separateness of Muslims and the difficulty of maintaining generous social welfare benefits in the face of reduced economic growth are driving current developments in law, politics and public policy in France and Germany. While the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, brought the U.S. Muslim population under greater scrutiny and increased hate crimes against them, Muslims are, by and large, somewhat more integrated into the general population in the United States than in either Germany or France. This paper seeks to explain why, and to document efforts within each of these societies to promote the integration of Muslims into the social system. After a brief introduction to the visibility of Muslims in each society, the paper examines the utility of world systems, metaconstitutional and conflict theories in explaining the interaction between the host society and its Muslim population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the sources of antiracist policy development in three western post-industrial societies. Sassen (1999) contends that economic integration has stimulated labor demands and migration patterns that have fostered the transnationalization of immigration policy and provided some protections to immigrants. Jacobson (1996) and Hollifield (1992) have demonstrated global convergence in human rights standards, but the mechanisms through which intra-national changes toward neoliberalism develop are not well understood. The analysis presented here suggests that the sources of antiracism in Germany, France and the United States include economic integration and supranational political organization in interaction with the social, political and historical supports for neoliberalism in each society. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that while greater tolerance is sought to create the social infrastructure necessary for continued economic productivity, specific developments toward delegitimizing racism in each nation reflect historical patterning involving both the immigrant sending and receiving countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]