Hearing: "Taking Stock: Combating Anti-Semitism in the OSCE Region?" - January 29, 2008
Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present an overview of recent trends in manifestations of anti-Semitism in the OSCE region and the status of certain initiatives and commitments designed to combat anti-Semitism on behalf of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
1. Background of the OSCE’s involvement in combating anti-Semitism
The OSCE reacted to the rise of anti-Semitism throughout the region with a meeting in Vienna in 2003, followed by a high-level conference in Berlin in 2004.
With the Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism in 2004 and the PC Decision No. 607 on Combating Anti-Semitism of April 2004, participating States recognized that anti-Semitism has assumed new forms and expressions and that it poses a threat to democracy, the values of civilization and to the overall security in the OSCE region and beyond. Participating States have repeatedly declared that they condemn without reservation all manifestations of anti-Semitism and all attacks motivated by anti-Semitism. They also declared that international or political developments in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East never justify anti-Semitism.
With a view to responding to and preventing anti-Semitism, a host of commitments was made in the area of data collection, legislation and education. The commitments made in 2004 also led to the establishment of the ODIHR’s Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Programme and to the creation of the new position of the Adviser on Anti-Semitism Issues in the summer 2004.
2. The ODIHR’s mandate
As an institution tasked to assist participating States with the implementation of commitments, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and its Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Programme are, inter alia, mandated to:
• Follow closely anti-Semitic incidents;
• Systematically collect and disseminate information (legislation, statistics) pertaining to anti-Semitic incidents and hate crimes;
• Systematically collect and disseminate information throughout the OSCE area on best practices for preventing and responding to anti-Semitism and, if requested, offer advice to participating States in their efforts to fight anti-Semitism;
• Support the ability of civil society and the development of partnerships to address racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, including anti-Semitism.
• Assist participating States upon their request in developing appropriate methodologies and capacities for collecting and maintaining reliable information and statistics about hate crimes and violent manifestations of intolerance and discrimination, with a view to helping them collect comparable data and statistics.
3. The Working Definition of Anti-Semitism
In order to report on anti-Semitism in all its different forms, it is important for participating States and the ODIHR to be able to identify it. In cooperation with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (the former EUMC) and international experts, the ODIHR has applied a working definition of anti-Semitism that has been used since late 2004 for all activities regarding anti-Semitism. This working definition was also cited in the Brussels Declaration of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in July 2006.
The definition can be found in the ODIHR’s publications. It is the basis of the ODIHR’s monitoring activities and hate crime report, which is available online but also in hard copy here today.
The working definition is as follows: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. In addition, such manifestations could also target the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collective.
Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong”. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion;
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions;
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust);
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel, taking into account the overall context, could include:
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour;
• Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
Anti-Semitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (e.g., denial of the Holocaust or distribution of anti-Semitic materials in some countries). Criminal acts are anti-Semitic when the target of an attack, whether people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship, and cemeteries – is selected because it is, or is perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Anti-Semitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.”
See for more information: http://tandis.odihr.pl/index.php?p=ki-as,intro
4. Collecting data and reporting on anti-Semitism in the OSCE region
Following it’s mandate, the ODIHR publishes an annual report on hate crimes in the OSCE region. This report gives an overview of incidents and state responses to racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic and other hate-motivated incidents in the OSCE region. The latest report covers the year 2006. The report for 2007 is currently being drafted.
Based on the available data, it can be said that the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the year 2006, when compared with 2005, increased by 20 per cent in France and by 31 per cent in the United Kingdom. Belgium, Canada, and the United Kingdom recorded their highest number of anti-Semitic incidents since 2001, 1996 and 1984 respectively. The number of politically motivated acts with an anti-Semitic background declined by 1.3 per cent in Germany, while the number of anti-Semitic incidents decreased by 12 per cent in the United States.
The report also highlights particularly worrisome trends and incidents in the region. These incidents involved physical and verbal assaults, mainly against visibly identifiable Jews or Jewish institutions, and attacks against Jewish property, including the vandalism on Jewish cemeteries and synagogues. The most prominent cases were the attack in the Moscow synagogue in January, the shooting at the Jewish Community Centre in Seattle in July, the threat to the synagogue in Prague in September and the kidnapping, torturing and murder of Ilam Halimi in France in January 2006.
An important and worrisome trend we have identified with respect to 2006 is that schools and students have become a prominent target and forum for manifestations of anti-Semitism:
• In 2006, Jewish schools were under threat and/or attacked in Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Hungary, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
• In addition to that, Jewish children were attacked either on their journeys to and from school or during the school day by schoolmates, as is reported from Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States of America.
• Anti-Semitism has also become a problem in schools where there are no Jewish students. References to both anti-Jewish stereotypes and Holocaust imagery are used to defame and humiliate others or as a means of provocation. In October 2006, a group of teenagers in Parey, Germany, forced a classmate to walk around the schoolyard wearing a placard hanging from his neck that read: “I’m the biggest pig in town, only with Jews do I hang around”.
• Another indicator is that “Jude” has become a very common and popular swear word among German youngsters, also being used extensively in sport, for example to slur the referee or other rival teams in sports, especially soccer.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/odihr/item_11_26296.html
What stands behind these attacks?
• Analysis and investigation of these incidents has shown that the projection of anti-Israel sentiment onto Jewish communities throughout Europe was a widespread pattern in 2006. This trend clearly intensified during the Israel-Hezbollah war and found its expression in both organised and spontaneous violence. Jews have collectively been blamed for the policies of the Israeli Government. In this context, direct reference to the Third Reich was often made, with Holocaust imagery being used as a rhetorical device to threaten Jews or to equate them with the perpetrators of the Holocaust.
• Another development is the politicization of Holocaust denial and the fact that the Shoah has become a theme in anti-Semitism. In 2006, attacks against the memory of the Holocaust were both rhetorical and physical, with memorial sites being desecrated and demolished in various participating States.
• Apart from these rather recent trends, adherence to (elements of) the traditional anti-Semitic worldview, traditional stereotypes and radical exclusionary nationalism have continued to motivate anti-Semitic incidents in the OSCE region.
The annual hate crime report stands at the centre of the Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Programme’s monitoring activities. The ODIHR draw on statistics and reports received from participating States, civil society and the media. However given the limited resources and vast number of taskings received by the ODIHR’s Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Programme, the report can only be as good as the information submitted by participating States and civil society.
Looking at the way in which participating States have submitted information to the ODIHR in this area, the following can be summarised:
• Since 2004:
o 51 participating States responded to the Note Verbales sent by the ODIHR;
o 46 participating States submitted information about legislation;
o 40 participating States submitted information about statistics;
o 38 participating States submitted information about practical initiatives;
o 49 participating States nominated national points of contact on hate crimes: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America.
o There are special envoys dealing with anti-Semitism issues and/or relations with the Jewish community and Jewish organization in the following participating States: Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, United States of America.
• The following 35 participating States provided feedback and additional information for the Annual Hate Crime Report for 2006:
o Albania, Andorra, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Holy See, Iceland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United States of America.
o 5 participating States informed the ODIHR that no hate crimes were recorded in their country: Albania, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Monaco and Turkey.
• In the Annual Report for 2006, the ODIHR was able to support its findings in the area of anti-Semitism with official and unofficial statistics for the following countries.
• Belgium (unofficial)
• Canada (unofficial)
• Czech Republic (official)
• France (official and unofficial)
• Germany (official)
• Italy (official)
• United Kingdom (unofficial)
• United States (unofficial). In some states, like the US, official data is collected, but the statistics are published after the release of the ODIHR report.
Other participating States provided information on individual cases or on the issue of anti-Semitism and Holocaust remembrance in general: Belgium, Lithuania, Russian Federation, Sweden, Ukraine.
In general, it can be said that the majority of the participating States provided hate-crime statistics without disaggregating the numbers according to the different bias categories. A significant number of states provided statistics in relation to racially motivated incidents only. Other states provided information and statistics on incidents motivated by xenophobia, ethnicity, or national origin. The difference in classification of bias categories is wide-ranging across OSCE participating States.
A number of states provided information and statistics on hate crimes resulting from religious bias. A wide divergence was seen among states in relation to the classification of this category. Whereas some states provided statistics, specifically in reference to anti-Semitic offences, other states capture anti-Semitic crimes within the category of religious bias.
With respect to data collection, the ODIHR has recommended the need for participating States to:
• Enact legislation requiring the relevant national criminal justice authorities to record and report on incidents motivated by hate or bias at the local and national level;
• Strengthen existing methodologies for identifying and monitoring hate crimes and incidents and for the collection of data on the types of crime or incident, perpetrators and victims, as well as the legal or other follow-up to the crime, including prosecution and length of sentences;
• Strengthen their efforts to establish specific mechanisms for registering, recording, and publicly reporting on hate crimes, including official databases and annual reports;
• If they have not done so already, nominate National Contact Points to gather and send to the ODIHR updated and regular information on hate crime statistics and legislation and relevant national initiatives to combat hate crime.
5. ODIHR Activities in the area of promoting Holocaust remembrance, education on the Holocaust and on anti-Semitism
Apart from data collection and legislation, another focus is on education.
With the Berlin Declaration, OSCE participating States committed to promote remembrance of and education about the tragedy of the Holocaust as well as educational programmes to combat anti-Semitism. The ODIHR first started activities in this field in 2004.
The ODIHR’s subsequent projects and initiatives were based on an assessment of the situation as summarised in the publication: “Education on the Holocaust and on Anti-Semitism in the OSCE region: An Overview and Analysis of Educational Approaches”. With this study, a country-by-country overview, the ODIHR evaluated existing initiatives in the OSCE participating States and identified gaps and areas where educational efforts about the Holocaust and about anti-Semitism need to be strengthened.
In this publication, we identify areas of concern and made recommendations.
Areas of concern:
? Lack of training for teachers and/or lack of adequate teaching materials;
? Time limitations within the curriculum;
? Inadequate training or educational strategies targeted at teaching about the Holocaust within multicultural learning environments;
? Difficulties in dealing with issues connected to the current political situation in the Middle East;
? The existence of prejudices and stereotypes among some educators;
? Disagreements over the rationale for teaching about the Holocaust and its relationship to other genocides.
? Holocaust education should be implemented in each participating State and needs to be strengthened in many;
? Contemporary anti-Semitism cannot be sufficiently addressed by Holocaust education, it should be acknowledged as an issue in and of itself;
? Teacher trainings should be implemented in OSCE participating States and supported by the Governments;
? Sufficient teaching materials should be developed;
? Cooperation within the region and between educators and exchange of experience should be encouraged.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/odihr/item_11_18712.html
Where Holocaust remembrance and education are still at the initial stages of development or do not exist at all, the establishment of a Holocaust Memorial Day seems to be an excellent opportunity to start activities in this field and to raise awareness.
• In many countries, a special day has been designated to that end – in some States, commemorations take place on two different days. In other countries, the victims of the Holocaust are included in a national commemoration day. Overall, commemorations take place in the 41 of the 56 participating States: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America.
• The 27th of January (the day of the liberation of Auschwitz Birkenau concentration camp by the Red Army in 1945) is commemorated by civil society and/or governments in 26 participating States: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
• 13 participating States commemorate the Holocaust on another day (e.g. Yom HaShoah): Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine and the United States of America.
• 6 participating States include the victims of the Holocaust in their national commemorations: Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Slovenia, Uzbekistan.
The ODIHR seeks to assist participating States in this respect and has therefore developed two tools – one for governments and another one for educators.
In close cooperation with the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research (ITF), the ODIHR has just published an overview of good practices of commemorating the Holocaust on the level of the Government. The document is entitled: “Holocaust Memorial Days in the OSCE Region – An Overview of Good Practices”. It provides a country-by-country overview of the official commemorative activities that take place in OSCE participating States on Holocaust remembrance days.
• Responses were received from: 36 OSCE participating States: Andorra, Azerbaijan, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/odihr
the ODIHR developed an online document entitled: “Preparing Holocaust Memorial Days – Suggestions for Educators”. This is a compilation of good practices from various OSCE participating States.
• Available in 13 languages: English, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Serbian and Spanish.
• 7 participating States have translated the document into their languages: Belgium, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, and Switzerland.
• 4 participating States use the guidelines officially: Italy, Croatia, Greece, Hungary.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/odihr or http://tnd.odihr.pl/?p=edu
Building on the excellent cooperation with Yad Vashem, the ODIHR was pleased to launch another document in December 2007: “Addressing anti-Semitism: Why and How? A Guide for Educators”. This easy-to-use tool is aimed at teachers and other educators who identified a need to address issues pertaining to contemporary anti-Semitism. The Guide provides educators with practical suggestions and background information on how to address issues ranging from Holocaust denial to expressions of anti-Zionism and the use of anti-Semitic symbols. It informs about different anti-Semitic stereotypes and makes suggestions on how to respond to them.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/odihr/item_11_20672.html
After having identified a lack of teaching tools specifically dealing with the issue of anti-Semitism, we engaged in a cooperation project to develop such a tool for participating States that goes one step further than the guidelines mentioned earlier. Together with the Anne Frank House and experts from ten participating States, we developed innovative and country-specific “Teaching materials on anti-Semitism”. The material consists of three major themes: The history of Jews and Anti-Semitism in Europe until 1945, Contemporary forms of anti-Semitism, and Anti-Semitism as one of many forms of discrimination. The materials have been adapted to each countries’ historical and social background.
• 10 Countries participating in the project: Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine.
• Implemented through teacher trainings in: Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands
• Implementation underway in: Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine.
• Adaptations underway in: Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/odihr/item_11_23875.html
6. The ODIHR’s capacity-building initiatives
Law Enforcement Officer Training Programme (LEOP)
The programme focuses of four main components: (1) Training for police officers on all aspects of hate crime: response, investigation, gathering intelligence, sharing information, and working with prosecutors; (2) developing strategies to combat hate crime that are based on proactive police leadership and community-based partnerships; (3) Developing an effective process for collecting and disseminating data on hate crime; and (4) Training prosecutors on how to use evidence to establish that a crime has been committed.
• Implementation completed in: Croatia, Hungary, Spain.
• Implementation underway in: Poland, Serbia, Ukraine.
• Countries who have expressed interest in implementing the LEOP : Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania.
• An expert seminar was held in the Russian Federation.
• A regional network that supports the efforts to address hate crimes as a trans-border was established and consists of 13 States. It will provide training and technical assistance and support exchange of information
Currently, the ODIHR is following up on ways in which it can assist these countries to implement the Programme.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/odihr/item_11_20673.html
Civil Society Capacity Building
A key priority of the ODIHR in the area of tolerance and non-discrimination is to provide civil society with tools for developing their capacity to prevent and to respond to violent manifestations of hate. The ODIHR's work here focuses on enhancing the capacity, skills and knowledge of civil society in areas such as monitoring, reporting, raising the awareness, providing assistance to victims, conducting advocacy work and building coalitions. We are currently in the process of finalizing a resource guide and implement a training programme for NGOs, followed by support to the design and implementation of small-scale projects.
The ODIHR also supports the development of existing civil society networks active throughout the OSCE region (for example: UNITED for intercultural action, International Network Against Cyber Hate) and encourages the creation of coalitions on issues related to its mandate. Since 2006, the ODIHR has been facilitating an ongoing dialogue among civil society representatives and with participating States. Ahead of major OSCE conferences on tolerance issues, it organizes civil society preparatory meetings. These meetings allow for discussion and exchange of best practices, but also support the development and consolidation of common recommendations to participating States, OSCE institutions and civil society to be presented at the related conference.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/odihr/20062.html and http://tandis.odihr.pl/index.php?p=cs,intro
7. OSCE Events in the area of combating anti-Semitism
June 2003: OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism, Vienna
Organized by the OSCE Chairmanship.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/item/9610.html
April 2004: OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism, Berlin
Hosted by the Government of Germany.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/item/9677.html
June 2004: OSCE Meeting on the Relationship Between Racist, Xenophobic and Anti-Semitic Propagana on the Internet and hate Crimes
Organized by the OSCE Chairmanship
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/item/9691.html
September 2004: OSCE Conference on Tolerance and the Fight Against Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination
Organized by the OSCE Chairmanship
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/item/9694.html
June 2005: OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism and Other Forms of Intolerance, Cordoba
Organized by the OSCE Chairmanship.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/item/9735.html
June 2006: OSCE Tolerance Implementation Meeting on Promoting Inter-Cultural, Inter-Religious and Inter-Ethnic Understanding, Almaty.
Organised by the ODIHR and the OSCE Chairmanship.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/conferences/tolerance_2006.html and http://tandis.odihr.pl/index.php?p=qu-ev,Almaty0606
October 2006: Tolerance Implementation Meeting: “Education to Promote Mutual Respect and Understanding and to Teach about the Holocaust”, Dubrovnik.
Organised by the ODIHR and the OSCE Chairmanship.
• 24 participating States registered for the Meeting
• 18 participating States sent their OSCE delegations or other diplomats
o 6 participating States sent experts: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia, Spain, United States of America.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/conferences/tolerance2_2006.html and http://tandis.odihr.pl/index.php?p=qu-ev,Dubrovnik1006
November 2006: Tolerance Implementation Meeting: “Addressing the Hate Crimes Data Deficit”, Vienna.
Organised by the ODIHR and the OSCE Chairmanship.
• 36 participating States were represented at the Meeting.
o 17 of the then 46 nominated National Points of Contact on Hate Crimes registered: Andorra, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Holy See, Kazakhstan, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, United States of America.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/item/21879.html and http://tandis.odihr.pl/index.php?p=qu-ev,Vienna1106
June 2007: High-Level Conference on Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding, Bucharest.
Organised by the OSCE Chairmanship.
See for more information: http://www.osce.org/conferences/tnd_2007.html
8. List of Publications
• ODIHR: Holocaust Memorial Days in the OSCE Region – An overview of good practices , http://www.osce.org/odihr/
• ODIHR/Anne Frank House: “Teaching Materials on Anti-Semitism” , http://www.osce.org/item/23875.html and http://www.osce.org/item/20672.html
• ODIHR/Yad Vashem: “Addressing Anti-Semitism: Why and How? – A Guide for Educators” , http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2007/12/28962_en.pdf
• ODIHR/Yad Vashem: “Preparing Holocaust Memorial Days – Suggestions for Educators” , available in Croatian, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, http://www.osce.org/odihr/20104.html
• ODIHR: Education on the Holocaust and on Anti-Semitism. An Overview and Analysis of Educational Approaches , available in English and Russian, http://www.osce.org/item/18712.html
• ODIHR: Why Should We Teach About the Holocaust? , available in Polish and English, http://tandis.odihr.pl/index.php?p=edu,hol
• ODIHR: Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: Incidents and Responses, Annual Report for 2006 , http://www.osce.org/item/26296.html
• ODIHR: Combating Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: An Overview of Statistics, Legislation, and National Initiatives , available in English and Russian, http://www.osce.org/item/16251.html
• ODIHR: Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching About Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools, prepared by the ODIHR Advisory Council of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief , http://www.osce.org/item/28314.html
• ODIHR: Guidelines for Review of Legislation Pertaining to Religion or Belief , available in English and Russian, http://www.osce.org/item/13600.html
• ODIHR: International Action against Racism, Xenophobia, Anti-Semitism and Intolerance in the OSCE Region, A comparative Study , http://www.osce.org/item/13601.html
In addition to these publications, the ODIHR systematically collects and disseminates information on legislation, statistics, best practices in the area of tolerance and non-discrimination and has made this information available to the public through the Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Information System: http://tandis.odihr.pl/
• This database offers access to
o Information received from OSCE participation States, non-governmental organizations and other organizations;
o Country pages providing access to country initiatives, legislation, national specialised bodies, statistics and other information;
o Thematic pages with information related to different key issues;
o International standards and instruments;
o Information from inter-governmental organizations, including country reports and annual reports.
9. Concluding Remarks
At the end of my statement, please allow me to briefly summarize our work for you.
Since the establishment of the portfolio on anti-Semitism issues in the ODIHR’s Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Programme
• there have been 9 major OSCE events or conferences on the issue of anti-Semitism, 3 of which were tolerance implementation meetings
• we have published 11 books and documents in the area of tolerance and non-discrimination
o 6 of these publications and our hate crime report focus on either Holocaust remembrance and/or anti-Semitism
o 6 of our overall publications have been translated into at least one other language.
• More than half of the participating States are involved in our educational, legislative assistance and capacity-building programmes.
We look forward to continuing and expanding this cooperation as we move towards implementing the Berlin Declaration.
Thank you very much for your attention.