















































1      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The European Union’s Response to Islamophobia: An Assessment 

 
Debanjali Ghosh1 

 University of Calgary 
  

 

 

 

Abstract 

The European Union (EU) is home to more than 25 million Muslims who form an integral part of 

its society. However, in the aftermath of 9/11 and several other terrorist attacks in Europe - most 

of which were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists - there has been evidence of strong anti-

Muslim sentiments among members of the larger community which is reflective of an underlying 

sense of Islamophobia. This has manifested itself in a variety of forms ranging from hostility 

against Islam to negative discrimination against Muslims and the use of violence to target them, 

thereby increasing the potential for greater societal cleavages and conflict. The EU as a 

supranational entity strives to create an inclusive and tolerant society and as such is committed to 

the ideals of human rights, equality and non-discrimination. Tackling the challenges posed by 

Islamophobia and its various manifestations then becomes a priority for this organisation. Against 

this backdrop, the objective of this research paper is to assess the EU’s response to Islamophobia 

by examining the initiatives undertaken by it, and focusing on their adoption by the Member States 

of France and Germany. 

 

  

 
1 Debanjali Ghosh is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary, Canada.  



2      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Introduction 

The EU recognizes the prevalence of racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance based on 

race, religion, ethnicity, descent, national origin, skin colour, sexual orientation and more. Home 

to more than 25 million Muslims who form an integral part of its society, this supranational entity 

has experienced the emergence of strong anti-Muslim prejudices in the post-9/11 era which is 

rooted in Islamophobia. This has been acknowledged in its contribution to the report of the Special 

Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief (2020)2 which highlights the persistence of anti-

Muslim hostility, discrimination and hate crimes against Muslims. The EU firmly rejects all such 

attitudes and behaviours as incompatible with its core principles that strive to create an inclusive 

and tolerant society and is committed to the ideals of human rights, equality and non-

discrimination. In this context, the objective of this research article is to unpack the EU’s response 

to Islamophobia in the first two decades of the 21st century.  

 

Review of Literature 

Pre-existing literature on Islamophobia refers to this phenomenon as “unfounded hostility towards 

Islam” (Runnymede Trust 1997, 4), which results in sentiments not only of dread or hatred of 

Islam as a religion but also a “fear or dislike of all or most Muslims” (Runnymede Trust 1997, 1). 

As Elahi and Khan (2017, 7) point out, this translates into hostility against Islam, negative 

discrimination against Muslims, and the exclusion of the community and its members from 

mainstream society and politics.  

 

It has been argued that Islamophobia is a new and more sophisticated form of biological and 

cultural racism (Marranci 2004; Rana 2007; Ciftci 2012; Lauwers 2019; Mirza 2019) with one 

reinforcing the other. Muslims are perceived to be a group of individuals who are visibly ‘different’ 

because of their innate and unchangeable biological and/or cultural characteristics which form the 

building blocks of their identity. Biologically, this difference is highlighted through physical 

features like skin colour and hair or bone structure (Marranci 2004, 106; Mirza 2019, 310) which 

creates the identity of Muslims as a ‘foreign’ race, different from the ‘native’ Europeans. 

Culturally, the ‘foreignness’ is marked by language, religion, ethnicity, customs and heritage 

(Lauwers 2019, 307-11; Mirza 2019, 310) with Islam’s violent, intolerant, theocratic, and sexist 

nature being deemed incompatible with Europe. The element of ‘foreignness’ in Islamophobia 

connects it to xenophobia i.e., the dislike and fear of strangers or foreigners who are perceived to 

be the “carriers of a different culture”, and have the potential to jeopardize the integration of the 

host society by altering the existing national cultural identity through their differing practices (De 

Master & Le Roy 2000, 425). This results in an ‘attitude of hostility’ against the non-natives of a 

given population (Yakushko 2018: 13). Practitioners of Islam in a non-Islam majority state are 

perceived as threatening foreigners irrespective of their race, nationality and legal status (Poole 

and Richardson 2010), implying that even Muslims who have been settled in Europe for 

generations are perceived to be outsiders.  

 

According to Taras (2008), xenophobic attitudes have further been strengthened by immigration 

and the projection of immigrants and asylum-seekers as potential sources of threat to the security 

 
2
The EU. 2020. EU Contribution to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief 2020. 

Accessed October 04, 2021. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/Islamophobia-

AntiMuslim/Regional%20Institutions/EuropeanUnion.pdf 

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/Islamophobia-AntiMuslim/Regional%20Institutions/EuropeanUnion.pdf
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/Islamophobia-AntiMuslim/Regional%20Institutions/EuropeanUnion.pdf


3      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

and wellbeing of the EU and the European society. It has been linked to the wider debates on socio-

economic insecurity, unemployment, and criminal activities such as drug trafficking, illegal trade, 

home-grown terrorism and the sexual exploitation of young Caucasian women (Lazaridis & Wadia 

2015, 4; Lazaridis & Tsagkroni 2015, 209). These concerns form the crux of the anti-immigrant 

rhetoric of right-wing political parties, which have, in the past few years enjoyed electoral 

successes both at the supranational level of the EU and the national level of the Member States, 

indicating proliferation of their views. While the number of far-right Members of the European 

Parliament (MEP) increased by 50 percent after the European parliamentary elections 2014 (Isal 

2014), at the national level, right-wing parties like the National Rally (France), the Freedom Party 

(Austria), the Sweden Democrats, the Northern League (Italy), the People’s Party (Denmark), 

Vlaams Belang (Belgium), and Pim Fortuyn List and the Freedom Party (the Netherlands) have 

experienced electoral gains (Leonard & Kaunert 2019). The construction of immigration as a 

national security threat in the post-9/11 era, especially by right-wing leaders like Viktor Orbán, 

the Prime Minister of Hungary who dubbed it as ‘Trojan wooden horse of terrorism’ (Wintour 

2017) has reinforced the ‘migration-security’ nexus.  

 

While Boswell (2007, 590) argues that the securitization of migration is largely absent in the 

context of Europe, others like Squire (2015), Karamanidou (2015), and Leonard and Kaunert 

(2019) strongly believe in the prevalence of securitization of migration. According to 

Karamanidou who traces the securitization of migration to the pre-9/11 era (2015, 40), the narrative 

has been institutionalized through the establishment of agencies like the FRONTEX, as well as 

through domestic laws and policies, all of which only heightens the notion of migrants as security 

threats (Karamanidou 2015, 37). Further, it has concretized the identities of natives and immigrants 

as mutually opposing and irreconcilable, and paved the way for exclusionary politics based on 

‘Otherness’ (Squire 2009; Lazaridis & Wadia 2015, 2). The use of surveillance techniques and 

policing focusing on immigrants and ethnic minorities makes the members of these communities 

more vulnerable to exploitation and has contributed towards higher levels of insecurity among 

them. This has especially been the case for individuals from Muslim majority countries or resident 

Muslim minority communities (Lazaridis & Wadia 2015: 2).  

 

The Twin Tower bombings coupled with subsequent terrorist attacks carried out by the Islamic 

fundamentalists in parts of the Western world has led to the conflation of Islam as a religion with 

international terrorism and created the perception of Muslims being the ‘enemy within’. A 2011 

report titled Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination which compared attitudes regarding Islam 

in eight countries found that in most of the Member States surveyed, Islam was perceived as a 

religion of intolerance (Zick et al. 2011, 13). A similar study also found that a staggering 83 percent 

of those surveyed in Spain, 70 percent in Germany and 50 percent in France believed Muslims to 

be religious fanatics (Ciftci 2012, 300). More recently, it has been found that within the EU 

Member States, an average of 37 percent of the population shares an unfavourable opinion of 

Muslims (The European Commission 2019b, 13). This negative perception of Islam has translated 

into social, economic and political practices (Lauwers 2019, 310) that are tantamount not only to 

marginalization, exclusion or negative discrimination but also result in aggression and violence 

against the group. Several studies published by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 

along with those like the European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey Reports (EU-

MIDIS and EU-MIDIS II of 2009 and 2017 respectively) have highlighted the nature and extent 

of Islamophobia.  

 



4      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Nevertheless, a critical survey of the available literature reveals that although there has been an in-

depth analysis of Islamophobia as a phenomenon, its connection to the wider debates on 

immigration and asylum, and its numerous manifestations, there appears to be little discussion on 

how the EU has responded to this challenge. The objective of this research is to make a contribution 

to the existing body of literature by providing an analysis of the EU’s efforts to combat this phobia.  

 

Methodology 

 

The study investigates two research questions: first, what initiatives have been taken by the EU to 

combat Islamophobia and second, are these effective ways of approaching the issue?  

 

To answer the first question, the study will look at the various initiatives undertaken by the EU to 

tackle Islamophobia. The EU does not define the term Islamophobia but instead chooses to address 

it collectively along with other forms of prejudices like Afrophobia, Colourism and others under 

the broader rubric of racism and xenophobia. Hence, the study looks at initiatives that directly 

relate to anti-Muslim prejudices and those that address categories like religion or belief, ethnicity 

and race. Based on Elahi and Khan’s (2017) markers of Islamophobia, the initiatives are broadly 

categorized into two, namely, those that address hostility and negative discrimination. ‘Exclusion 

from mainstream’ has been deliberately omitted since addressing hostility and negative 

discrimination automatically tackles the issue of marginalization. 

 

With the EU being a supranational entity, the effectiveness of the EU’s measures depends on its 

adoption by the Member States. Hence, in answering the second question, the study investigates 

the implementation of the EU’s initiatives by the Member States of France and Germany, which 

have the highest and second-highest Muslim population in Western Europe respectively. Both 

countries have also experienced an overall increase in hate crimes between 2016 and 2020 as is 

reflected in Figure 1 which has been compiled using data from the Office for Democratic 

Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in 

Europe (OSCE)3. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
3 Data used for France: OSCE-ODIHR Hate Crime Reporting “France” 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020;  

Data used for Germany: OSCE-ODIHR Hate Crime Reporting “Germany” 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. 



5      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Figure 1: Hate Crimes Recorded by the Police for France & Germany 

 
Compiled using data from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organization for 

Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) . 

 

 

The research covers a time period between 2000 and 2020. It focuses on sources of primary data, 

especially those published by the EU such as the Council Directives, reports of the European 

Commission and the European Parliament among others. For the Member States of France and 

Germany, greater reliance has been placed on the documents issued by governmental agencies 

such as the Premier Ministre in France and the Federal Anti-discrimination Agency (ADS) of 

Germany. Country reports published by the European Commission between 2016 and 2021 along 

with studies by the FRA also provide key insights. However, with regard to data on hate crimes, 

OSCE-ODIHR provides invaluable data. Finally, the study does refer to some secondary sources 

such as reports by Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch as well because of the detailed 

data collected by them.  

 

Measures to Combat Islamophobia in the EU 

 

The EU condemns any form of rejection, exclusion, and vilification of individuals or groups based 

on the perception of their being outsiders or foreigners, and inciting violence or hatred against 

them (Council of the European Union Framework Decision 2008, Article 1). At the supranational 

level, the EU has made sincere efforts to promote greater discussion on xenophobia and racism to 

create greater awareness and sensitivity about the issues. Indirectly, the EU’s measures to tackle 

racism and xenophobia address Islamophobia as well. Specific measures to deal with this form of 

prejudice has been rare. The following section highlights some of the important initiatives 

undertaken by the EU. 

 

 

 

 

1835
1505

1838
2640 2672

3598

7913 8113
8585

10,240

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Hate Crimes Recorded by the Police for France & Germany 

(2016-2020)

France Germany



6      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Hostility 

 

A prominent manifestation of Islamophobia is hostility directed against Muslim individuals, their 

property, and institutions of the Islamic faith. This is reflected through hate crimes which are 

criminal acts motivated by prejudices based on fundamental characteristics like religion, language 

or ethnicity that is shared by members of the target group (FRA 2018b, 16; Council of the European 

Union 2008, Article 4) and can incorporate within its ambit both physical violence and the threat 

thereof as well as hate speech. The EU has emphasized the prevention and countering of anti-

Muslim hatred by making it a priority funding area under the EU’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship 

Programme (The European Commission 2019b, 14). Moreover, its First Colloquium on 

Fundamental Rights on “Tolerance and Respect: Preventing and Combating Antisemitic and anti-

Muslim Hatred in Europe” (2015) resulted in the establishment of the EU High Level Group on 

Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Other Forms of Intolerance, which now plays a pivotal role 

in combating Islamophobia. 

 

Despite lacking a uniform definition of hate crimes, the EU has strived to provide a common 

response to it through the Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia 

(2008/913/JHA) which provides for the criminalization of specific forms and expressions of 

racism and xenophobia. It necessitates the Member States to criminalize the disquisition and 

dissemination of print or electronic materials that encourage hatred and incites violence against 

groups based on their fundamental characteristics like race or religion, skin colour, ethnicity, 

descent and so on, both physically as well as in online spaces (The European Commission 2019b, 

3).  

 

The EU’s concern with hate crimes has also paved the way for stronger cyber legislations. Muslims 

have been identified as the most vulnerable group (The European Commission 2019b, 13) with 

the maximum number of flagged contents online being related to anti-Muslim hatred (FRA 2017b, 

82). The “Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online” (2016) has resulted in 

voluntary agreements between the European Commission and organizations like Facebook, 

Twitter, Microsoft, YouTube, and several others, enabling these organizations to review and 

remove illicit content within 24 hours of notification (The European Commission 2016a). This has 

been complemented by the Commission’s “Tackling Illegal Content Online: Towards an Enhanced 

Responsibility of Online Platforms”, which along with promoting good practices to deter, detect 

and remove damaging content also lays down guidelines to fight against hate speech on the internet 

with the cooperation of the Member States and other relevant stakeholders (European Commission, 

2017c).  

 

Comprehending the nature and extent of hate crimes depends upon the availability of related data 

and as such the European Commission works closely with the FRA to collect and analyse data on 

discrimination, racism, intolerance and hate crimes. The EU’s efforts on data collection have also 

been reflected through the Subgroup on Methodologies of the EU High Level Group on Combating 

Racism, Xenophobia and Other Forms of Intolerance which not only brings together all the 

Member States for recording hate crime data but also involves regional organizations like the 

ODIHR, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) as well as civil society 

organizations. The High Level Group’s elaborate guideline titled “Improving the Recording of 

Hate Crime by Law Enforcement Authorities Key Guiding Principles” covers five key areas 

ranging from the very necessity to collect data on hate crimes to flagging such crimes as soon as 



7      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

they are reported, and developing indicators to identify ‘motivation bias’ while investigating them 

(The European Commission 2017b, 6-10).  

 

The EU has also identified the importance of providing support to victims of hate crimes through 

the Victims’ Rights Directive, which establishes a minimum standard of rights for the victims and 

is responsive to their needs for protection and support. Article 22 of the Directive acknowledges 

that victims of such prejudice based crimes, especially children and the disabled, are often 

vulnerable to repeated attacks, intimidation and retaliation, which necessitates individual 

assessments based on the victim’s personal characteristics, the nature and type of the crime as well 

as the circumstances of it (The EU 2012, Victims’ Rights Directive 2012/29/EU).  

 

While the victims of hate crimes often choose not to report them, national law-enforcement 

authorities also fail to identify them largely due to a lack of understanding or awareness on their 

part. The EU has undertaken sincere efforts to build trust and confidence among the victims by 

creating measures that can help strengthen the recording of such crimes. The EU Agency for Law 

Enforcement Training has introduced a variety of both offline and online training courses that 

strike a balance between policing and the protection of fundamental rights to create greater 

sensitivity among rank and file. The ten key guiding principles introduced by the European 

Commission play an important role in identifying targets and building synergies, ensuring positive 

impact and sustainability of the strategy in the long run, and monitoring and appraising the 

outcomes (The European Commission 2017a). Moreover, engaging with civil society 

organizations also boosts the capacity building of law enforcement agencies. Since these 

organizations actively engage with victims of hate crimes by providing support, they are not only 

able to offer insight into the local patterns of such crimes but also encourage the victims to report 

the same. The European Commission itself has introduced training on anti-Muslim hostility to 

educate its staff members regarding the stereotyping of Islam and Muslims to create greater 

awareness (The European Commission 2019b, 14). Some progress was also made with the creation 

of the post of a coordinator to deal with anti-Muslim hatred in 2015 and the appointment of Afzal 

Khan as special representative for Muslim communities for the Socialists and Democrats Group 

in the European Parliament. 

 

Hostility against Muslims often translates into negative discrimination against individuals and 

groups in spheres such as housing and the labour market which has been taken up by the following 

section. 

 

Negative discrimination 

 

The EU has two main anti-discrimination laws which indirectly address Islamophobia, namely, 

the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC). 

The Racial Equality Directive established a framework to ensure that individuals are treated 

equally irrespective of their race and ethnicity in both public and private sectors in areas related to 

employment, social security and protection, healthcare, education, and access to goods and 

services (Council Directive 2000/43/EC). The Employment Equality Directive also establishes a 

guideline for equal treatment, but specifically in the area of employment and occupation, and 

prohibits discrimination by employers directly, indirectly or through harassment on the grounds of 

religion4 (Council Directive 2000/78/EC). It further encourages social dialogue to promote equal 

 
4 When it is irrelevant to the occupation. 



8      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

treatment at the workplace and emphasizes equal access to employment as a crucial means to social 

integration (Council Directive 2000/78/EC). 

 

The EU’s equality directives have encouraged the establishment of equality bodies like the Bodies 

for the Promotion of Equal Treatment by the Member States (The European Commission 2019b, 

3). The European Commission has also adopted the “Recommendation on Standards for Equality 

Bodies” to improve their performance in addressing discrimination on the grounds of religion, 

ethnicity, skin colour and more, especially in the field of employment. Focus has also been directed 

to promoting workplace diversity and creating more inclusive atmospheres by encouraging 

employers to promote diversity and equal opportunities in the workplace. The EU Platform too 

has played a pivotal role in supporting the sharing of good practices and guidelines to create more 

inclusive workplaces that respect socio-cultural diversity (The European Commission 2019b, 6).  

 

To summarise, the EU’s response to Islamophobia is a combination of general measures 

addressing xenophobia and racism coupled with certain Islamophobia-specific measures, though 

the former by far outnumber the latter. While the variety and scale of measures have undoubtedly 

been commendable, the effectiveness of these initiatives to counter Islamophobia remains to be 

determined. 

 

Effectiveness of the EU’s Measures 

 

To gauge the effectiveness of the EU’s measures, this study first focuses on their implementation 

by the Member States of France and Germany and complements the discussion through a critical 

assessment of the initiatives at the supranational and national levels. 

 

Adoption of the EU’s Initiatives by France & Germany 

 

Both France and Germany have undertaken multiple measures to ensure the implementation of the 

EU’s guidelines. They have ensured the criminalization of hate crimes through their respective 

national laws. Incitement to either discrimination or hate and harm of individuals or groups 

because of their ethno-religious background and race was already prohibited under the French Law 

on the Freedom of the Press (1881)5. France’s Criminal Code further charges act motivated by 

ethnicity, race and religion as felonies and misdemeanours6. The country has also encouraged 

reforms in the criminal justice system which would enable faster prosecution of hate crime cases 

as was highlighted by 2015 report of the Délégation Interministérielle à la Lutte Contre le 

Racisme, l'Antisémitisme (DILCRA). The 2017 amendment further simplified hate crime laws and 

strengthened the penalty provisions related to it (OSCE-ODIHR 2017a). In a first, the vulnerability 

of Muslims as targets of such crimes was recognized and initiatives have been undertaken to 

protect mosques, Muslim schools and meeting places (DILCRA 2015). Unlike France, hate crimes 

were not treated as a separate category in Germany prior to 2017. Instead, they were perceived to 

be ‘politically motivated crimes’ which included those driven by race, religion and belief, ethnicity 

and origin. After 2017, hate crimes have come to be tracked separately. The country’s efforts to 

combat these is reflected in the Federal Government Strategy to Prevent Extremism and Promote 

Democracy (The Federal Government 2016), the National Action Plan to Fight Racism (The 

 
5 Government of France. N.d. “Everything you need to know about freedom of expression in France”. Accessed March 

03, 2022. https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/everything-you-need-to-know-about-freedom-of-expression-in-france  
6 It provides an exhaustive list of such behaviours which includes acts ranging from murder and physical assault to 

any form of sexual aggression, the desecration of corpses and graves, and property damage (Criminal Code of France). 

https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/everything-you-need-to-know-about-freedom-of-expression-in-france


9      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Federal Government 2017) and the country’s efforts to improve the recording and prosecution of 

hate crimes. For example, the Federal Ministry of Justice in 2020 funded a project of the German 

Institute for Human Rights to foster improvements in hate crime prosecution and pave the way for 

cooperation between the relevant stakeholders such as the police and public prosecutor’s office 

(OSCE 2020b). Further, both countries have implemented the Counter-Islamophobia Kit (CIK)7 

which analyses prevalent anti-Muslim narratives and attempts to create a directory of the best 

practices in countering Islamophobia across the EU that would also act as a guideline for policy-

makers. 

 

Following the EU, France and Germany have undertaken significant steps to combat hate speeches. 

France’s National Plan Against Racism and Anti-Semitism 2018-20208 (DILCRAH n.d., 5) 

addresses offline as well as internet-based hatred while the Avia Law (2020) strives to ensure the 

quick removal of hate-related content from online platforms. Similarly, Germany’s Network 

Enforcement Act (NetzDG) 2018 strives to combat online hate speeches and provides for the 

reporting of specific types of “criminal content” to the police (Lomas 2020). It mandates social 

media operators with over 2 million users to remove “clearly illegal” content within 24 hours of 

receiving a complaint and “other illegal content” within 7 days, with the failure to comply resulting 

in hefty fines of as much as €50M (FRA 2019, 96; Lomas 2020). In a major development, hate-

motivated insults too have come to be categorized as a criminal offence to protect vulnerable 

groups like Muslims (AP News 2021, German government makes hate-motivated insults a crime).  

 

Recognizing the importance of collecting data on hate crimes, both countries have put in place 

mechanisms for the collection of such data which includes the recording of anti-Muslim hate 

crimes specifically. Regular surveys have been conducted by the French authorities to gather and 

publish data on hate crimes (FRA 2017b, 79-80). The country has also proposed an annual survey 

of victims to gain better knowledge of racism (DILCRA 2015). Interestingly, there has been an 

emphasis on reforming the methodology of data collection to ensure the inter-connectedness 

between databases (Human Rights First 2016, 13). In Germany too, procedures for recording hate 

crime data by the police has become more detailed since 2017.  

 

These two Member States have also transposed the Victim’s Rights Directive into their respective 

national laws. Both France and Germany provide for the protection of victims in general and during 

criminal investigations under Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Directive (European Parliament 2017, 

61). In France, victims are given a special status (European Parliament 2017, 66) and supported 

through organizations such as the National Victim Support and Mediation Institute (INAVEM), 

which strives to promote and coordinate victim support missions, and encourages awareness of 

victims’ rights (European Parliament 2017, 54). The German government has also sought to 

strengthen provisions for the protection and support of hate crime victims as a part of its project 

on combating racism to which it has committed €1B between 2021-2024 (European Commission 

2021b, 7). 

 

They have also taken note of the EU’s efforts to sensitize law enforcement agencies regarding hate 

crimes. In France, the prosecution system has been made more victim-centric through efforts to 

develop a network of magistrates and investigators specializing in hate crimes by the Ministries of 

Justice and the Interior (OSCE-ODIHR 2018a). The Ministry of the Interior’s “national office to 

 
7 University of Leeds. N.d. Counter-Islamophobia Kit. Accessed December 4, 2020. https://cik.leeds.ac.uk/  
8Délégation Interministérielle à la Lutte Contre le Racisme, l'Antisémitisme et la Haine anti-LGBT (DILCRAH). 

https://cik.leeds.ac.uk/


10      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

combat hatred” aims to coordinate intelligence gathering and investigations related to anti-Muslim 

hate crimes among others (FRA 2020b, 66). Similar attempts have also been undertaken in 

Germany which has sought to sensitize its law-enforcement agencies to improve police response 

and equip the judicial system to better deal with such crimes. The German Federal Ministry of the 

Interior (BMI) along with the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony (KFN) and the 

German Police University (DHPol) have developed a study on the “Best practices of co-operation 

between safety authorities and civil society concerning the avoidance of crime guided by 

prejudices” (OSCE-ODIHR 2017b) to train the police in good international practices and to 

improve collaboration with civil society organizations.  

 

Both have also been mindful of the EU’s anti-discrimination Directives. While France has 

transposed them through multiple legislations like the Law 2001-1066, Law 2004-1486 and Law 

2008-496 (European Commission 2021a, 6), Germany has incorporated the EU’s Directives into 

labour, civil and public law through the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) of 2006. France’s 

Law 2001-1066 strengthened the prohibition of distinction among people based on race or religion 

and guarantees respect for all beliefs as highlighted in the French Constitution of 1958 (European 

Commission 2016b, 33). It amended both the Penal and the Labour Codes by extending and 

elaborating the grounds prohibiting discrimination outlined by Article 19 of the Treaty on the 

Functioning of the European Union (European Commission France 2016, 34). Together, the three 

laws have come to incorporate employment-related-discrimination as well (European Commission 

2021a, 6) which has been complemented by Article 158 of the Law on Social Modernisation (2002-

73) to cover discrimination in the sphere of housing (European Commission France 2016, 32) and 

Law No. 2008-496 which focuses on the protection of race and ethnic origin in all other areas 

covered by the Directive 2000/43/EC, such as access to supply of goods and services, healthcare 

and education, social protection and more (European Commission 2021a, 14). The German AGG 

(2006) provides the most extensive protection for discrimination based on race and ethnic origin 

(Federal Anti-discrimination Agency n.d.) although, it also prohibits discrimination based on 

religion or belief and more. The Act has brought about amendments in Germany’s pre-existing 

legislations and covers a variety of areas from employment and education to the provision of goods 

and services, and housing (Federal Ministry of Justice General Act on Equal Treatment, 2006). In 

line with the EU’s efforts, both French and German laws provide a broader understanding of 

discrimination which includes direct and indirect discrimination as well as harassment and the 

instruction to discriminate (European Commission 2021a, 6-7).  

 

Similarly, the countries have also established equality bodies to tackle all discrimination related 

cases. France’s Organic Law No. 2011-333 created a constitutional equality body (European 

Commission France 2016, 32) which consolidated the French Ombudsman, the Children’s 

Defender, the National Commission on Security Ethics and the former High Authority for the Fight 

against Discrimination and for Equality (European Commission 2021a, 10). In Germany, the AGG 

2006 paved the way for the establishment of the Federal Anti-discrimination Agency that not only 

helps people protect their rights against negative discrimination but also provides related 

information and legal aid, and works closely with other government organizations such as the 

Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (European Commission 2021b, 

13). Additionally, Germany has other specialized equality bodies as well, such as the Federal 

Government Commissioners for Migration, Refugees and Integration, and for Matters Related to 

Ethnic German Resettlers as well as National Minorities (European Commission 2021b, 13). 

 



11      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

The above discussion reveals that both France and Germany have followed the EU’s initiatives 

and created elaborate provisions at the national level to enforce them. The final section of this 

research critically assesses the developments and caveats in the EU’s response to Islamophobia.  

 

An Assessment  

 

A thorough examination of the EU’s initiatives and their adoption by the Member State yields a 

mixed report card marked by both positive developments, and challenges hampering further 

progress.  

 

In accordance with the EU, both France and Germany have made alterations to their existing 

legislative frameworks to criminalize incitement of hatred or discrimination against any 

community based on religion, ethnicity, race or nationality. The EU has been able to make a 

significant impact on addressing hate speech online. Its initiatives have paved the way for the swift 

response to racist and xenophobic comments in cyberspace. According to the Fourth Monitoring 

Exercise of the Code, companies were estimated to assess 89 percent (The European Commission 

2019a, 1) of the flagged content within 24 hours and removed nearly 72 percent (2019a, 1) of what 

was deemed to be hate speech. The results of the Sixth Evaluation further reveal that 90.4 percent 

and 81 percent of the flagged content was reviewed within 24 hours in 2020 and 2021 respectively 

(European Commission 2021c). The EU’s success in this sphere has also encouraged other 

platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, Dailymotion, TikTok and LinkedIn to participate in the 

Code of Conduct as well, which together cover over 85 percent of Europe’s social media (The 

European Commission 2019b, 6; European Commission 2021c). Based on data from the Sixth 

Evaluation, the performance of three such platforms have been highlighted in Figure 2. The 

removal of hate speech increased from 28 percent to 59 percent in the Second Evaluation of the 

Code of Conduct (FRA 2018a, 79) in some EU Member States in over six months and further 

increased to 72 percent in 2019 (The EU 2019, 2). France and Germany have also experienced 

positive developments in this regard, which is reflected in Figure 3, compiled using data from the 

Sixth Monitoring Exercise. Facebook has been known to delete hundreds of hate-motivated 

contents ranging from insults and incitement to hatred or violence (FRA 2019, 96) in both 

countries. Furthermore, France has also attempted to make hate crime reporting easier by creating 

a user-friendly interface on the Platform for Receiving, Processing, and Referring Notifications of 

Unlawful Content (PHAROS). It was estimated that the number of cases reported on PHAROS 

has increased by 73 percent between 2014 and 2016 (Human Rights First 2016, 13).  

  

 



12      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Figure 2: Rate of Removals for TikTok, Twitter, and Instagram

 
Compiled based on data from the Sixth Evaluation. 

 

 

Figure 3: Rate of Removals for France and Germany 

Compiled using data from the Sixth Monitoring Exercise 

 

However, in spite of the transposition of the EU’s directives, their effectiveness appears to be 

limited. In France, the very grounds of discrimination like race, ethnicity and religion or beliefs 

remain undefined as these concepts are not recognized as legal categories (European Commission 

2016b, 34-35). Moreover, Law 2001-1066 is directed solely towards the protection of individuals, 

their beliefs and allegiances and does not extend to groups. Consequently, religious minorities like 

Muslims are not recognized as a legal category because of which minority rights granted to 

individuals by virtue of their membership of a minority ethno-religious or cultural group remain 

jeopardized (European Commission 2021a, 13). In Germany, stronger protection against 

discrimination based on ethnicity indicates its precedence over other grounds. Additionally, the 

exclusion of nationality as a basis for discrimination (Federal Anti-discrimination Agency n.d.) 

because of the non-recognition of the ‘existence of different human races’ by the state also leads 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Instagram

Twitter

TikTok

Rate of Removals for TikTok, Twitter, and Instagram (%)

2020

2021

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1st Monitoring

(Dec. 2016)

2nd Monitoring

(May 2017)

3rd Monitoring

(Dec. 2017)

4th Monitoring

(Dec. 2018)

5th Monitoring

(Dec. 2019)

6th Monitoring

(October 2021)

Rate of Removals for France and Germany (%)

France Germany



13      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

to a narrower interpretation. Nationality often becomes linked to ethnicity and religion, resulting 

in multiple discrimination regarding which neither the EU nor France and Germany have elaborate 

mechanisms. Additionally, the AGG has been found to be inadequate in protecting Muslims in the 

fields of education and labour. The 2013 report of the German Federal Anti-discrimination Agency 

highlighted that approximately 700,000 Muslim students experienced disadvantages due to their 

faith (Arani 2015, 22). In the sphere of employment, data reveals that prospective candidates who 

identify with their faith on their CV receive fewer calls for job interviews as compared to equally 

qualified candidates who do not (The European Commission 2019b, 13). According to the FRA 

(2017), almost one in three Muslims experienced such discrimination. Twenty-two percent of the 

EU population feel negatively about having a Muslim neighbour while roughly three in ten persons 

were found to be uncomfortable having a Muslim colleague (FRA 2020a). In fact, 21 percent of 

the respondents were not even open to employing Muslim women because of their headscarves 

(FRA 2020a). These findings are substantiated by other studies as well. Research published in 

2015 confirms that employers are much less likely to contact Muslim job applicants than their 

Jewish and Catholic counterparts (Abdelkader 2017, 46). While job applicants with authentic 

German surnames received interview requests from 18 percent (Abdelkader 2017, 55) of the 

companies, only three percent (2017, 55) of the businesses extended similar invitations to 

applicants from the Muslim community. It has been reported that discrimination on race and 

ethnicity while accessing employment is high in the case of France as well (FRA 2021, 99). The 

Special Eurobarometer 393 on Discrimination in the EU (2012) found that discrimination based 

on religion or beliefs were 66 percent in France, which was the highest figure recorded by the 

survey (Howard 2016). Both French and German Muslims have found it difficult to procure long-

term stable employment (2017, 55)9 and grapple with issues in the labour market such as observing 

Friday congregational prayer or wearing the hijab.  

 

In reference to the Victims’ Rights Directive, both countries already had comprehensive victim 

support services in place well before its transposition. Even so, in France, the directive led to a 

greater focus on the individual assessment of victims and the growth of integrated referral systems 

while in Germany, it made the criminal justice system more victim-oriented (European Parliament 

2017, 66-68). Noticeably, Germany has not adopted the directive in its entirety. It has implemented 

a few provisions like those related to the right to interpretation and translation, and legal aid 

(European Parliament 2017, 52 & 57) while most of the other measures remain only partially 

transposed or completely absent. Like France, it has not adopted the definition of ‘victim’ as per 

the directive (European Parliament 2017, 50-51) but unlike France, which has provided for the 

right to information and support by victims, the right to access victim support services through 

referral mechanisms, guarantees on the return of victims’ property and measures to promote 

restorative justice (European Parliament 2017), it was found to be lacking in these areas. Germany 

argues that the right to access victim support services were already in place before the directive, 

but the European Parliament (2017, 54) has been unable to locate specific legal statutes, ordinances 

or acts dealing with the same. The country was also found to lack measures related to the 

accompaniment by a relative, the right to be heard, rights in the event of a decision not to prosecute, 

and cooperation with the other Member States to coordinate actions on victims’ rights (European 

Parliament 2017 54-59 & 64). Other provisions, like the victims’ rights to receive information 

about their case has only partially been transposed (European Parliament 2017, 54). Moreover, 

though it penalizes hate crimes more severely, there exist no special provisions for the victims and 

 
9As compared to the German workforce, the number of marginally employed Muslim workers having very low income 

was estimated to be around 11 percent higher in Germany (Arani 2015, 31). 



14      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

generalized support was found to be less developed than specialized support (European Parliament 

2017, 66). 

 

On the sensitization of law enforcement, no information could be found on France but for 

Germany, victims and their support organizations have expressed concerns regarding the role of 

the German police. It was reported that police interrogation was directed more towards the victims 

rather than the accused. Allegedly, the police failed to identify hate crimes, discouraged victims 

from lodging formal complaints and neglected to start investigations (Human Rights Watch 2011, 

3 & 16). Such experiences lead to an erosion of trust in the system and impede the ability to provide 

victim support. It also results in a devastating number of unreported hate crimes. According to EU-

MIDIS, 82 percent (FRA 2009, 13) of the hate-motivated crimes remained unreported in the year 

preceding the survey. In the EU-MIDIS II survey, nearly 64 percent (FRA 2017a) of the 

participants did not report their most recent experience of discrimination. In both cases, a lack of 

trust was identified as the principal cause coupled with a pervasive belief that reporting such crimes 

would not lead to any changes in their circumstances and might even lead to further harassment 

by the authorities. Redressal against negative discrimination also appears to suffer from similar 

challenges. The rate of reporting negative discrimination has been low. The FRA (2017) found 

that only around 12% of Muslims report incidents of discrimination across the EU. Another study 

reveals that of the 79 percent Muslim respondents who did not report their discrimination 

experience, 59 percent believed it would not lead to positive changes while 38 percent thought of 

it as a ‘normal’ incident and 33 percent were unaware of the procedures to report it (Arani 2015, 

19). For Muslim women, reporting anti-Muslim hatred and discrimination becomes more 

challenging because of the intersectional discrimination faced by them. Indeed, equality bodies 

have faltered either due to the lack of staff and funding or because of the absence of a political will 

and concerns have been raised about their independence in several Member States including 

Germany (FRA 2021, 104) where the AGG has failed to establish easily accessible institutions to 

handle complaints (Arani 2015, 34). 

 

Hence, while several initiatives to address xenophobia and racism have been undertaken, there is 

a considerable lack of awareness and knowledge about such measures at the grassroots level. The 

EU-MIDIS survey revealed that 39 percent (FRA 2009, 10) respondents were unaware of the 

existence of anti-discrimination legislation in the employment sphere while 44 percent (2009, 10-

11) of the respondents were unaware of anti-discriminatory legislation in the sphere of housing. 

There was also little to no awareness about the availability of support systems to victims of hate 

crimes. Only 16 percent (2009, 13) of the respondents were aware of organizations that supported 

hate crime victims. In EU-MIDIS II, 71 percent of the respondents (FRA 2017a, 15) had no 

knowledge of victim support systems while 62 percent (2017a, 15) remained unaware of the 

existence of equality bodies. This highlights the gap between policy-making and policy 

implementation which coupled with the lack of detailed data collection on hate crimes and 

discrimination in various spheres makes it difficult to assess the actual impact of these measures. 

 

The European Commission monitors the implementation of the EU’s directives and can initiate 

infringement procedures in the event of non-compliance. However, it has largely been unable to 

tackle the non-conformation or half-hearted conformation by the Member States. Although the EU 

has undertaken several measures and the Commission has pushed for action, there appears to be a 

lack of political will among the EU countries to comply. This becomes explicit in the failure of the 

EU to establish a uniform understanding of hate crimes which would pave the way for a common 

criminal-law approach by which the same hate crime would be tagged as a punishable offence in 



15      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

all the Member States (Council of the European Union 2008). The Commission’s efforts to ensure 

the authentic implementation of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia 

(2008/913/JHA) has largely been unsuccessful (FRA 2020b, 63). With hate crimes being 

essentially a matter of criminal justice that is the jurisdiction of the Member States, there is also 

tension regarding who has the final say on hate crimes. The recording and penalization of hate 

crimes depend on the ability to identify them which is then adversely impacted by the lack of a 

uniform definition. The EU has encouraged the Member States to develop their individual 

practices in terms of data recording based on their varying experiences and the availability of 

resources. There is thus no single methodology that is used to collect this type of data, making 

information collected by the Member States incomparable. Some progress has been made relating 

to data collection on hate crimes with 19 EU countries collecting and publishing such data, and 15 

de-constructing the figures in terms of bias motivations, circumstances of the offences, vulnerable 

population groups, and police responses (FRA 2018b, 11). Even among those that collect data, the 

progress has not been uniform. Only a few countries like France and Germany have established 

procedures for data collection while the rest have largely been recalcitrant in this regard (FRA 

2018a, 77; FRA 2019, 92). Additionally, there exists no record of the sentencing of hate-motivated 

crimes even in France and Germany which would demonstrate the extent to which recorded cases 

are prosecuted by the state. 

 

The EU’s initiatives like the Code’s Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, 

the Race and Employment Equality Directives and the Victim’s Rights Directive have largely been 

left to the Member States for implementation. It has been found that none of the Member States, 

including France and Germany, have completely transposed the directives. In fact, in less than 50 

percent of the Member States (FRA 2018a, 77; FRA 2019, 92), little attempt has been made to 

implement strategies and dedicated action plans against racial or ethnic discrimination and related 

intolerance, particularly in the sphere of employment. They were also unable to reach a consensus 

regarding the implementation of the long-pending Equal Treatment Directive (FRA 2020b, 32; 

FRA 2021, 69).  

 

The greatest challenge to the EU perhaps comes from institutional racism. In the post 9/11 period, 

Muslims have come to be perceived as the ‘enemy within’ in many European countries and have 

been known to be disproportionately targeted by the state’s security measures. After the 2015 Paris 

attacks, 3594 Muslim houses, mosques and prayer halls were raided (ENAR 2016). However, such 

intensive operations resulted in only six criminal investigations for terrorism and only one ongoing 

trial (ENAR 2016). Both the EU-MIDIS II and a national survey in France reveal that a higher 

proportion of Muslims was stopped and searched as compared to other communities. This is 

especially the case for young men of Arab and African descent, who are twenty times (FRA 2018a, 

79) more likely to be stopped and searched than any other male group. Similar kinds of religious 

profiling were also found to be prevalent in Germany regarding black and minority communities 

(Open Society Justice Initiative 2009, 82). These coupled with other measures such as prohibitions 

on the building of mosques, minarets and prayer rooms, restricting the entry of foreign clerics, and 

subjecting Muslim institutions to intensive surveillance run the risk of undermining fundamental 

rights and paves the way for increasing hostility and discrimination against them since it gives the 

rest of the society the ‘permission to hate’ (Poynting and Mason, 2006) and creates a continuous 

cycle of intolerance which generates more and more violence. Since such measures are justified 

by the states on the grounds of national security, there is little political will or scope for the EU’s 

intervention.  

 



16      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Conclusion 

 

To conclude, the EU’s response to Islamophobia has been feeble at best. It has introduced a 

substantial number of measures that are relevant to combating the phenomenon, however, these 

have largely missed their mark and failed to create a positive impact.  

 

The EU recognises Islamophobia as a challenge to societal stability. Nonetheless, it chooses to 

address them through more general measures on racism and xenophobia. This coupled with the 

lack of EU-wide data on anti-Muslim incidents reduces its visibility. 

 

The EU’s efforts have been commendable in as much that they cover a wide range of issues from 

the criminalization of hate crimes and prohibition of negative discrimination to the sensitization 

of law enforcement agencies, the establishment of equality bodies and victims’ rights. However, 

in reality, these measures have had limited effectiveness.  

 

There has undoubtedly been some progress concerning stronger cyber legislations addressing hate 

speeches on the internet and in creating safer online spaces. It has motivated social media platforms 

and Member States like France and Germany to be more proactive in removing hate-related 

content. However, the lack of political will and the limited implementation of the EU’s measures 

have jeopardized most of the initiatives and adversely affected future progress. Since all of the 

initiatives are centred around the understanding of hate crimes, the lack of consensus on its 

understanding has been a major setback. Moreover, the EU has been unable to ensure the 

participation of all Member States in collecting hate crime-related data. Such data is not 

categorized to reflect the number of anti-Muslim incidents or related cases handled by the equality 

bodies. As a result, any assessment of the effectiveness of the EU’s measures has to depend on 

general data related to racism and xenophobia. Additionally, although the EU monitors these 

bodies regularly and has even introduced infringement procedures against some, in several of the 

Member States they have collapsed. It is also important to note that despite the adoption of the 

EU’s measures, France and Germany, have experienced an overall increase in hate crimes in the 

past few years which questions the effectiveness of these measures. In both Member States, 

equality bodies have come to be criticized because of their ineffectiveness as well.  

 

Finally, the EU has also been unable to take a strong stand against racial profiling by its Member 

States. It also recognizes ‘gendered Islamophobia’ and multiple discrimination, but has 

nevertheless failed to undertake specific measures to mitigate its effects. Since Islamophobia is 

driven by misperceptions regarding Islam, programmes disseminating education and awareness on 

Islam can also play a positive role in breaking down prejudices and combating intolerances. 

However, this has largely been absent in the EU’s efforts. 

 

As Europe continues to grapple with the complexities of xenophobia and racism, particularly rising 

Islamophobia in the 21st century, its greatest challenge will come in terms of generating a political 

will strong enough to resist anti-Muslim prejudices not only at the societal level but also at the 

institutional level of policy-making in the Member States. Looking towards the future, as society 

continues to grapple with Islamophobia, increasing the visibility of this phenomenon coupled with 

stronger measures that specifically address anti-Muslim prejudices and ensuring stricter 

compliance by the Member States will be indispensable in fostering greater cohesion. 

 

 



17      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

REFERENCES  

Abdelkader, Engy. 2017. “A Comparative Analysis of European Islamophobia: France, UK, 

Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden”, Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, 16 (1): 31-

60, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/870099f4. 

AP News. 2021. “German government makes hate-motivated insults a crime”. AP News. May 

12, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/europe-crime-religion-government-and-politics-

7911c439c6a230c3a950271779f5ec02 (Accessed March 03, 2022). 

Arani, Aliyeh Yegane. 2015. Anti-Muslim Racism and Islamophobia in Germany Alternative 

Report on the 19th – 22nd State Report of the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance 

with Article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 

Discrimination (ICERD). The Network Against Discrimination and Islamophobia. 

Accessed March 15, 2022. 

https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/DEU/INT_CERD_NG

O_DEU_20112_E.pdf . 

Boswell, C. 2007. “Migration control in Europe after 9/11: Explaining the absence of 

securitization”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 45 (3): 589-610.  

Ciftci, Sabri. 2012. “Islamophobia and Threat Perceptions: Explaining Anti-Muslim Sentiment in 

the West”, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 32 (3): 293-309. 

Criminal Code of France. Accessed February 24, 2022. 

https://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/18771. 

De Master, Sara and Le Roy, Michael K. 2000. “Xenophobia and the European Union”, 

Comparative Politics, 32 (4): 419-436. 

DILCRA. 2015. Mobilizing France Against Racism and Anti-Semitism 2015-2017 Action Plan. 

Accessed February 11, 2022. 

https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-

jointe/2015/05/dilcra_mobilizing_france_against_racism_and_antisemitism.pdf. 

DILCRA. N.d. National Plan Against Racism and Anti-Semitism 2018-2020. Accessed March 

02, 2022. https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-

jointe/2018/06/national_plan_against_racism_and_anti-semitism_2018-2020.pdf . 

Elahi, Farah and Khan, Omar. 2017. “Introduction: What is Islamophobia?”, in Farah Elahi and 

Oman Khan (eds.) Islamophobia Still a Challenge For Us All, Runnymede Trust, London. 

ENAR. 2016. “EU counter-terrorism law opens door to discrimination and human rights abuses”. 

https://www.enar-eu.org/EU-counter-terrorism-law-opens-door-to-discrimination-and-

human-rights-abuses-1253. 

 

 

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/870099f4
https://apnews.com/article/europe-crime-religion-government-and-politics-7911c439c6a230c3a950271779f5ec02
https://apnews.com/article/europe-crime-religion-government-and-politics-7911c439c6a230c3a950271779f5ec02
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/DEU/INT_CERD_NGO_DEU_20112_E.pdf
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/DEU/INT_CERD_NGO_DEU_20112_E.pdf
https://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/18771
https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-jointe/2015/05/dilcra_mobilizing_france_against_racism_and_antisemitism.pdf
https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-jointe/2015/05/dilcra_mobilizing_france_against_racism_and_antisemitism.pdf
https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-jointe/2018/06/national_plan_against_racism_and_anti-semitism_2018-2020.pdf
https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-jointe/2018/06/national_plan_against_racism_and_anti-semitism_2018-2020.pdf
https://www.enar-eu.org/EU-counter-terrorism-law-opens-door-to-discrimination-and-human-rights-abuses-1253
https://www.enar-eu.org/EU-counter-terrorism-law-opens-door-to-discrimination-and-human-rights-abuses-1253


18      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Federal Anti-discrimination Agency. N.d. Guide to the General Equal Treatment Act 

Explanations and Examples. Accessed March 11, 2022. 

https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/publikationen/Weg

weiser/agg_wegweiser_engl_guide_to_the_general_equal_treatment_act.pdf?__blob=publi

cationFile&v=14. 

FRA. 2009. EU-MIDIS European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey. Accessed on 

December 9, 2020. 

https://lastradainternational.org/lsidocs/eumidis_mainreport_conference-edition_en_.pdf . 

FRA. 2017a. EU-MIDIS II European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey. Accessed 

December 18, 2019. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-eu-midis-

ii-main-results_en.pdf.  

FRA. 2017b. Fundamental Rights Report 2017. Luxembourg: EU. 

FRA. 2018a. Fundamental Rights Report 2018. Luxembourg: EU.  

FRA. 2018b. Hate crime Recording and Data Collection Practice Across the EU. Luxembourg: 

EU. 

FRA. 2019. Fundamental Rights Report 2019. Luxembourg: EU. 

FRA. 2020a. Fighting Discrimination on Grounds of Religion and Ethnicity, 2020. Accessed 

October 16, 2021. https://fra.europa.eu/en/speech/2020/fighting-discrimination-grounds-

religion-and-ethnicity. 

FRA. 2020b. Fundamental Rights Report 2020. Luxembourg: EU. 

FRA.2021. Fundamental Rights Report 2021. Luxembourg: EU. 

Government of France. Nd. “Everything you need to know about freedom of expression in 

France”. Accessed March 03, 2022. https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/everything-you-need-

to-know-about-freedom-of-expression-in-france. 

Howard. 2016. Implementation of the Employment Equality Directive The principle of non-

discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. The European Parliament. Accessed 

March 07, 2022. 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/536345/EPRS_STU(2016)53

6345_EN.pdf. 

Human Rights First. 2016. Breaking the Cycle of Violence Countering Antisemitism and 

Extremism in France. New York, USA. 

Human Rights Watch. 2011. The State Response to “Hate Crimes” in Germany A Human Rights 

Watch Briefing Paper. Accessed February 17, 2022. 

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/State%20Response%20to%20%27

Hate%20Crimes%27%20in%20Germany.pdf. 

https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/publikationen/Wegweiser/agg_wegweiser_engl_guide_to_the_general_equal_treatment_act.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=14
https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/publikationen/Wegweiser/agg_wegweiser_engl_guide_to_the_general_equal_treatment_act.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=14
https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/publikationen/Wegweiser/agg_wegweiser_engl_guide_to_the_general_equal_treatment_act.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=14
https://lastradainternational.org/lsidocs/eumidis_mainreport_conference-edition_en_.pdf
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-eu-midis-ii-main-results_en.pdf
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-eu-midis-ii-main-results_en.pdf
https://fra.europa.eu/en/speech/2020/fighting-discrimination-grounds-religion-and-ethnicity
https://fra.europa.eu/en/speech/2020/fighting-discrimination-grounds-religion-and-ethnicity
https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/everything-you-need-to-know-about-freedom-of-expression-in-france
https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/everything-you-need-to-know-about-freedom-of-expression-in-france
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/536345/EPRS_STU(2016)536345_EN.pdf
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/536345/EPRS_STU(2016)536345_EN.pdf
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/State%20Response%20to%20%27Hate%20Crimes%27%20in%20Germany.pdf
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/State%20Response%20to%20%27Hate%20Crimes%27%20in%20Germany.pdf


19      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Isal, Sarah. 2014. “'Alarming' rise in support for far-right European parties”. The Parliament 

Magazine. June 10, 2014. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/alarming-

rise-in-support-for-farright-european-parties (accessed February 15, 2022). 

Karamanidou, Lena. 2015. “The Securitisation of European Migration Policies: Perceptions of 

Threat and Management of Risk” in Gabriella Lazaridis and Khursheed Wadia (eds.) The 

Securitisation of Migration in the EU Debates since 9/11. Palgrave Macmillan: UK.  

Lauwers, Anna Sophie. 2019. “Is Islamophobia (Always) Racism?”, Critical Philosophy of Race, 

7 (2): 306-332. 

Lazaridis, Gabriella and Tsagkroni, Vasiliki. 2015. “Securitisation of Migration and Far Right 

Populist Othering in Scandinavian Countries” in Gabriella Lazaridis and Khursheed Wadia 

(eds.) The Securitisation of Migration in the EU Debates since 9/11. Palgrave Macmillan: 

UK.  

Lazaridis, Gabriella and Wadia Khursheed. 2015. “Introduction” in Gabriella Lazaridis and 

Khursheed Wadia (eds.) The Securitisation of Migration in the EU Debates since 9/11. 

Palgrave Macmillan: UK.  

Léonard, Sarah and Kaunert, Christian. 2019. Refugees, Security and the European Union. 

Routledge: London. 

Lomas, Natasha. 2020. “Germany tightens online hate speech rules to make platforms send reports 

straight to the feds”, Accessed March 03, 2022. 

https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/19/germany-tightens-online-hate-speech-rules-to-make-

platforms-send-reports-straight-to-the-feds/. 

Marranci, Gabriele .2004. “Multiculturalism, Islam and the clash of civilisations theory: rethinking 

Islamophobia”, Culture and Religion, 5 (1): 105-117. 

Mirza, Noreen. 2019. “Everyday living with Islamophobia”, Culture and Religion, 20 (3): 302- 

321. 

Open Society Justice Initiative. 2009. Ethnic Profiling in the European Union: Pervasive, 

Ineffective, and Discriminatory. Open Society Institute: New York. Accessed February 18, 

2022. https://www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/8cef0d30-2833-40fd-b80b-

9efb17c6de41/profiling_20090526.pdf . 

OSCE-ODIHR. 2016a. Hate Crime Reporting "France". Accessed March 26, 2019. 

https://hatecrime.osce.org/france?year=2016. 

OSCE-ODIHR. 2016b. Hate Crime Reporting "Germany". Accessed February 15, 2022. 

https://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2016.  

OSCE-ODIHR. 2017a. Hate Crime Reporting "France". Accessed March 26, 2019. 

http://hatecrime.osce.org/france?year=2017.  

OSCE-ODIHR. 2017b. Hate Crime Reporting “Germany”. Accessed March 26, 2019. 

http://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2017.  

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/alarming-rise-in-support-for-farright-european-parties
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/alarming-rise-in-support-for-farright-european-parties
https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/19/germany-tightens-online-hate-speech-rules-to-make-platforms-send-reports-straight-to-the-feds/
https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/19/germany-tightens-online-hate-speech-rules-to-make-platforms-send-reports-straight-to-the-feds/
https://www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/8cef0d30-2833-40fd-b80b-9efb17c6de41/profiling_20090526.pdf
https://www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/8cef0d30-2833-40fd-b80b-9efb17c6de41/profiling_20090526.pdf
https://hatecrime.osce.org/france?year=2016
https://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2016
http://hatecrime.osce.org/france?year=2017
http://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2017


20      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

OSCE-ODIHR. 2018a. Hate Crime Reporting “France”. Accessed October 26, 2019. 

https://hatecrime.osce.org/report-data/france/2018. 

OSCE-ODIHR. 2018b. Hate Crime Reporting “Germany”. Accessed March 26, 2019. 

https://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2018. 

OSCE-ODIHR. 2019a. Hate Crime Reporting “France”. Accessed December 12, 2020. 

https://hatecrime.osce.org/france?year=2019. 

OSCE-ODIHR. 2019b. Hate Crime Reporting “Germany”. Accessed December 12, 2020. 

https://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2019. 

OSCE-ODIHR. 2020a. Hate Crime Reporting “France”. Accessed February 15, 2022. 

https://hatecrime.osce.org/france?year=2020. 

OSCE-ODIHR. 2020b. Hate Crime Reporting “Germany”. Accessed February 15, 2022. 

https://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2020.  

Poole, E., and Richardson, J. E. (eds.). 2010. Muslims and the news media. London, UK: I.B. 

Tauris. 

Poynting, Scott and Mason, Victoria. 2006. “Tolerance, Freedom, Justice and Peace”? Britain, 

Australia and Anti-Muslim Racism since 11 September 2001”, Journal of Intercultural 

Studies, 27 (4): 365-391. 

Rana, Junaid .2007. “The Story of Islamophobia” Souls A Critical Journal of Black Politics, 

Culture, and Society, 9 (2): 148-161.  

Squire, Vicki. 2015. “The Securitisation of Migration: An Absent Presence?” in Gabriella 

Lazaridis and Khursheed Wadia (eds.) The Securitisation of Migration in the EU Debates 

since 9/11. Palgrave Macmillan: UK.  

Taras, Ray. 2008. Europe Old and New Transnationalism, Belonging, Xenophobia. Rowman and 

Littlefield Publishers: Toronto. 

The Council of the European Union. 2008. Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on Combating 

Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law. 

Accessed December 4, 2020. https://www.refworld.org/docid/493e8fea2.html. 

The Council of the European Union. 2017. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 

establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. 

Accessed December 12, 2020. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078&from=EN. 

The EU. 2012. Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 

October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of 

victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. Accessed 

December 3, 2020. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32012L0029&from=EN. 

 

https://hatecrime.osce.org/report-data/france/2018
https://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2018
https://hatecrime.osce.org/france?year=2019
https://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2019
https://hatecrime.osce.org/france?year=2020
https://hatecrime.osce.org/germany?year=2020
https://www.refworld.org/docid/493e8fea2.html
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078&from=EN
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078&from=EN
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32012L0029&from=EN
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32012L0029&from=EN


21      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

The EU. 2019. Progress on combating hate speech online through the EU Code of conduct 

2016-2019. Council of the EU. Accessed December 23, 2020. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/aid_development_cooperation_fundamental_rights/

assessment_of_the_code_of_conduct_on_hate_speech_on_line_-_state_of_play__0.pdf. 

The EU. 2020. EU Contribution to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion 

or Belief 2020. Accessed October 04, 2021. 

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/Islamophobia-

AntiMuslim/Regional%20Institutions/EuropeanUnion.pdf. 

The European Commission. 2000. Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing 

the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. 

Accessed February 10, 2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0043&from=EN.  

The European Commission. 2016a. “Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online”. 

Accessed March 9, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-

rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/countering-illegal-hate-speech-

online_en. 

The European Commission. 2016b. Country Report Non-Discrimination France. Accessed 

March 03, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2016-fr-

country_report_nd_final_en_0.pdf . 

The European Commission. 2017a. Hate Crime Training for Law Enforcement and Criminal 

Justice Authorities: 10 Key Guiding Principles. Accessed December 4, 2020. 

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id

=30378&no=1.  

The European Commission. 2017b. Improving the Recording of Hate Crime by Law Enforcement 

Authorities Key Guiding Principles. Accessed December 6, 2020. 

https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/ec-2017-key-guiding-principles-

recording-hate-crime_en.pdf. 

The European Commission. 2017c. “Communication on Tackling Illegal Content Online - 

Towards an Enhanced Responsibility of Online Platforms”. Accessed December 23, 2020. 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-tackling-illegal-content-

online-towards-enhanced-responsibility-online-platforms. 

The European Commission. 2019a. Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, Results of 

the Fourth Monitoring Exercise. Accessed December 4, 2020. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/code_of_conduct_factsheet_7_web.pdf. 

The European Commission. 2019b. Countering Racism and Xenophobia in the EU. Accessed 

September 13, 2020. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/swd_countering_racism_and_xenophobia_in_th

e_eu.pdf. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/aid_development_cooperation_fundamental_rights/assessment_of_the_code_of_conduct_on_hate_speech_on_line_-_state_of_play__0.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/aid_development_cooperation_fundamental_rights/assessment_of_the_code_of_conduct_on_hate_speech_on_line_-_state_of_play__0.pdf
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0043&from=EN
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0043&from=EN
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/countering-illegal-hate-speech-online_en
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/countering-illegal-hate-speech-online_en
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/countering-illegal-hate-speech-online_en
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2016-fr-country_report_nd_final_en_0.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2016-fr-country_report_nd_final_en_0.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=30378&no=1
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=30378&no=1
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/ec-2017-key-guiding-principles-recording-hate-crime_en.pdf
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/ec-2017-key-guiding-principles-recording-hate-crime_en.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-tackling-illegal-content-online-towards-enhanced-responsibility-online-platforms
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-tackling-illegal-content-online-towards-enhanced-responsibility-online-platforms
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/code_of_conduct_factsheet_7_web.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/swd_countering_racism_and_xenophobia_in_the_eu.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/swd_countering_racism_and_xenophobia_in_the_eu.pdf


22      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

The European Commission. 2021a. Country Report Non-discrimination France. Accessed March 

03, 2022. https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5530-france-country-report-non-

discrimination-2021-pdf-1-75-mb. 

The European Commission. 2021b. Country Report Non-discrimination Germany. Accessed 

March 03, 2022. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/93afb47b-0ec3-

11ec-b771-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-252661209.  

The European Commission. 2021c. Sixth evaluation of the Code of Conduct. Accessed March 04, 

2022. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/factsheet-6th-monitoring-round-of-the-

code-of-conduct_october2021_en_1.pdf. 

The European Parliament. 2017. The Victims’ Rights Directive 2012/29/EU European 

Implementation Assessment. Accessed February 14, 2022. 

https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2017/dec/ep-study-victims-

directive.pdf. 

The Federal Government. 2016. Federal Government Strategy to Prevent Extremism and Promote 

Democracy. Accessed March 04, 2022. 

https://www.bmfsfj.de/resource/blob/115448/cc142d640b37b7dd76e48b8fd9178cc5/strate

gie-der-bundesregierung-zur-extremismuspraevention-und-demokratiefoerderung-englisch-

data.pdf.  

The Federal Government. 2017. National Action Plan Against Racism Positions and Measures to 

Address Ideologies of Inequality. Druck- und Verlagshaus Zarbock GmbH & Co. KG, 

Frankfurt am Main: Germany. Accessed February 22, 2022. 

https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/EN/publikationen/2018/nap-

en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4. 

The Federal Ministry of Justice. N.d. General Act on Equal Treatment, 2006. Accessed March 

07, 2022. https://www.gesetze-im-

internet.de/englisch_agg/englisch_agg.html#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20Ac

t,disability%2C%20age%20or%20sexual%20orientation. 

The Runnymede Trust. 1997. Islamophobia A Challenge for Us All. Report of the Runnymede 

Trust Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia.  

Wintour, Patrick. 2017. “Hungary to detain all asylum seekers in container Camp”. The Guardian. 

March 07, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/07/-hungary-to-detain-all-

asylum-seekers-in-container-camps (accessed March 03, 2022). 

Yakushko, Oksana. 2018. Modern-Day Xenophobia Critical Historical and Theoretical 

Perspectives on the Roots of Anti-Immigrant Prejudice. Palgrave Macmillan: Switzerland. 

Zick, Andreas et al. 2011. Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination A European Report, Forum 

Berlin, Translated by Meredith Dale, Berlin.  

  

https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5530-france-country-report-non-discrimination-2021-pdf-1-75-mb
https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5530-france-country-report-non-discrimination-2021-pdf-1-75-mb
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/93afb47b-0ec3-11ec-b771-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-252661209
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/93afb47b-0ec3-11ec-b771-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-252661209
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/factsheet-6th-monitoring-round-of-the-code-of-conduct_october2021_en_1.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/factsheet-6th-monitoring-round-of-the-code-of-conduct_october2021_en_1.pdf
https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2017/dec/ep-study-victims-directive.pdf
https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2017/dec/ep-study-victims-directive.pdf
https://www.bmfsfj.de/resource/blob/115448/cc142d640b37b7dd76e48b8fd9178cc5/strategie-der-bundesregierung-zur-extremismuspraevention-und-demokratiefoerderung-englisch-data.pdf
https://www.bmfsfj.de/resource/blob/115448/cc142d640b37b7dd76e48b8fd9178cc5/strategie-der-bundesregierung-zur-extremismuspraevention-und-demokratiefoerderung-englisch-data.pdf
https://www.bmfsfj.de/resource/blob/115448/cc142d640b37b7dd76e48b8fd9178cc5/strategie-der-bundesregierung-zur-extremismuspraevention-und-demokratiefoerderung-englisch-data.pdf
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_agg/englisch_agg.html#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20Act,disability%2C%20age%20or%20sexual%20orientation
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_agg/englisch_agg.html#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20Act,disability%2C%20age%20or%20sexual%20orientation
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_agg/englisch_agg.html#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20Act,disability%2C%20age%20or%20sexual%20orientation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/07/-hungary-to-detain-all-asylum-seekers-in-container-camps
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/07/-hungary-to-detain-all-asylum-seekers-in-container-camps


23      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(1) 2022: 1-23 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Published by the Centre for European Studies at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada 

 

Available online at: https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index 

 

The Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies (CJERS – formerly Review of European 

and Russian Affairs) is an open-access electronic academic peer-reviewed journal: articles are 

subject to double-blind peer-review. Topics relate to the European Union, its Member States, the 

former Soviet Union, and Central and Eastern Europe. The journal is published by the Centre for 

European Studies, an associated unit of the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at 

Carleton University. 

 

CJERS aims to provide an accessible forum for the promotion and dissemination of high quality 

research and scholarship.  

 

Contact: 

Carleton University 

The Centre for European Studies 

1103 Dunton Tower 

1125 Colonel By Drive 

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 

Canada 

 

E-mail: CJERS@carleton.ca 

 

Creative Commons License 

 

 
 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 

 

This Working Paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial- 

No Derivs 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).  

 

Articles appearing in this publication may be freely quoted and reproduced, provided the source is 

acknowledged. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purposes. 

 

ISSN: 2562-8429 

© 2019 The Author(s) 

 

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index
mailto:CJERS@carleton.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

