The Galliano Affair

Posted on March 6, 2011 by Clive D. Field

Some nasty commercial consequences may be in store for Christian Dior, the iconic fashion, fragrance and jewellery brand, despite its prompt sacking last week of John Galliano, its head fashion designer since 1997, who has recently been exposed as shouting anti-Semitic abuse in a Paris bar and saying ‘I love Hitler’.

15% of British adults who normally buy Dior products say that they intend to boycott them in the light of the controversy over Galliano’s comments, according to a YouGov survey for today’s The Sunday Times. Fieldwork was conducted online on 3-4 March among a sample of 2,413 Britons aged 18 and over. The data tables will be found at:

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-04-060311.pdf

80% of respondents do not normally purchase Dior merchandise. Of the 20% who do, 3% have been so offended by Galliano’s anti-Semitism that they are inclined to boycott Dior in future, while 12% will not do so and 5% do not know what they will do.

The number of potential boycotters rises to 6% in London and Scotland, equivalent to 23% and 29% respectively of Dior customers there, but otherwise there are no great variations by demographic sub-groups.

The potential commercial fallout might have been even greater were it not for the fact that 52% of Britons regard this as a one-off incident, down to a single designer with personal problems and which does not reflect a more generic issue of racism in the high fashion industry.

However, although just 16% think there is more widespread racism in the industry, far more are inclined to accuse it of other difficulties. 45% consider that dysfunctional and immoral behaviour is endemic throughout the industry, whereas 34% prefer to lay the blame at the door of a few eccentric figures.

Posted in Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Searchlight on Religion

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Clive D. Field

A major new source of public opinion data on religion and inter-faith relations has just become available in the form of a Populus poll for Searchlight Educational Trust.

The survey is of unusual importance in terms of the number of questions asked and the large size of the sample (5,054 adults aged 18 and over interviewed online in England on 28-31 January 2011).

The Trust is a registered charity formed in 1992 that works with communities to build responses to racism and hatred, dispel myths and develop greater understanding. It has just established the Together project to explore and tackle the rise of right-wing nationalism and extremism in Britain and Western Europe.

Only a small proportion of the poll’s statistics have been included in Searchlight’s Fear & HOPE report, based on the survey, which concluded that ‘there is not a progressive majority in society and … that there is a deep resentment to immigration, as well as scepticism towards multiculturalism.’

‘There is a widespread fear of the “Other”, particularly Muslims, and there is an appetite for a new right-wing political party that has none of the fascist trappings of the British National Party or the violence of the English Defence League. With a clear correlation between economic pessimism and negative views to immigration, the situation is likely to get worse over the next few years.’

At the same time, ‘there are also many positive findings from the report. Young people are more hopeful about the future and more open to living in an ethnically diverse society. The vast majority … reject political violence and view white anti-Muslim extremists as bad as Muslim extremists and there is overwhelming support for a positive campaign against extremism.’

The document is available, in a somewhat curious format, at:

http://www.fearandhope.org.uk/project-report/

For this post BRIN has ignored the report and drawn upon, but cannot claim to have summarized adequately, the 128 computer tables extending to 395 pages. These provide topline responses, the only ones used here, together with disaggregations by gender, age, socio-economic group, region, employment sector, ethnicity, religion, and a sixfold segmentation by identity ‘tribes’. These tables can be accessed at:

http://populuslimited.com/uploads/download_pdf-310111-Searchlight-Fear-and-Hope-survey.pdf

Two clusters of questions are briefly considered here, those which sought to enumerate the nation’s general verdict on and participation in religion, and those which assessed attitudes to and engagement with people from the various faith traditions in Britain.

RELIGION IN GENERAL

35% of adults professed no religious affiliation, while 54% were Christians and 7% non-Christians (table 7).

23% said that religion was important to them, with 55% disagreeing and 22% neutral (table 76).

Just 7% said religion was the most important element in their personal identity. This compared with 35% for nationality, 24% for country of birth, 16% for the city, town or village in which they lived, 7% for ethnicity, 6% for their immediate neighbourhood, and 5% for the country of residence, where different from that of birth (table 32). Religion was the second most important influence on identity for 8% (table 33) and the third most important for 10% (table 34).

55% never attended a place of worship in their local community. 8% claimed to go at least once a week, 5% at least once a fortnight, 6% at least once a month, and 26% less than once a month (table 63).

Only 23% thought that, by and large, religion is a force for good in the UK. 42% disagreed and 35% expressed no opinion (table 77).

68% agreed that religion should not influence laws and policies in Britain, with 16% disagreeing and 16% neutral (table 75).

On a scale of 1 (= do not trust at all) to 5 (= trust fully), the mean respect score for local religious leaders was 2.95. This was lower than for the respondent’s general practitioner (3.98), the local headteacher (3.44), women’s institute (3.43), the local scout/girl guide leader (3.41), the local branch of service organizations (3.31), and leaders of local clubs (3.15).

But it was higher than for the local chamber of commerce (2.81), a local trade union (2.72), the local mayor (2.62), the local MP (2.58), local councillors (2.57), and the local council (2.54). See tables 38-51.

INTER-FAITH RELATIONS

62% considered religious abuse to be as serious as racial abuse, but 38% viewed the latter as more serious (table 115).

28% thought religious abuse to be more widespread in Britain than racial abuse. 72% said the reverse (table 116).

71% assessed religious abuse to be on the increase in Britain, 29% disagreeing (table 117). 64% said that racial abuse was growing (table 118).

60% believed that people should be able to say what they wanted about religion, however critical or offensive it might be. 40% thought there should be restrictions on what individuals could say about religion, and that they should be prosecuted if necessary (table 119). Significantly more, 58%, were in favour of limitations on freedom of speech when it came to race (table 120).

44% regarded Muslims as completely different to themselves in terms of habits, customs and values. Just 5% said the same about Christians, 19% about Jews, 28% about Hindus, and 29% about Sikhs (tables 78-83).

42% said that they interacted with Sikhs less than monthly or never, 39% with Jews, 36% with Hindus, 28% with Muslims, and 5% with Christians. There were a lot of don’t knows for this question (tables 84-89).

59% did not know any Sikhs well as friends and family members, work colleagues, children’s friends or neighbours. 55% said the same about Jews, 53% about Hindus, 41% about Muslims, and 8% about Christians (tables 90-95).

32% argued that Muslims created a lot of problems in the UK. Far fewer said this about other faith groups: 7% about Hindus, 6% about Sikhs, 5% about Christians, and 3% about Jews (tables 96-101).

49% contended that Muslims created a lot of problems in the world. Again, this was much less often said about other faith communities: 15% about Jews, 12% about Christians, 10% about Hindus, and 9% about Sikhs (tables 102-107).

25% viewed Islam as a dangerous religion which incites violence. 21% considered that violence or terrorism on the part of some Muslims is unsurprising given the actions of the West in the Muslim world and the hostility towards Muslims in Britain.

49% thought that such violence or terrorism was unsurprising on account of the activities and statements of a few Muslim extremists. 6% dismissed accusations of violence or terrorism by Muslims as something got up by the media (table 126).

On hearing reports of violent clashes between English nationalist extremists and Muslim extremists, 26% would sympathize with the former who were standing up for their country and 6% for the Muslims who were standing up for their faith. 68% would view both groups as bad as each other (table 127).

43% indicated that they would support a campaign to stop the building of a new mosque in their locality, against 19% who would oppose such a campaign, with 38% neutral (table 124).

In the event of such a campaign turning violent or threatening to do so, by the action of either of the disputing parties, 81% would condemn such violence but 19% would continue to support one side or the other (table 125).

Interviewees were asked to react to the possibility of a new political party which would defend the English, create an English Parliament, control immigration, challenge Islamic extremism, restrict the construction of mosques, and make it compulsory for all public buildings to fly the St George’s flag or Union Jack. 21% said that they would definitely support such a party and a further 27% that they would consider backing it (table 122).

Quizzed about a new organization which would campaign against religious and racial extremism, and promote better relations between different ethnic and religious groups, 20% said that they would definitely and another 48% that they might possibly support it (table 123).

Hopefully, this gallop through a veritable mountain of statistics will give BRIN readers some insight into the range of questions posed in this Populus/Searchlight survey, and some sense of the research potential of the dataset.

Posted in church attendance, Religion in public debate, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Anti-Semitic Incidents in 2010

Posted on February 3, 2011 by Clive D. Field

There were 31% fewer anti-Semitic incidents in the UK in 2010 than in 2009, according to the latest annual report from the Community Security Trust (CST). It runs to 36 pages and is available at:

http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Incidents%20Report%202010.pdf

The CST is a registered charity which provides physical security, training and advice for the protection of British Jews; represents Jewry to Government and police in respect of matters affecting security and anti-Semitism; and assists victims of anti-Semitism.

The decline in anti-Semitic incidents might have been anticipated. 2009 had been an exceptional year, largely on account of hostility to Israel’s substantial military operations in Gaza at the start of 2009, described by CST as a significant ‘trigger event’. 

Nevertheless, the 639 incidents recorded in 2010 was still the second-highest number since CST began collecting data in 1984 and a rise of 17% on the 2008 total.

This reflects a generally upward trend, which CST attributes in part to better reporting of incidents, although it considers that many instances of verbal abuse are not yet notified.

The 639 incidents were categorized as: abusive behaviour (60%), assaults (18%), damage and desecration of property (13%), threats (5%), and anti-Semitic literature (4%). No examples of extreme violence were recorded in 2010, of which there are a handful in most years.

Incidents were not evenly distributed throughout 2010. The largest monthly figure (82) was in September, believed to be linked to the presence of visibly Jewish people in public during the High Holy Day period.

81 incidents were logged in June, many of them related to negative reactions to the Israeli boarding on 31 May of a flotilla of ships trying to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza, as a result of which nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed.  

Not unexpectedly, the largest number of incidents was reported from areas of Jewish concentration, with 34% each in Greater London and Greater Manchester, although the Jewish population of the latter is just one-seventh of the former (21,700 against 149,800).

6% of incidents occurred in Hertfordshire (where 16,900 Jews live) and 26% elsewhere in the UK (with 78,300 Jewish residents).   

The victims of these incidents came from the whole spectrum of the Jewish community. The most frequent were: random Jewish individuals in public (48%), synagogues and their congregants (17%), Jewish organizations (12%), and private homes and schools/schoolchildren/teachers (9% each).

In cases where the demographics of victims could be identified, 65% were male, 27% female and 8% mixed groups. 66% of victims were adults, 25% minors and 9% a combination of both.

Physical descriptions of the incident perpetrator were received in some cases, of whom 47% were white, 6% East European, 7% black, 29% Asian, and 10% of Arab appearance. 83% of perpetrators were men, 12% women, and 5% of both sexes. 68% were adults and 31% minors.

In one-quarter of incidents the perpetrators employed discourse based upon the Nazi period, including swastikas and references to the Holocaust. Discourse related to Israel or the Middle East was used in 12% of incidents and Islamist discourse in 4%. Evidence of political motivation was found in 37% of instances and of premeditation in 65%.

In addition to the 639 anti-Semitic incidents, CST investigated 372 other cases which it eventually concluded were not anti-Semitic in terms of motivation, targeting or content. Two-fifths of these concerned potential information collection and suspicious behaviour at Jewish locations.

CST includes in its tally of incidents some which are not crimes. The CST statistics will therefore exceed the number of anti-Semitic hate crimes tabulated by the police, on which we have previously reported at:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/?p=746

A further measure of anti-Semitism is found in sample survey data. The BRIN source database contains descriptions of 72 such surveys undertaken between 1938 and 2010. Go to:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/sources/

and key ‘anti-Semitism’ in the search box.

One of the most recent and extensive (as regards the number of questions) surveys was conducted in December 2008-January 2009 on behalf of the US-based Anti-Defamation League, with fieldwork in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Spain, as well as Great Britain. The report on this study is at:

http://www.adl.org/Public%20ADL%20Anti-Semitism%20Presentation%20February%202009%20_3_.pdf

Posted in News from religious organisations | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Perceptions of Discrimination

Posted on January 19, 2011 by Clive D. Field

Today’s news includes a report that two devout Christians running a private hotel in Cornwall have been found to be in breach of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 for refusing to allow a gay couple to share a double room on their premises. The couple has been awarded damages against the hotel owners.

The fact that a Christian husband and wife seeking to uphold, as they saw it, a traditional Christian view of marriage have committed an act of direct discrimination against two homosexuals in a civil partnership will doubtless be seized upon by some Christians as further proof that the legal odds are stacked against Christians.

But does the general public agree with this reading of events? Before Christmas we reported on a ComRes poll for Christian Concern on the topic (http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/?p=804). This probed attitudes to the rights of Christians, but largely in isolation from those of other sections of society.

Now YouGov has undertaken another poll for The Sun which provides a broader, more comparative context. The 1,884 respondents, adult Britons aged 18 and over interviewed online on 17 and 18 January, were asked to say how far they felt each of sixteen groups (four of them religious) was unfairly discriminated against in Britain.

10% said that Christians suffered a lot of discrimination, rising to 12% among men, the over-60s and Conservative voters. A further 18% thought they suffered some discrimination (including 24% of Conservatives and 22% of over-60s), 29 per cent a little, 34% not at all, while 10% had no clear opinion.

The proportion holding that Christians suffered a lot of discrimination was higher than those saying the same about Jews (5%) and atheists (2%), although it was less than for Muslims (18% saying that they experienced a lot of discrimination, peaking at 29% among the 18-24s).

Only 17% of the sample claimed that Muslims were not discriminated against at all, which was 7% less than in the case of Jews, 17% less than for Christians and 38% less than for atheists.

In fact, 55% were of the view that atheists suffered absolutely no discrimination, the only one of the sixteen groups for which an absolute majority took this line. This figure rose to 62% with Conservatives and 60% with over-60s and Scots.

If we combine the categories of groups perceived to suffer a lot of discrimination and to suffer some discrimination, then the following rank order emerges:

  1. Gypsies and travellers  –  60%
  2. Immigrants  –  54%
  3. Transsexuals  –  53%
  4. Muslims  –  50%
  5. Elderly people  –  45%
  6. Asian people  –  44%
  7. Gays and lesbians  –  43%
  8. Black people  –  41%
  9. White people  –  32%
  10. Working class people  –  31%
  11. Women  –  29%
  12. Christians  –  28%
  13. Jews  –  26%
  14. People with ginger hair  –  25%
  15. People with regional accents  –  17%
  16. Atheists  –  10%

The survey therefore appears to confirm the findings from other research that Muslims are the religious group suffering greatest discrimination. Despite a millennium of British anti-Semitism, and contrary to the impression of some Jewish commentators, Jews seem to fare better than expected and better even than Christians.

It should be remembered, of course, that this was a survey about people’s perceptions of groups which suffer discrimination, and that Christians would have been the largest single religious category of people doing the perceiving. The study was thus analogous to some of the questions in the Government Citizenship Surveys.

It is therefore possible that a different league table might have emerged had the questioning been about either personal experiences of being discriminated against and/or prejudices which individuals hold against particular groups. It would be especially interesting to know how atheists would come out of such an exercise, given that they seem the least disadvantaged of all the groups in this study.

The data tables for this YouGov poll will be found at:

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Life-Sun-Discrimination-190111.pdf

Posted in Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Jewish Women’s Aid

Posted on November 21, 2010 by Clive D. Field

Jewish Women’s Aid (JWA), the only UK national charity for Jewish women and their children affected by domestic violence, has launched the first ever survey into the incidence and perceptions of domestic abuse against women in the Jewish community. It is being led by Dr Sarah Abramson of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the results are expected to be published next February.

The survey will comprise: a) face-to-face interviews with up to 300 of JWA’s own service users; b) anonymous online interviews with a self-selecting sample of other Jewish women; c) questionnaires sent to other domestic violence charities, asking about Jewish women who have used their services; and d) comparative international research in the United States, Canada and Israel.  

The online questionnaire, which is being advertised in the Jewish press with a request for completion by 1 January, can be found at:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWASurvey_PubLink

Emma Bell, executive director of JWA (which began in Leeds in the 1980s but has been headquartered in London since 1992), has explained that the survey is ‘partly inspired by the fact that in the last financial year the number of women we supported in the community increased by over 50 per cent and the numbers who sought counselling through us also doubled.’

Posted in News from religious organisations | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Holocaust Education

Posted on September 8, 2010 by Clive D. Field

Policy-makers and older generations of Britons sometimes get worried that the Holocaust, and the events of the Second World War more generally, are fading from the public memory. Last year, for instance, there was extensive media coverage of a study by the London Jewish Cultural Centre and Miramax which revealed that many secondary school pupils did not know about Auschwitz, some even regarding it as a brand of beer.

Now YouGov has released the results of a survey it conducted on 1-2 July this year among 2,233 adults aged 18 and over drawn from its online panel. The poll asked about the importance of British schoolchildren learning about eleven periods and events in European history.

The Holocaust topped the list, 80% regarding it as very or fairly important that schoolchildren learn about it. Communism (72%) and Fascism (69%) came second and third, with the Enlightenment (45%) and German and Italian unification (41%) in the bottom two places. The Reformation scored 53%.

The importance attached to teaching about the Holocaust varied with age, from 69% among the 18-24s to 78% for the 25-39s, 83% for the 40-59s and 85% for those aged 60 and over. However, the youngest age cohort still attached the greatest significance to the Holocaust of all the periods and events on offer.

Women (83%) also deemed the Holocaust more important than men (77%) and the ABC1s (84%) more than the C2DEs (75%). Among voters, Liberal Democrats were most supportive (88%). At 82%, London and the rest of southern England regarded teaching of the Holocaust as a little more important than elsewhere in Britain.

The full results of the survey will be found at:

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Life-SchoolSubjectsEuropeanHistory-080910.pdf

The questions on European history formed part of the same poll which covered religious education, for which see http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/?p=512.

Posted in Survey news | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Turbulent Times

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Clive D. Field

BRIN readers keen to understand the changing nature of the British Jewish community and its leadership since 1990 will find helpful a book which was published by Continuum on 22 July. Entitled Turbulent Times: The British Jewish Community Today, it has been written by Keith Kahn-Harris and Ben Gidley (ISBN 978-1-8471-4476-8, £19.99, paperback, also available in hardback). It is the outcome of a research project undertaken at the Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths College, University of London. The project was funded by the Rothschild Foundation Europe, the Memorial Fund for Jewish Culture and the Economic and Social Research Council.

The central thesis of this thematically-arranged and sociologically-focused book is that, confronted by the paradox of simultaneous ubiquity and marginality, there has been a shift within Jewish communal discourse from a strategy of security and assimilation, emphasizing Anglo-Jewry’s British belonging and citizenship, to a strategy of insecurity, stressing the dangers and threats which Jews face individually and communally, including the ‘new anti-Semitism’. This shift, which Sir Jonathan Sacks is seen as instrumental in initiating, is viewed as part of a continuity-driven process of renewal in the community that has led to something of a ‘Jewish Renaissance’ in Britain. The authors therefore reach an optimistic conclusion about the future of Anglo-Jewry. They relate this to the broader transition from a monocultural to a multicultural Britain.

Although this is not a deeply quantitative work per se, the numerical decline of the Jewish community (apart from Haredi Jews), and Jewish preoccupation with survival in the face of that decline, provides the backdrop to the book. Moreover, it is underpinned by a fairly wide reading of printed and electronic sources and by interviews. Foremost among the published sources are numerous empirical social and statistical enquiries. The bibliography, therefore, is a useful guide to the post-1990 statistical literature, thereby updating Barry Kosmin’s overview of Jewish statistics which formed part of the volume on religion in the Reviews of United Kingdom Statistical Sources series which appeared in 1987.  

Especially interesting for BRIN readers will be the second chapter which highlights how social research on British Jews and Jewish institutions has been used to diagnose the problems of Anglo-Jewry, to inform policy development, and to nurture through self-criticism a climate of insecurity which was deemed necessary to motivate action to ensure Jewish survival. This process is described by the authors as the ‘reflexive turn’ in Anglo-Jewry, thereby applying the sociological concept of reflexivity which concerns the self-consciousness of individuals about their actions and their consequences. Within this context a series of major research studies is considered, including the work of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, relaunched in 1996. However, a significant limitation of reflexivity is identified as a lack of research into outmarried or non-identifying British Jews.

Posted in Historical studies, Religion in public debate | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jewish Attitudes toward Israel

Posted on July 17, 2010 by Clive D. Field

‘Jews in Britain strongly identify with and support Israel. They are ready to see Israel swap territory for peace and to talk with Hamas if it will advance the cause of peace. At the same time, they are concerned about Israel’s security, support the separation barrier/security fence and view the 2008/09 operation in Gaza as “a legitimate act of self-defence.”’

These are the central findings of what is described as the most definitive (albeit not the first) study ever conducted of the attitudes of Jews in Britain towards Israel. Entitled Committed, Concerned and Conciliatory: The Attitudes of Jews in Britain towards Israel, and written by David Graham and Jonathan Boyd, it was published on 15 July by the community’s leading research body, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR).

The report is available to download from:

http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/JPR%20Israel%20survey%20report%2015.pdf

The investigation, which was funded by the Pears Foundation, derives from the responses given by a self-selecting sample of 4,081 self-identifying Jews aged 18 and over living in Great Britain.

They completed an online questionnaire administered by Ipsos MORI between 7 January and 14 February 2010. Data analysis and report-writing was the responsibility of JPR.

Relative to the 2001 census and other (Jewish) sources, the sample is broadly representative of the Jewish community in many respects. However, it is somewhat skewed in terms of educational achievement, synagogue membership and secular/religious outlook, and the data have been weighted in these regards.

‘The survey shows that the vast majority of respondents exhibit strong personal support for, and affinity with, Israel: 95% have visited the country, 90% see it as the “ancestral homeland” of the Jewish people, and 86% feel that Jews have a special responsibility for its survival.’

Additionally, 82% state that Israel plays a central or important role in their Jewish identities, 72% categorize themselves as Zionists, 76% consider Israel to be relevant to their day-to-day lives in Britain, and 87% view British Jews as part of a global Jewish diaspora.

‘On the other hand, these strong levels of personal attachment to Israel do not prevent respondents from expressing criticism about Israel’s civil society: 74% think that Orthodox Judaism has too much influence in Israel; 67% say there is too much corruption in Israel’s political system; and 56% feel that non-Jewish minority groups suffer from discrimination in the country.’  

‘It further paints a portrait of a community that is highly-engaged with Israel, and that expresses predominantly dovish views on the key political issues: 78% favour a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians; 74% oppose the expansion of existing settlements in the West Bank; and 67% favour exchanging land for peace. A majority (52% against 39%) favours negotiating with Hamas to achieve peace.’

Notwithstanding, ‘respondents are clearly sympathetic to Israel’s need to defend itself. Nearly three-quarters agree that “The security fence is vital for Israel’s security” and a similar number agree that Operation Cast Lead (the Israeli military action in Gaza in winter 2008/09) was “a legitimate act of self-defence.” Nearly nine out of ten respondents believe that Iran represents a threat to Israel’s very existence.’

‘Perhaps most significantly for a community that has long debated the acceptability of Jewish criticism of Israel in public, a slight majority (53% to 45%) believes that Jews living in Britain have the right to judge Israel, and nearly three-quarters believe that Jews should be free to speak their mind about Israel in the British media in at least some, if not all circumstances.’

In general, the more religious respondents claim to be, the more hawkish their stance on political and security issues. Those with higher levels of educational attainment tend to exhibit more dovish viewpoints compared with Jews with lesser education.

Commenting on the findings, JPR Executive Director, Jonathan Boyd, said: ‘Fundamentally, we found that most Jews feel a strong sense of connection to Israel … Jews in Britain are pro-Israel and pro-peace. Their hawkishness on some issues is typically motivated by a clear concern for Israel’s security, while their dovishness on others reflects a deep-set desire to see the country at peace, both with itself and with its neighbours.’

The report does not discuss in any detail how the attitudes of British Jews towards Israel may have changed over time. Readers interested in possible trends should consult JPR’s previous report from 1997 (based on data gathered in 1995): Barry Kosmin, Antony Lerman and Jacqueline Goldberg, The Attachment of British Jews to Israel.

Posted in Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Newcastle Jewry

Posted on May 31, 2010 by Clive D. Field

The Jewish Chronicle for 28 May briefly reports on the sixth census of Jewry in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, undertaken by the Representative Council of North East Jewry. The first census took place on 31 May 1983, at the instigation of the late Lewis Olsover, and has been repeated every five years or so. Records of the 1988 and 1993 censuses are held by the Tyne and Wear Archives Service.

The latest census shows that membership (including children) of the United Hebrew Congregation and Newcastle Reform Synagogue has fallen from 956 in 1998 to 541 in 2009. The prediction is that, by 2014, it will be down to 400. This is partly a function of aging, just 12% of congregants being under 30, with 78% over 50. Since 2003 there have been only 14 births against 99 deaths. During the same period there were 24 marriages and 16 bar- and batmitzvahs. In addition, there are 143 Jewish households in the region not affiliated to either synagogue.

Posted in News from religious organisations | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Synagogue Membership in 2010

Posted on May 21, 2010 by Clive D. Field

Membership of a synagogue has traditionally been regarded as the most widely held point of formal affiliation to and identity with the Jewish community. However, the situation has been changing fast in recent years, with membership becoming more fluid and transient. It is therefore of interest that the Institute for Jewish Policy Research and the Board of Deputies of British Jews have jointly published Synagogue Membership in the United Kingdom in 2010, by David Graham and Daniel Vulkan. It is available to download from:

http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/Synagogue%20membership.pdf

This report continues a series of approximately quinquennial surveys of synagogue membership in the UK which was initiated by the Board in 1977. However, in order to capture the growing Strictly Orthodox membership, the methodology employed for the 2010 census (primarily conducted online using Survey Monkey between June 2009 and February 2010) differed from earlier investigations, necessitating adjustment to the statistics published for earlier years.

The total number of synagogue members by household (i.e. not individuals) in the UK in 2010 is 82,963 in 409 synagogues. 73% of Jewish households in the UK are estimated to belong to a synagogue. The decline in synagogue membership flattened out between 2005 and 2010 (with a decrease of only 0.3%), but the 2010 figure is still 24% below the level in 1983.

The largest synagogue group, by denomination, is Central Orthodox (including the United Synagogue), with 55% of the total membership, compared with 66% in 1990. By contrast, the number of Strictly Orthodox synagogue members has more than doubled over these two decades, to reach 11%. Masorti numbers have also risen, by 85%, but they remain less than 3% of total synagogue membership. The overall proportion of ‘non-Orthodox’ relative to ‘Orthodox’ strands has increased from 26% to 31%.

Almost 64% of synagogue members live in London, a higher proportion than the 56% of affiliating Jews resident there at the 2001 census. However, the number of synagogue members in the capital (defined in terms of political administrative boundaries) has fallen by one-fifth since 1990. A further 9% of synagogue members are in districts contiguous with London (South Hertfordshire and South-West Essex) and 10% are in Greater Manchester. The remaining 10 UK regions account for only 17% of all synagogue members.

Posted in News from religious organisations | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment