| 
1.3 National Programs in Response to Hate Crimes
International organizations have repeatedly drawn attention to the prominent role of specialized bodies and independent non-governmental organizations in the fight against hate crimes. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), for example, noted in one of its recent reports »that a small number of NGOs have been instrumental in actively monitoring and recording incidents motivated by hate […]. While this information does not diminish participating States’ responsibility for monitoring and recording incidents, it does suggest a potential value in state-NGO collaboration.« (17) The Human Rights First report pointed to the need for specialized services to victims of hate crimes, involving community-based associations and other civil society actors. (18)
1.3.1 Germany
Various studies have characterized public policy responses to the rise of right-wing violence and related hate crimes in Germany since the 1990s as a mix of repressive and preventive measures. Since the early 2000s a large emphasis has been placed on funding civic engagement and local initiatives. (19) The fight against right-wing extremism and racism is supported—with varying intensity and efforts—by all parties represented in the National Parliament. In the period following reunification and the surge of far-right activities and racist incidents, the federal government adopted four major action and funding programs with different philosophies and approaches to the problem of right-wing violence: the Action Program Against Aggression and Violence, launched in 1992 under the conservative Kohl government; the action program Youth for Tolerance and Democracy—Against Right-wing Extremism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism (Jugend für Toleranz und Demokratie—gegen Rechtsextremismus, Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Antisemitismus), which was adopted by the German Parliament in 2001 and ended in 2006; and, finally, the programs Diversity Does Us Good—Youth for Diversity, Tolerance and Democracy (VIELFALT TUT GUT. Jugend für Vielfalt, Toleranz und Demokratie) and Consultation Networks and Mobile Intervention against Right-wing Extremism, which both started in 2007.
Throughout the 1990s, the federal government focused on projects and local initiatives, which were mainly aimed at counteracting the growing trend among adolescents to join far-right parties, militant neo-Nazi organizations or right-wing skinhead subcultures. Pedagogical initiatives targeting potential juvenile perpetrators implemented various forms of social work including sports-related programs and action and adventure-centered activities. These concepts followed the logic that many youth, especially in East Germany, sympathized with right-wing and xenophobic ideologies because of grim employment perspectives and deteriorating social conditions. (20) However, this particular approach, which was supported by the Federal Action Program against Aggression and Violence (Aktionsprogramm gegen Aggression und Gewalt), soon came under public scrutiny after evidence emerged that some of these projects were not effective in fostering democratic values, but rather provided right-wing groups with locales for recruiting additional members to right-wing extremist causes. (21)
Following a wave of severe racist and anti-Semitic hate crimes in 2000 and 2001, a joint motion by almost all parties represented in the National Parliament formed the basis for new government initiatives and programs. (22) In April 2001 the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) launched a program to encourage right-wing extremists to leave the movement. (23) The most important initiative, however, was the program Youth for Tolerance and Democracy—Against Right-wing Extremism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism. This program incorporated a new political approach by maintaining that extremism presents a significant problem for German society. (24) Thus, there was a shift from a focus on right-wing perpetrators to the additional support of human rights policies, with attention also given to those in civil society committed to opposing right-wing extremism and intolerance. One primary goal of the program was to empower and strengthen the marginalized groups that are most affected by discrimination and hate crimes. (25) For the first time, the improved protection and support for victims of xenophobic violence was acknowledged as an important contribution in the combat against racism and right-wing extremism in Germany. The program was comprised of three sub-programs: XENOS, dedicated to countering ethnic and religious discrimination in vocational training and the work place; ENTIMON, committed to promoting projects of civic education, inter-cultural learning and NGO networks against right-wing extremist tendencies in all parts of Germany; and, finally, the CIVITAS program, which was created to tackle the specific challenges of right-wing activities and hate crimes in the new federal states.
The CIVITAS program allowed for the creation of outreach and counseling programs—all run by NGOs that have received funding since 2001 to support these kinds of projects from the federal government: Mobile Counseling Teams (MBTs), Networking Institutions and eight specialized victim support and counseling centers. (26) Opferperspektive was one of the support centers in the state of Brandenburg to receive CIVITAS funding. These projects are regarded as the basic pillars of a civil society approach to counter right-wing extremism in East Germany. (27) MBTs provide support to individuals or organizations that seek expert advice in developing strategies against right-wing extremist manifestations. Their clients include municipal participants, NGOs, associations, voluntary groups, local alliances, politicians and administrations. Networking Institutions are initiatives that offer programs and services to particular towns and regions, especially to local alliances devoted to fostering democratic values and tolerance. They focus on establishing sustainable relationships between local actors and institutions, such as schools, youth welfare services, church groups and other community organizations. The victim support organizations were created to account for the difficult situation in which many victims of right-wing hate crimes find themselves in East Germany. »[Their situation] is characterized by a lack of mobility, much legal uncertainty, communication difficulties due to language restrictions, and profound distrust of state authorities and institutions.« (28) These organizations have adopted a human rights approach. This means they use the victims’ perspective and interests as the basis for all of their activities. Central to their work are low-threshold services and an outreach concept that embraces the victims, their professional and personal contacts, and the community in which they live (see detailed account of victim support organizations’ work in Chapter 4).
At the beginning of 2007, the program Youth for Tolerance and Democracy was replaced by the two programs Diversity Does Us Good—Youth for Diversity, Tolerance and Democracy and Consultation Networks and Mobile Intervention Against Right-wing Extremism (Förderung von Beratungsnetzwerken—Mobile Intervention gegen Rechtsextremismus). Despite the fact that most official documents state that both programs are built upon the experiences gained from previous action programs, the new approach and funding structures indicate a notable shift. Attention is now focused on the strengthening of joint initiatives and close cooperation between the federal, state and local governments. (29) The first program Diversity Does Us Good—Youth for Diversity, Tolerance and Democracy currently funds local action plans against right-wing extremism. These constitute projects and programs that are primarily run by municipalities with the support of local NGOs. It also provides funding for pilot projects in the fields of youth, education and prevention. Under the auspices of Consultation Networks, representatives from state institutions, law enforcement agencies, social workers, academics and NGOs were asked to set up teams of professionals that can provide crisis intervention to oppose right-wing manifestations when needed (see Chapter 4). Only after a concerted lobbying effort led by a coalition of academic experts, NGOs and politicians did the federal government provide long-term funding to the tried-and-tested structural projects in East Germany, namely the Mobile Counseling Teams and the victim support organizations. States and cities, however, must increasingly allocate their own funds to prolong support for these initiatives, raising questions about the longevity of some of these projects.
17. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) 2005. Combating Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: An Overview of Statistics, Legislation and National Initiatives, Warsaw, p. 101.
18. Human Rights First 2007. Hate Crimes: 2007 Survey, New York, p. 12.
19. Shortly after reunification, the intitial reaction of the ruling Christian Democratic Party (Christlich Demokratische Union) was to tighten Germany’s asylum laws in order to lower the number of refugees and immigrants in the country. For a short overview on public hate crime policies in Germany, see: Bleich, Erik 2007. Hate Crime Policy in Western Europe: Responding to Racist Violence in Britain, Germany, and France. In: American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 51, Nr. 2, p. 149-165.
20. Rieker, Peter 2006. Juvenile Right-wing-Extremism and Xenophobia in Germany: Research and Prevention. In: Rieker, Peter; Glaser, Michaela; Schuster, Silke (eds.). Prevention of Right-wing Extremism, Xenophobia and Racism in European Perspective, Halle, p. 67–79.
21. Scherr, Albert 2000. Gefährliche Nazis, überforderte Sozialarbeiter? Die Bekämpfung des Rechtsextremismus und der Auftrag der Jugendhilfe. In: Jugendhilfe 38, p. 307–314.
22. Parties supporting the joint motion include: the Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands), the Free Democratic Party (Freie Demokratische Partei), the Party of Democratic Socialism (Partei des demokratischen Sozialismus), Alliance 90/The Greens (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen).
23. A similar program, EXIT, had already been started in 2000, as a »private intiative» by foundations and the German magazine stern. See: http://www.exit-deutschland.de.
24. Frindte, Wolfgang; Preiser, Siegfried 2007.Präventionsansätze gegen Rechtsextremismus. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (ApuZ), Nr. 11, March 2007, p. 32-38.
25. Roth, Roland; Klein, Ludger 2005. Bürgernetzwerke gegen Rechts: Perspektiven des Aktionsprogramms gegen Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Rechtsextremismus, Berlin, p. 2.
26. CIVITAS provided a total of 192 million euros between 2001 and 2006 to support and promote some 4,500 NGO projects and initiatives. See: Frindte; Preiser 2007. Präventionsansätze, p. 33.
27. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend 2006. Leitlinien zur Umsetzung des Programms CIVITAS, Berlin.
28. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend 2003. Leitlinien zur Umsetzung des Programms CIVITAS, Berlin, p. 3.
29. Kompetent für Demokratie (n.d.). Inhalte und Aufbau, Berlin.
(OPP)
