Editorial
By
Thomas Gilly, ERCES
Our second issue is some weeks behind schedule due to the summer
holidays. We apologize for the delay.
We must also apologize for the somewhat incomplete nature of our edition
as the focal-centre of the second issue, the crime-religion relationship,
pertain to only three of the articles. Many scholars who desired to contribute
to this issue could not honour the deadline. Therefore, we decided to make it
longer.
We have all acknowledged that a wave of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic
crime floods the old continent. In some countries of the Old Continent, namely
France, the situation is so serious[1]
that Governments could no longer ignore the daily victimization of Jewish
community members. With the creation of a new legal basis for combating
anti-Semitism and racism, the French law-maker has demonstrated serious concern
regarding the Jewish Community’s safety requirements. And yet the President of
the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France, in his recent
address, showed disappointment about the laxity in trial and instruction;
Given the seriousness of the situation, the wave of anti-Semitism may be
viewed with perplexity and controversial interpretations. Are states that are
suffering more than others from the wave of anti-Semitism anti-Semitic? Can
this wave be thought of as anti-Semitism or is it rather the product of the
export of Middle East conflict to the suburbs of the great cities? Is it is
rather a wave of anti-Zionism? Is it possible to separate anti-Semitism and
anti-Zionism? Could it be that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has awakened the demon that was never asleep? Is it possible to imagine that all the
violence and offences against Jewish people have nothing to do neither with
anti-Semitism nor with anti-Zionism, that these acts are the reaction of the
disintegrated and marginalized groups of the youth of the second and third North African immigrants generation against
their life-conditions?
These are only some of the most controversial questions that came to the
fore of the public debate. One might argue that all these controversial
questions and the problems they raise do not affect the fact. Thus they can be
thought as of syndromes. Given the seriousness of the actual situation, the
circumstance that these problems are raised makes us believe that this issue
must be studied in depth.
Why then our issue is lacking in studying this issue? Should an issue
that is dedicated to the investigation of crime and religion not provide a
focal centre on anti-Semitism? This assumes that religion is involved in
anti-Semitism. The fact is that anti-Semitism for religious motivation or
anti-Semitism that is religious by nature is no longer relevant in modern
society; it is a historical figure that is inherent in the Middle Age and older
times. In modern times anti-Semitism can no longer defined with reference to
religion. According to Singer’s definition in the Jewish Encyclopaedia
MDCCCCIII (1903); anti-Semitism is
“A modern word expressing antagonisms to the political and social
community of the Jews.
Anti-Semitism is the
theory that the Jews as Semites are entirely different from Aryan or Indo-
European populations and can never be amalgamated with them.”
And
yet the 19th century which is the origin of modern anti-Semitism
shows that religion had played a considerable role in the development of this
issue. Moreover in a context where religious liberty and community life is
guaranteed by the constitution, anti-Semitic offences show a predilection for
Synagogues, Yeshivas, Jewish cemeteries and those members of the Jewish
community who confess in public their faith and their Judaism. To reduce the
risk of victimization, the French Consistory has advised the members of the
community to take off the kippa whenever and wherever
it is not required and strictly necessary.
Obviously
this predilection does not mean that anti-Semitism would not imply that :
“The Jews are opposed on account of their
racial characteristics: greed, a social characteristic of money - making,
aversion for hard work, clannishness, obtrusiveness, lack of social tact, and,
especially obtrusiveness of patriotism.” (Jewish Encyclopaedia MDCCCCIII 1903).
Indeed
the slogan of the “Jewish international complot” has never lost prominence.
On
all these accounts it is clear this issue requires a separate study in depth.
That is the reason why we decided to publish, in the forthcoming issues, a
series of articles that provide a focal centre on this issue. At the same time,
we will be respectful of our other editorial engagements.
Anti-Semitic
acts and racism are offences punished by law. Therefore a study in depth of
this issue is clearly relevant for criminology and deviance theory.
Paradoxically this issue has received very little, if not any consideration by
criminologists. And from this viewpoint there is somewhat a striking
resemblance with criminology’s embarrassment about terrorism. Could it be that
criminology has a predilection for the study of “ordinary” crime? The question
is worthy of discussion, and again, separate and special investigation.
We
have collected several articles in this issue. Two of the three that are
directly related to the relation between crime and religion provide a
theoretical, ethical and legal philosophical approach.
“Pirke Avot” (“The Ethics of the
Father”), by Rabbi Dr Peter Tarlow revisits a Michnaic Tractate from the viewpoint of Jewish legal
philosophy. To reach his goal the author takes up several important challenges
and imparts basic Jewish culture to those unfamiliar with an issue that is
inherent within Jewish culture and religion (although “Pike Avot”
is not considered a religious text)., lead a discussion that is accessible to
people who are not Jewish and that is respectful of the tradition and the
texts. The author successfully surmounts the obstacle of “organizational lack” (the rabbis
who shaped modern Judaism never expounded a formal philosophy or systematic
thought process) and establishes the Tractate’s original historical context and
significance, its influence on Jewish culture and its relevance for ( modern)
Jewish legal philosophy and its influence on contemporary penal police and the
understanding of crime.
The second article by Dr. Marina Luptakova
provides a focal centre on the Nature and Origin of Evil According to the
Eastern Christian Church. We choose this article for three reasons. First, in
Western Europe, the Orthodox Eastern religion is not very well known; second,
the notion of evil as it is defined in Eastern Christian Church and in Western
Christian Church shows some discrepancy. As we all acknowledge, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Eastern
Catholic Church were not always good bedfellows. Third, instead of providing
for an approach that refers directly to the dogmas and doctrine of the Eastern
Christian Church, the text of Marina Luptakova
explores the nature of evil, as it is defined in the Eastern Christian Church,
as reflected in world literature. Indeed, the notion of evil is analyzed as it
is reflected in Dostoevsky’s Karamazov
Brothers. This article offers an original and interesting approach.
In
“Religious Identity of the Perpetrators and victims of Communal violence in
Post-Independence India”, by Dr. K. Jaishankar and Ms. D. Haldar
explore the historical roots and the further development of community violence
in India. By providing a focal centre on the Hindu-Islam communities, these
authors offer substantial insight into the genesis and actual state of the
conflict to those unfamiliar with this issue. The authors provide us with
extremely precious empirical material and analysis that is relevant not only to
criminology, but also to victimology and culture
studies. Therefore this article must be considered a major contribution to
inter-cultural and inter-civilization scientific knowledge exchange.
As far as the broad range of community issues and victimology
is concerned, this article and the article by Professor Arthur Hartmann
and Professor Hans-Jürgen Kerner
can be viewed within the same broad range of issues. In
“Victim-Offender-Mediation in Germany – An Overview“ the focus is shifted from
inter-ethnical and inter-religious conflict studies to the particular level of
conflict solution between victims and offenders in Germany. Given the richness
and the well documented nature of the study (Start with VOM; development in
legal and organizational framework; conceptual level; statistical approach;
quantitative and qualitative analysis; offenders’ profile and types; acceptance
and outcome of VOM) the article is obviously the most technical of this issue. Given the actual state of
research, it is as also the most complete and the most condensed contribution
about VOM in Germany.
Our issue
concludes with Professor Yakov Gilinsky’s
“Concept of Criminality in Contemporary Criminology“ which
is within the great sociological tradition in deviance theory. The issue is
discussed in a substantial theoretical manner on both, the general level and
the level of the specific Russian context.
.
.
.
[1] For a detailed
overview (list of anti-Semitic acts, statistics, evolution, comments and analysis)
see the web-site of the CRIF ( Conseil Représentatif
des Institutions Juives de France); http://www.crif.org/index.php?dossier=1&menu=5. see also the
comments and articles published by the Observatoire
du Monde Juif; http://obs.monde.juif.free.fr/
About the situation in Europe see http://www.info-europe.fr/europe.web/document.dir/fich.dir/qr001153.htm
: