europe all different all igual

8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual

1/72

Europe, all different, all equal? A comparative study of thesituation concerning racism and intolerance in France, Germany,the United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden and Hungary on the basis ofthe country-by-country approach of the European Commissionagainst Racism and Intolerance. (Astrid Waterinckx)home list theses contence previous next 1. Introduction

If ever Europe had been united and divided at the same time,

it is precisely now. [1]

Status questionis

General background

Europe has changed its shape completely during the last half century. From a

continent of sameness, Europe was transformed into a continent of visible

otherness.[2]Gradually Europeans did no longer belong to a society that was

seen as unchanging, unvarying and uniform, but on the contrary to a society

that was marked by distinct identities and in which an effort was made to

include these different identities.

The background against which otherness became noticeable in Europe is

- somewhat paradoxically - the introduction of a migration stop in 1973

1974.[3] This halt to migration, in itself a response of the separate European

countries to the oil crisis in the Middle East and the consequent economic

crisis in the West, resulted de facto in a stabilisation of non indigenous people

in Europe instead of their desired decrease. For fear of not being allowed tocome back once they would have left the country, migrants decided to base

themselves permanently in their host countries henceforth. This end to the

traditional va et vien between the country of origin and the country of

destination caused migrants in Europe to become more present and more

visible than ever. An additional factor to the stabilisation of migrants in the

host countries is the failure of the return policies that a number of European

governments had set up. Moreover, as a result of the higher birth rates of

migrants and, of the various ways in which migrants continued to enter Europe,such as family reunification, the coming of foreign students and irregular
http://www.ethesis.net/index.htmlhttp://www.ethesis.net/index.htmhttp://www.ethesis.net/index.htmhttp://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe_inhoud.htmhttp://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe_Acknowledgement.htmhttp://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe_inhoud.htmhttp://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn1http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn2http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn2http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn2http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn3http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn3http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn3http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn3http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn2http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn1http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe_inhoud.htmhttp://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe_Acknowledgement.htmhttp://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe_inhoud.htmhttp://www.ethesis.net/index.htmhttp://www.ethesis.net/index.html


2/72

migration, the number of non indigenous people not only stabilised, but also

increased.

In recent years, the acceleration and intensification of globalisation and

the concurrent process of localisation reinforced the European shift towards

otherness.[4] With the famous wordings of Martin McLuhan in his book

Understanding Media (1964), globalisation can be defined as the fact that

the world becomes smaller each and every dayand that it is turning into a

global village. Globalisation, in other words, means that people and places

throughout the world become increasingly interlinked or interdependent, which

is in itself the result of ever quickening mobility and communication. As such,

globalisation involves a number of far reaching socio economic, political and

cultural changes. At society level for example, practically all people in Europe

become confronted with aspects of other cultures and societies. Political,

ideological, religious or cultural trends that originally appeared to be connected

with a specific place, are now being echoed in large parts of the word, including

Europe. Here localisation - also referred to as creolisation, glocalisation or

hybridisation - comes into play as the Janus face of globalisation. As a

reaction to the homogenizing tendencies of globalisation, a large number of

people tend to adapt the global elements to their local traditions. At the same

time, individuals and communities are likely to stress their distinct cultural

identity vis - - vis the others living around and amongst them more stronglythan they have ever done before. It is this (re)assertion ofparticular ethnic and

cultural identities and, the de facto otherness of European societies that is

the focus of my treatise.

Research questions

The actual cultural and ethnic diversity and the efforts of specific groups, both

traditional indigenous and migration linked (minority) groups, to affirm old

and construct new boundaries comprise a great challenge for European

societies. The major question at political level is how to create unity while at

the same time acknowledging, respecting and even recognising diversity. How,

in other words, can social cohesion be established without denying or

disrespecting universal and cross cultural values that are vital for the

relations between individuals and groups within a society? How far can

immigrant or non immigrant minorities keep themselves separate and yet

participate fully in society. How, further, to avoid that the assertion of

particular identities is translated into antagonistic or even racist and
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn4http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn4http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn4http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn4


3/72

discriminating attitudes towards other individuals and groups? It is particularly

on this last question, namely the question of equality between all human beings

and hence the non discrimination of all human beings, that I will concentrate

in this thesis. More concretely I will investigate the situation in different

European countries with regard to racism and intolerance.

The comparative study of this and related issues, such as the integration of

minorities in European societies, have been topics of increasing interest in

recent years. Nevertheless, most of the attention in these studies has been

given to the policies and measures that, in the distinct countries, were adopted

at governmental level. My aim is, instead, to focus not only on policies and

measures adopted, but also on what is happening in the field (read : in

everyday society). This approach does however not exclude the fact that I will

pay considerable attention to the different political theories that were

developed since the beginning of the 1990s in response to the issue of unity

and diversity by authors such as Iris Marion Young, Charles Taylor and Will

Kymlicka - to mention the most important and most influential ones. Nor does

it exclude that I will try to interpret the concrete sources of my research in

relation to these theories.

Basis of my research are the so called country - by - country reports drawn up

by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (hereafter :

ECRI), an independent body set up in 1993 by the Council of Europe after the

organisations first Summit of Heads of State and Government held in Vienna (8

9 September 1993).[5] In its country by country reports, ECRI examines

the situation concerning racism and intolerance in each of the member States

of the Council of Europe. In each report, the same criteria are scrutinized, such

as the legal apparatus regarding racism and intolerance, the (non-) existence

of specialised bodies and institutions, the level of education and awareness -

raising and the quality of reception and status of non citizens. Consequently,

these reports are very suitable material to make a comparison between distinct

European countries and to inquire not only into the policies and measures

adopted by these countries, but also into what happens in every day life.

On the basis of the above mentioned debate about unity and diversity on the

one hand and, on the basis of the ECRI country by country reports on the

other hand, the main questions that I raise and will try to answer in thistreatise are the following.


4/72

What picture can be drawn up with regard to racism and intolerance in

distinct European states when studying the reports drafted by an independent

human rights monitoring body? What are the fields in which the countries seem

to fail and what are the fields in which they seem to be successful? What are

the elements that are given particular attention and what are the elements that

are - invariably - neglected? Is the policy of the distinct European countries

very liberal or on the contrary very restrictive? And what about group rights,

the accession of vulnerable groups to public services such as education and

housing, and the monitoring of the situation in the country?

On a higher level, I will deal with the subsequent questions. Is it possible

to distinguish between different traditions, different models in relation to the

distinct member states? Or, is the situation concerning racism and intolerance

de facto more or less the same in all the European countries and does the

popular notion ofnational models nothing more than obscuring the similarities

of approaches and concerns across the distinct states? If no, how important are

the differences between the countries and how can these differences be

explained. If yes, why then is the emphasis in the literature still so

predominantly on the dissimilarities between European states?

Functioning of the research

Delineation in space

To answer the above questions, I chose to study the situation concerning

racism and intolerance and xenophobia in six distinct countries of Europe,

namely Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain and Hungary.[6]

Rationale for the choice to study Sweden, France, Germany and theUnited Kingdom, is the fact that these countries represent the distinct models

or traditions, that can be distinguished on the basis of the relevant literature,

of how states respond to ethnic cultural diversity. Since the classification

made by Stephen Castles and Mark Miller in their book The Age of Migration

(1993), it has become a common practice to point at Germany as the best

representative of the so called exclusion model, France of the republican

model and Sweden of the multiculturalist model.[7] In short, the characteristic

features of the exclusion model, that is tied to a definition of the nation in

terms ofjus sanguinis, are its restrictive naturalisation requirements and its
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn6http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn6http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn6http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn7http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn7http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn7http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn7http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn6


5/72

ideology that the country is not an immigrant country. In the republican model

on the contrary not blood rights but territorial rights orjus soliform the basis

for the concept of the nation. Consequently, in the republican model every

one who desires to become a citizen can become so, at least when he or she is

willing to assimilate with the nation, read : with the majority culture. The

multiculturalist model then is based on the notion of tolerance. The main idea

of this model is to respect and even to encourage cultural difference. Although

Sweden is seen as the most typical of the multiculturalist model, The

Netherlands and the United Kingdom are no bad examples either, be it in a

somewhat distinct way. This is way I decided to include the UK in my research

as well.

The incorporation of Spain in the list of countries that I will study can be

accounted for by the fact that, contrary to the above Scandinavian and western

European countries, Spain - as a representative of the southern European

countries - has a very recent history when it comes to immigration.[8] It was

only by the beginning of the 1980s that a cluster of economic, political and

socio economic factors caused a shift in the migratory trends in southern

Europe and that these traditional sending countries transformed into new

countries of destination. This diversion effect was, among other things, a result

of the halt called to the recruitment of labour migrants in the West around the

years 1973 74 and the fast economic and social development in the countriesof southern Europe.

The ground to include Hungary in this study - as a representative of the

central and eastern European countries - is the fact that the story of this part of

Europe reads completely different from the one of western and southern

Europe, not at least because of the influence the Soviet Union had on these

countries until very recently.[9] Under Soviet rule, Central and Eastern Europe,

for instance, never took fully part in the process of globalisation and hence

localisation. With regard to migration, the number of immigrants isconsiderably less in the central and eastern European countries than in

Northern and Western Europe. Moreover, immigrants in Central and Eastern

Europe are usually transit immigrants who view their stay as temporary. Since

the symbolic collapse of the Berlin wall and hence of the entire Soviet system

and, since the recent incorporation of the central and eastern European

countries in the European Union, migratory trends in Central and Eastern

Europe might shift however. Nevertheless, it is still too early to assess such an

evolution.


6/72

Delineation in time

As to the timeframe of this treatise, I am somewhat confined by the scope of

the sources that my research rests on. The country by country reports ECRI

draws up are issued by rounds; each cycle lasting around four to five years,

covering ten to twelve countries per year.[10] At the end of one round, ECRI

has scrutinized the situation concerning racism and intolerance in all of the

Council of Europes member States, formulated suggestions and proposals to

the governments involved and, after consulting the member State concerned,

issued a country report containing ECRIs analysis of the state of affairs in

each of the member states. A first round was completed at the end of 1998, a

second round at the end of the year 2002. A third round started in 2003 and is

supposed to be completed by 2007.

My purpose is to inquire only into the latest version available of the

country by country reports of Germany, France, the United Kingdom,

Sweden, Spain and Hungary.[11] Since the third round is yet to be completed,

the third round country reports are only available for France, Hungary and

Germany. Although the United Kingdom and Sweden were covered in 2004 and

although their country reports are due in the course of this year, their reports

are at the moment not published yet. Spain on the other hand will only be

covered in the run of 2005 and its country report is due in the course of 2006.

Consequently, for Sweden, the United Kingdom and Spain I will study the

second country reports.

Structure

This treatise is made up of five chapters. After this introductory chapter, I willdeal with the integration debate at greater length since the issue of racism and

intolerance in Europe cannot be dissociated from the question about unity and

diversity. Apart from focussing on the notions of cultural diversity and

integration, I will throw light on the concept of multiculturalism.

Chapter 3 focuses in general terms on racism and intolerance in Europe.

After giving a dynamic, though integrated picture of contemporary racism in

Europe, attention will be given to the activities with relevance to combating

racism and intolerance at European level and, more precisely, at the level of the

Council of Europe.


7/72

Chapter 4, the most elaborated chapter of this treatise, examines the

situation concerning racism and intolerance in France, Hungary, Germany,

Sweden, the United Kingdom and Spain. In this chapter I will scrutinize ECRIs

(second or third round) country by country reports on the selected

countries.

In the final chapter, I will draw my final conclusions.

2. Unity and diversity : the integration

debate in Europe

The issue of racism and intolerance in Europe cannot be dissociated from the

integration debate. Therefore, in this chapter, I will deal with the integration

debate at greater length. At stake in the debate is the question of unity and

diversity; of how policies should respond to the de facto cultural and ethnic

varieties in the society in such a way to encourage the social cohesion that is

needed to ensure harmonious relations between groups of people of different

backgrounds, while at the same time recognising or even respecting such

diversity. How far can immigrant and non immigrant minority groups, forexample, keep themselves separate and yet participate fully in society? Is it

sufficient that all parts of society subscribe to the core values of the countries

in which they live and that within the limits of these established norms

everyone practices its own belief or continues its own customs? In other

words: what should be the status, rights and obligations of minority cultures in

European societies?

Cultural diversity and integration

Cultural diversity

Todays Europe is composed of culturally diversified societies, or, to use a

trendy academic word, of multicultural societies. The notion of multicultural

society, that replaces to a certain extend the now somewhat old fashioned

term ofpluralsocieties, denotes a society in which there exist several cultures


8/72

and that is composed of people belonging to different cultures. The term

multicultural society, in other words, is not about differences per se, but about

those differences that are embedded in and sustained by culture, i.e. a body of

beliefs and practices in terms of which a group of people understand

themselves and the world and organise their individual and collective lives.

Cultural diversity in modern multicultural Europe takes many forms. In his book

Rethinking multiculturalismParekh for example distinguishes between three

forms of cultural diversity, namely subcultural diversity, perspectival diversity

and communal diversity.[12] Subcultural diversityconcerns those members of

society who either entertain different beliefs and practices with regard to

particular areas of life or evolve relatively distinct ways of life of their own.

Gays and lesbians are examples of the first category, fishermen and miners of

the latter. Perspectival diversityrelates to those members of society who are

highly critical of some of the central principles or values of the prevailing

culture and seek to reconstitute it along appropriate lines. Feminists for

instance attack the highly patriarchal orientation of the present society

whereas anti globalists mind the basic neo liberal assumptions of the

current globalisation process. Communal diversitythen concerns several self

conscious and more or less well organised communities entertaining and

living by their own different systems of beliefs and practices, namely national

minorities, immigrant minorities, religious groups and sui generis groups. In

this regard, Europe is also called to be composed of multi ethnic, pluri

ethnic or multiracial societies.

Although the term multicultural society generally refers to a society that

exhibits all the three above mentioned kinds of diversity, the debate on

multiculturalism and hence of integration in Europe tends to focus especially on

the last category of communal diversity and more particularly, though not

exclusively, on migration based minorities.[13] For the question of

immigrants is a very topical one in Europe, since European societies have long

assumed that they were composed of only one single national culture in which

all their citizens should assimilate. By the second half of the twentieth century,

however, European societies found that they effectively did include groups who

would not or whom they could not assimilate. The presence of these groups

made Europe shift from a continent of sameness towards a continent of

otherness or, from a cluster of societies that were seen as unchanging,unvarying and uniform towards a cluster of societies that were marked by


9/72

distinct identities and in which an effort was made to include these different

identities and to integrate them.[14]

Integration

Integration is a relatively vague and broad ranging concept that covers

several different dimensions. So, although in all cases the notion of integration

includes some measure of cultural diversity and mutual respect, the actual

meaning of the notion integration varies from country to country, depending

both on the objective sought and the method used.

A first distinction that can be made with regard to integration is

between structural integration and sociocultural integration.[15] Structural

integration relates to the political and economic dimension and can be

described as the full and equitable participation in the institutions of a society.

Sociocultural integration on the other hand is more concerned about the

establishment of social relations with the surrounding society and the

adaptation to some extent to the culture of that society. It is, in other words, a

search for the ideal balance between diversity and consensus about some core

values. Clear examples of structural integration are the acquisition of

nationality, the entrance in the labour market and the acquisition of voting

rights. Clear examples of sociocultural integration are access to public

institutions, housing and education. A further discernment that can be made is

betweengeneral policies andspecific or targeted policies, where the latter

refers to policies that are addressed to or, more precisely, targeted to specific

groups or categories of people.

From an ideological perspective, Castles and Miller introduced a popular

classification of how European states try to respond to ethno cultural

diversity in their book The Age of Migration. Although Castles and Miles focus

on the integration of immigrants in society, their classification can be

interpreted more broadly and applied to the whole integration debate. Castles

and Miller identify three distinct models of immigrant policies, namely the

exclusion model or model of differential exclusion, the republican or

assimilationist model and the multicultural or pluralistic model. Germany is

judged to be the clearest example of the first model, France of the second one

and Sweden of the third one.

The model of differential exclusion and the assimilationist model are

based on two opposite conceptions of nation following, respectively the

principle of jus sanguinis and the principle of jus soli. The first concept of


10/72

nation based on terms of descent and blood, is often referred to as the ethnic

conception of nation, while the second concept of nation based on terms of

territory is often referred to as the civic conception of nation.[16] The idea is

that every country chooses between one of these two conceptions of nation and

that this choice reflects such deeply rooted ways of thinking that all aspects of

the policy and legislation of that country are influenced by it. A well known

expression of this view is Brubakers Citizenship and Nationhood in France and

Germany.[17]

Turning back to the classification made by Castles and Miller with regard

to different integration policy models, the characteristic features of the model

of differential exclusion are the restrictive naturalisation requirements and the

basic idea that the country is no immigrant country. This does not mean that

the countries following this model want to prevent immigration at any costs,

they are just hesitant to accept the presence of immigrants. The distinguishing

feature of the republican model on the other hand is mainly the fact that per

definition everyone who desires to, can become a citizen of the country, at least

when he or she is willing to assimilate with the (majority) culture of that

country. The underlying idea in the first model is that one has to prove first that

he or she wants to integrate and only thereafter citizenship is granted. In the

second model, citizenship is granted quite easily and rapidly because it is

considered as an aid to integrate. For when one has citizenship he or she isalready in some way or another seen as forming part of the club.

Note that because of the recent phenomenon of transnationalism or

immigration beyond the confines of one single country, the traditional notions

of citizenship, be it on the basis of jus sanguinis or on the basis of jus soli, are

currently under discussion as becoming largely irrelevant.[18] Legitimised by

an international human rights discourse, transnationals increasingly claim

nationality rights that transgress the borders. In this context, the new notion of

postnational citizenship or the decoupling of rights and identities from nationalcitizenship has been launched. In the postnational view, anyone who resides

legally for a certain period of time within the territory of a state or settles there

legally is granted equal rights. Neither a certain cultural identity, nor the

belonging to a certain territory is necessitated.

The third model in Castles and Millers classification is the multicultural

model. The characteristic feature of this model is the notion of tolerance and

even recognition. Cultural differences are encouraged while everyone is

required to accept some core values of society.
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn16http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn16http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn16http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn17http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn17http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn18http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn18http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn18http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn18http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn17http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn16


11/72

Multiculturalism

The termAs the term itself indicates, multiculturalism refers to cultures in the plural.

However, as it is clear from the above paragraph, the word multiculturalism can

be applied both in a descriptive and in a prescriptive way. On the one hand,

multiculturalism can refer to a state of affairs and mean the existence of

culturally diverse segments in the population of a society or a state. On the

other hand, multiculturalism can refer to an ideological, philosophical or

political programme that desires to respond to cultural diversity in a specificway. Multiculturalism then means in broad lines the idea or the initiative to

urge the recognition and tolerance of cultural differences and sometimes even

to stimulate actively cultural diversity. In order to avoid confusion between

these two different usages of the same term, Parekh proposes to speak of

multicultural and multiculturalistsocieties instead.[19] The term multicultural

societythen refers to a society in which different cultures exist, whereas the

term multiculturalist society refers to a society in which different cultures do

not only exist but are also recognised. In other words, multicultural societyrefers to the fact of cultural diversity, while multiculturalist society refers to a

way to respond to that fact.

As a word or thing, multiculturalism first appeared in Canada, where

Prime Minister Trudeau used it as a central concept in his 1971 government

programme in response to the Quebec question.[20] The term soon made its

entry into Australia. In Canada as well as in Australia, the idea of

multiculturalism was launched in an attempt to reconcile the seemingly

incompatible claims of defeated homeland minorities, old European immigrants

and newly entering immigrant groups. The term was thus originally used

normatively. As a comment in the margin, it should be noted that both Canada

and Australia could at that time be characterised as post colonial societies

that lacked independent nation founding myths as well as clear breaks with

the colonial past. Hence, the two countries conceived of themselves as multiple

cultures coexisting under the roof of a neutral state. The next country where

the concept of multiculturalism set foot ashore was the United States. As the

idea of a melting pot, i.e. one single common culture into which all develop

through a process of gradually abandoning the culture of origin and


12/72

assimilating into the one and only national culture, was firmly in place in the

United States, the concept of multiculturalism adopted an oppositional and anti

institutional stance in this country.[21] Multiculturalism retained this stance

in its further march towards Europe, final destination until now.

The model

The essence of the multiculturalist model (read : multiculturalism in its

normative sense) lies in the simultaneous concern for political integration,

social and economic participation and the recognition of other cultures as equal

in principle.[22] Consequently, a first priority in the multiculturalist model is to

make all people into citizens without too many delays. The next step after

granting formal citizenship, is granting substantive citizenship, that is actual

equality. It is seen as partly a task of the government to put an end to

differential treatment between culturally diverse groups and to drive away

forces such as racism and intolerance that cause or perpetuate inequality.

Moreover, the state and society have to respect and even to recognise that

some individuals and groups are different. Group rights, the right to differential

treatment and collective cultural rights are therefore core elements of

multiculturalism. This accounts also for the accommodation of some rules to

minority cultures, since multiculturalists claim that the prevailing rules in

society have been laid down by the dominant group and hence are not neutral

or, above all cultures.

It could be inferred that multiculturalism is closely related to targeted

policies. These two types of policies do however not coincide necessarily. Since,

in the case of frictions between the minority culture and the dominant culture,

the granting of special rights is just one option. The other one is the adaptation

of the dominant culture to the new range of cultural diversity in society. And, of

course, a combination of both options is also possible.

The remark is sometimes made that multiculturalism is in essence not

as new as the word implies. Is multiculturalism not the same thing as

pluralism, be it in another guise? The answer is no. Multiculturalism differs

fundamentally from the pluralism or imperial model that was characteristic for

such societies as the pre-industrial Habsburg or Ottoman empires, or else the

colonial societies. Where the focus of multiculturalism is on equality, the

preservation of cultural differences in the imperial model went hand in hand

with social inequality and differential civil rights. Consequently, in contrast with


13/72

the imperial model, anti discrimination legislation and positive action tend to

be regarded as very important aspects in the multiculturalist model.

The theory[23]

The debate about multiculturalism derives in essence from an academic

discourse questioning the key tenets of the liberal democratic tradition. A small

detour highlighting the foundations and principles of traditional liberalism is

therefore appropriate, before dealing with the critique on and the proposed

alternatives for traditional liberalism.[24]

Traditional liberalism, in the tradition stretching from Miles to Rawls, is a priori

a creed of individual tolerance and freedom. The emphasis on the individual is

very strong. Individuals are seen to be the basic components of society, the

carriers of human rights. Group rights are out of question in traditional

liberalism, for they are seen as incompatible with the liberal principles of

individual freedom (of speech, worship, equality before law, etc.), social justice

and national unity. The only role for the government, which is seen as neutral,

is to guarantee that individuals can enjoy their individual rights.The basic critique on traditional liberalism is its stance of neutrality.

This stance, in relation to non Western cultures in particular, appears to reach

its culmination in the so called principle of cultural relativism or universalism;

the belief that no single culture is better than any other and that there are no

transcendent criteria to which one can appeal for justifying the imposition of

one cultures norms on another. The problem, or even the paradox is that if

there are no transcendent values, then liberal values are themselves not

transcendent and that hence there is no reason why one should accept the

principle of cultural relativism. Hence, universalism is disentangled as

ethnocentrism of the dominant group, as the invisible subjugation of the Rest

by the West. Liberalism is thus said to fail to understand how deeply it is

influenced by Western values and how it is actually not as neutral as it claims

to be.

Another critique on traditional liberalism is what Iris Marion Young calls

difference blindness.[25] Traditional liberalism, the critique goes, promotes

the idea that everyone is equal, but de facto it does nothing more than hiding

the differences. Inequality, under the form of oppression, is still present in

everyday life. Traditional liberalism is thus seen not to suffice in terms of

democracy, at least not in outcome, as it fails to deliver either liberty or equal
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn23http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn23http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn23http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn24http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn24http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn24http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn25http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn25http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn25http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn25http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn24http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn23


14/72

treatment. Consequently, according to Young, doing justice is to recognise that

varieties d exist within society and this can only be done through what Young

calls the politics of difference. In short, this implies the recognition of group

identity and the granting of group rights by the state and by society and further

the fostering of legal nd real equality. Remains the difficult question of how to

define a group and which groups should be recognised. Young sees a group as

more than the aggregation of its members. A group is both something an sich,

distinguishing itself from the rest of society, and fr sich, considering itself as a

group.

One alternative for traditional liberalism developed in the field of political

theory is communitarism. An important author in this respect is Charles

Taylor.[26] In principle Taylor agrees with the importance of individual rights.

However, Taylor puts stronger emphasis on the community, which in his

opinion is the basis element of society. In effect, Taylor values both the

protection of the basic rights of individuals and the acknowledging of particular

needs of individuals as members of specific cultural groups. This is the central

idea of what Taylor calls the politics of recognition. With regard to the state,

Taylor views its role not as neutral, but instead as guaranteeing a minimum

level of consensus in society by upholding specific common norms and

recognising group rights. Since, according to Taylor, recognising and treating

all members of society as equals requires public institutions to acknowledge

rather than to ignore cultural particularities. It should be noted that the

content and the scope of the term recognition goes far beyond that of

toleration, for recognition is about the acceptance, respect and affirmation of

differences within society. Mere changes in the legal arrangements of society

are not sufficient; changes in the societys attitudes and ways of thought are

required as well. The background premise is that recognition forges identity,

both individual and group identity.Communitarism did not meet without response. A few years ago, some

individuals and organisations, with Amitai Etzioi as a key figure, set up the

Communitarian Network fostering the Diversity within Unity project.[27] The

basic approach is that all members of a given society will fully respect and

adhere to those basic values and institutions that are considered part of the

basic shared framework of the society. At the same time, every group in society

is free to maintain its distinct subculture - those policies, habits, and

institutions that do not conflict with the shared core - and a strong measure ofloyalty to its country of origin, as long as this does not trump loyalty to the


15/72

society in which it lives if these loyalties come into conflict.[28] In short, the

basic rights must be respected by one and all, while everyone is free to do

whatever he or she wants with respect to all the other rights. Remains to be

discussed what these basic rights are.Another alternative for traditional liberalism thought up in the field of political

theory is multiculturalism; the strongest scholarly defence of which has been

delivered by Will Kymlicka in his book Multicultural Citizenship.[29] The

question at the centre of Kymlickas book is how liberalism should deal with

increasing diversity while human rights are individual rights. Thus, even more

than the Communitarians, Kymlicka is not against liberalism tout court. After

all, as is clear from the subtitle A liberal theory of minority rights, the aim of

Kymlickas book is to reconcile the idea of collective rights for minority cultures

with the core principles and values of the liberal tradition. One could argue that

Kymlicka is a liberal with communitarian influence. Kymlickas plea is that the

protection of group rights is necessary to protect and guarantee individual

rights. Group rights and individual rights are not seen as conflicting, but as

compatible and even as supplementary. The idea is that group rights

supplement and enable individual human rights, they do nt (as the

communitarians claim) replace them. This statement needs to be refined, as

Kymlicka actually distinguishes between two meanings of collective rights,

namely internal restrictions and external protections. In Kymlickas words

collective rights could refer to the right of a group to limit the liberty of its

own individual members in the name of group solidarity or cultural purity

(internal restriction); or it could refer to the right of a group to limit the

economic or political power exercised by the larger society over the group to

ensure that the resources and institutions on which the minority depends are

not vulnerable to majority decisions (external restrictions). It is only the latter

meaning of collective rights that does not (need to) conflict with individualrights. Essential in Kymlickas work is further the distinction between national

minorities and ethnic groups. The different sorts of minority rights that both

ethnic and national groups may demand, according to Kymlicka, are self

government rights or the delegation of powers to national minorities, poly

ethnic rights or the financial support and legal protection for certain practices

associated with particular ethnic or religious groups and,special representation

rights or the guaranteed seats for ethnic or national groups within the central

institutions of the larger state.


16/72

In academic circles Kymlickas work and more broadly the model of

multiculturalism has been criticised on different points.[30] The strongest

critique concerns the word culture in the term multiculturalism. Kymlickas

defence of multicultural citizenship is said to be limited both in its scope and

implications as it is based on a narrow definition of culture. With a reference to

Parekh one can object that Kymlicka only focuses on communal diversity and

leaves subcultural diversity and perspectival diversity aside. More broadly,

there lurks a potential danger in that the word culture could be understood too

naively, failing to see culture as a dynamic process of the constant adaptation

of people to the circumstances which require them to engage with new ways of

understanding the world and responding to it. Further, some argue that the

focus on culture takes the attention away from other, perhaps more important

sources of minority discrimination, such as socio economic inequities.

Another point at issue is multiculturalisms negation of monoculture. This

would result in the disuniting or fragmenting of national societies, since

multiculturalism denies the nation as the (only) focus of an individuals

ultimate loyalties.[31] Some of the more technical remarks are whether

special representation rights can be called democratic, whether the granting of

group rights may eventually not provoke a backlash by the majority society

and, whether the distinction between national minorities and national groups is

not in a way irrelevant (how far for instance, should one go back into the pastto catalogue a group as a national minority instead of an ethnic group). A final

question is when does a group qualify for membership in the multicultural

group (what to do for instance with non democratic groups who claim groups

rights) and which rights precisely are to be accorded to minority groups. Where

the problem of the first question consists of the likely proliferation of claimants,

the problem of the second question consists in the possible escalation of the

claims.

In more practical terms, criticism on multiculturalism has mountedsharply as well and, consequently, the retreat of official multicultural policies is

sound in most European countries that had been prominently committed to a

version of it.[32] A number of causes is responsible for this retreat of

multiculturalism, some of them reflecting the above mentioned theoretical

critique on multiculturalism. First of all, there is a lack of public support for

multicultural policies. Closely related to this is the argument that

multiculturalism would play into the hands of (extreme) right wing political

parties as, for example, measures targeting minorities extremists would give

people the idea that minorities are barely receiving preferential treatment.


17/72

Further, multicultural policies have not proven to be effective in overcoming

some pressing socio economic issues such as the large scale unemployment

of minorities. The critique even goes that multicultural policies would intensify

marginalisation and self segregation of migrants and their children. Finally,

there is a new assertiveness of the liberal state in imposing the liberal

minimum on its dissenters. As a result, the new policies that are to replace the

scaling back multicultural policies are viewed by some scholars as a return to

(moderate) assimilationism.[33]

3. Europe and the problem of racism and

intolerance

Racism and intolerance are phenomena that Europe has been faced with for a

long time, however not always in the same guise. At the same time, racism and

intolerance are clearly opposed to the core principles and common values that,

at present, underpin the different European states. In this regard, this chapter

will firstly focus on the current face of racism and intolerance in Europe. Then,

attention will be given to the way in which the problem of racism andintolerance is dealt with at the European level and more precisely at the level of

the Council of Europe.

Racism and intolerance as perpetually evolving unclean

beasts [34]

Racism and intolerance are no new phenomena, let alone typically European

phenomena. However, adapting themselves to the contemporary fashions,

racism and intolerance continuously take on new shapes. As Michael Head,

Chairman of ECRI puts it Racism is a demon that changes according to

context[35] and Racism and its expressions, segregation, violence and all

such ills continue to be essentially the same filthy creature in different visible

forms. Racism still remains the belief that a person or group are superior to

others for reasons of race, language or national identity, etc. But the

creature sheds its skin and evolves. [36]


18/72

In his article Racism in Europe : unity and diversity Michel Wieviorka a ims to

give an integrated picture of contemporary racism accounting for most racist

experiences throughout Europe. [37] Wievriorka thereby tries to include the

various forms that racism can take on, to move beyond the national differences

and to seek for a certain European unity. Starting point of the author is the

idea that racism is inseparable from modernity. In his view, racism significantly

gained momentum since modern times when Europe was faced with huge

migrations, an extension of its trading relationships, industrialisation of society

and colonisation. In its link with modernity, racism can however not be reduced

to one logic. On the contrary, Wieviorka distinguishes between at least four

different lines of argument that cross the space of racism in its relation to

modernity, namely (1) modernity against identity, (2) modernity against

modernity, (3) identity against modernity and (4) and identity against identity.

In the first instance, racism is linked to a positive valorisation of

modernity, the rise of which must be ensured. Hence this form of racism is

universalist and despises different identities, which is expressed by denouncing

so called inferior races as an obstacle to expansion, especially colonial

expansion. At the same time, the so called inferior races are labelled to be

destined to exploitation. In the second instance, racism is linked to the refusal

to be excluded from modernity. In this regard, racism appears when an actor

who positively values modernity is afraid to be exposed to a form of expulsion

leading to marginalisation. Especially in the context of an economic crisis or

retraction from the labour market the actor typically imputes his or her

misfortune to migrants, even if these share the same experience. In the third

instance, racism is linked to an identity or tradition opposed to modernity.

Racism then attacks those who are seen as the vectors of this detested

modernity. In the fourth instance, finally, racism is linked to an identity or

tradition as well, but in this case it does not oppose groups incarnatingmodernity, but groups defined by an identity without any reference to

modernity. Racism then appears as an expression of intercultural tensions.

The significance of Wieviorkas model is that his space of racism around four

cardinal points enables to read the European experience and its recent

evolutions in a dynamic way, taking into account the changing forms of racism.

In Europe racism has long been dominated on the one hand by a universalist

and colonial type (1) and on the other hand by oppositions to modernity,particularly in the form of anti Semitism (3). In this guise, racism was overall
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn37http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn37http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn37


19/72

a spectacular and massive phenomenon. Today, however, racism is much more

than previously directed on the one hand by the fear of downward social

mobility (2) and on the other hand by tensions around identity and nation (4).

Indeed, at present, in the context of increasing unemployment, social

exclusion and downward mobility and, in the context of a state, which

encounters increasing difficulties in acting as a welfare state, chiefly migrants

are perceived in racist terms. Migrants and people of migration background are

accused of causing the social misfortune of those who lost their job or are

afraid of losing their job and further, of taking advantage of the social security

system, of using the social security institutions to their own ends and of

benefiting too much attention from the state. In addition to this, debates about

nation, nationality and citizenship are currently very activated, particularly as a

response to the growth of other identities among different religious, ethnic,

national and regional groups. As a self strengthening spiral, the presence of

more and more visible immigration nurtures a stronger feeling of national

identity which, for its part, is to an increasing extend loaded with racist ideas.

External phenomena, such as the current globalisation, only further intensify

this tendency of racist affirmations of identity.

To resume, today racism mainly emerges when social problems such as

exclusion and downward mobility grow and when anxiety in regard to national

identities develops. The latter statement, on growing anxiety, can be enforcedwith a reference to the post 9/11 atmosphere whereby an increased risk of

intercultural conflict is feared and to some extend also affirmed. The former

statement, on downward mobility, can be enforced with a reference to the

results of the Eurobarometer opinion poll dating from the end of 1997

indicating that Dissatisfaction with their life circumstances, fear of

unemployment, insecurity about the future and low confidence in the way

public authorities and the political establishment worked in their county were

the main characteristics of those who put themselves at the top of the racistscale and who were more likely to agree with negative stereotypes on

immigrants and minorities.[38]

Council of Europes commitment against racism and

intolerance


20/72

The protection of human rights versus the fight against racism

and intolerance[39]

The Council of Europe was set up in Strasbourg in 1949 to prevent Europe froma return of the horrors of the Second World War. Hence, since its creation, one

of the prime fields of competence of the Council of Europe has been the

protection, promotion and prevention of human rights.[40] The Council of

Europe aims to achieve this goal in four main areas, namely in supervising and

protecting effectively the fundamental rights and freedoms, identifying new

threats to human rights and human dignity, developing public awareness of the

importance of human rights and promoting human rights education and

professional training. The most significant treaties set up by the Council of

Europe in the field of human rights are the European Convention on Human

Rights (1953), the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (1989) and the Framework

Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1994).

With regard to the issue of racism and intolerance, the European Convention on

Human Rights, undoubtedly the Council of Europes most significant

achievement, is particularly important as it links the issue of racism and

intolerance to the issue of human rights. Article 14 of the Convention states

that The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention

shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race,

colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,

association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.[41] In

terms of enforcement, the Human Rights Convention is rather strong given the

fact that it is provided with its own binding protection machinery, namely the

European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg). To this court all member States

of the Council of Europe are party and any person may address a petition after

all national remedies have been exhausted. However, the protection provided

by the Human Rights Conventions provision relating to non discrimination

was originally limited in scope because discrimination was only prohibited

when it applied to one of the rights set forth in the Convention. The new

Protocol 12 signed in November 2000 does away with this restriction and states

that no one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any of

the above mentioned ground.[42]
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn39http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn39http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn39http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn40http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn40http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn40http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn41http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn41http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn42http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn42http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn42http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn42http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn41http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn40http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn39


21/72

It is worth noting that, from a legal point of view, other international

mechanisms exist in order to combat racism and intolerance in Europe. The

most forceful international legal instrument in this regard it the International

Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.[43] This

Convention has strongly influenced the national anti discrimination legislation

and policies of many European ratifying states. On the other hand, the

European Union itself is equipped with important legislation in the field of non

discrimination and equality, including racial equality. More concretely, with

the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 an anti discrimination

clause was incorporated in EU law. Article 13 TEC states Without prejudice to

the other provisions of this Treaty, and within the limits of the powers

conferred by it upon the Community, the Council [] may take appropriate

action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or

belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. [44] In order to implement article

13 TEC, the Union adopted the so called anti discrimination package in 1999

resulting, among other things, in the Council Directive 2000/43/EC, also

referred to as the Race Directive or the Racial Equality Directive.[45]This

directive prohibits discrimination on the ground of race or ethnic origin in the

field of employment, goods and services.Observe that, although the European

Union and the Council of Europe are two quite distinct organisations, no

country ever joined the European Union before first joining the Council ofEurope. In this regard the Council of Europe is sometimes giggly referred to as

the crche of Europe. This indicates nevertheless that the role of the Council

of Europe in the field of human rights, including in the field of racism and

intolerance, is not to be underestimated.

European Council against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)[46]

In order to reinforce its approach to the fight against racism and intolerance,

the 1993 Vienna Summit of the Council of Europe established the European

Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). The reason behind the

establishment of ECRI is the fact that the Heads of State and Government of the

Council of Europes member States realised during this first Summit that one of

the prime goals of the Council of Europe was not yet achieved, namely

preventing that the atrocities of the Second World War would never happen

again. Racism, xenophobia, anti Semitism and intolerance were among the

main causes of this great tragedy. Forty four years after the establishment of

the organisation, the Council of Europe was however alarmed by the present
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn43http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn43http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn43http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn44http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn45http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn45http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn45http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn46http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn46http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn46http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn46http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn45http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn44http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn43


22/72

resurgence of racism, xenophobia and anti - Semitism, the development of a

climate of intolerance, the increase in acts of violence, notably against migrants

and people of immigrant origin, and the degrading treatment and

discriminatory practices accompanying them.[47] The Summit consequently

devised a Europe wide strategy and Plan of Action to tackle the problems of

racism and intolerance at pan European level, resulting among other things in

the creation of the independent monitoring body ECRI.

As an institution, ECRI was reinforced by the second Summit of Heads of

State and Government held in Strasbourg in October 1997 and by the European

Conference against Racism also held in Strasbourg in October 2000. As a

following up of this Conference, a new Statute for ECRI was adopted on 13

June 2002, thereby consolidating its role as an independent human rights

monitoring body on issues related to racism and racial discrimination.[48]

Since its creation, ECRI is given the mandate to combat racism, xenophobia,

anti Semitism and intolerance in all Council of Europe member States from

the perspective of the protection of human rights. In this regard, ECRIs action

covers all necessary measures to combat violence, discrimination and prejudice

faces by persons or groups of persons on grounds of race, colour, language,

religion, nationality and national or ethnic origin. ECRIs programme of

activities comprises three aspects, namely the county by county approach,

the work on general themes and the activities in relation to civil society.

In the framework of its county by country approach, ECRI draws up reports

which contain an analysis of the situation in each Council of Europe member

State with regard to the instances of racism and racial discrimination.[49]In

its reports ECRI gives also practical proposals in order to help the governments

tackle any identified problems. As part of its work on general themes, ECRI has

adopted nine general policy recommendations so far, addressed to the

governments of all member States. These general policy recommendationscover the main areas of racism and intolerance and provide basic guidelines

which policy makers are invited to use when drawing up national strategies

and policies.[50]Another aspect of ECRIs work on general themes involves the

collection of examples of goof practices in the fight against racism and

intolerance and, disseminating them widely in relevant circles.[51]As part of

its work on general themes, ECRI has furthermore been widely involved in the

European preparations for the World Conference against Racism, Racial

Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance organised by the UnitedNations in Durban, 31 August to 8 September 2001.[52]ECRI contributed in
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn47http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn47http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn47http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn48http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn48http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn48http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn49http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn49http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn49http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn50http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn50http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn50http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn51http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn51http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn51http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn52http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn52http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn52http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn52http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn51http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn50http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn49http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn48http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn47


23/72

particular to the organisation of the regional counterpart of this World

Conference, namely the European Conference against Racism entitled All

different, all equal : from principle to practiceheld in Strasbourg, 11 13

October 2000.[53]Finally, the third aspect of ECRIs programme of activities,

therelations with civil society, works to fully involve civil society in the fight

against racism and intolerance, to promote intercultural dialogue and mutual

respect and, to organise awareness raising and information activities. For, a

successful strategy against racism and intolerance depends to a large extend

on ensuring that the general public becomes conscious of these phenomena

and that the anti racist message filters down to all levels of society. The

relation between ECRI and civil society is, among other things, established

through the organisation of national rounds tables in the member States and

through the organisation of seminars with national specialised bodies to

combat racism and racial discrimination.

As ECRI acts as an independent monitoring mechanism, the members of ECRI

are as independent and impartial as possible in fulfilling their job. ECRIs

members are appointed by the government of the different member States on

the basis of their high moral authority and recognised expertise in dealing

with racism, xenophobia, anti Semitism and intolerance. Besides, ECRIs

members are forbidden to receive any instructions from their governments.

ECRIs approach for work on and research into racist phenomena has singled it

out from other institutions working in the same field, namely the United

Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the

European Unions independent monitoring body on issues related to racism and

racial discrimination, namely the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and

Xenophobia (EUMC).[54] In the United Nations, the different governments

themselves present annual reports in Geneva on the situation in their counties,

while the European Monitoring Centre only conducts thematic inquiries. ECRIon the other hand addresses a whole range of issues involved in racism and

intolerance in all the Council of Europes member States and it does this by way

of a contact visits.[55]

In implementing its activities, ECRI cooperates however closely with the

EUMC. Both agencies are established in such a way as not to be opposed to or

superimposed on each other but, on the contrary, to engage in mutually

complementary actions. Apart from the different procedure referred to above,

the main differences between the European Monitoring Centre on Racism andXenophobia and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance are


24/72

on the one hand that ECRI has a far broader geographical perspective than the

EUMC since it covers all the Council of Europe member States of greater

Europe and on the other hand that ECRIs action is founded on the European

Convention on Human Rights thus being basically a human rights monitoring

commission.[56]On 10 February 1997, the Council of Europe and the European

Community signed an agreement providing for a specific legal basis for the

development of cooperation between ECRI and the EUMC. In this respect, the

Management Board of the Monitoring Centre includes a member appointed by

the Council of Europe and since the adoption of ECRIs new Statute (June 2002)

a member of the EUMC Management Board is also invited as an observer to all

ECRI plenary meetings. Furthermore, in the framework of joint Bureau

meetings, ECRI and the EUMC discuss and identify cooperation activities for

each year, such as the organisation of a joint round table held in Strasbourg on

21 March 2001 on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination entitled Local Solutions to Combat Discrimination.

4. ECRIs country-by-country approach

The issue of racism and intolerance is examined in the country-by-country

reports of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. The

picture that can be drawn up with regard to racism and intolerance in different

Council of Europe member States on the basis of the reports drafted by this

independent monitoring body, is the focus of this chapter. After a brief

explanation of what the country-by-country approach precisely contains, I will

take a detailed look at the second or third round country-by-country report of

respectively Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and France, Hungary and

Germany.

ECRIs country-by-country approach : a word of

explanation [57]

Aim and purpose
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn56http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn56http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn56http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn57http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn57http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn57http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn56


25/72

The country-by-country approach constitutes, as mentioned earlier, one of the

three pillars of ECRIs work programme.[58] In the framework of this

approach ECRI monitors permanently the phenomena of racism and intolerance

by closely examining the situation in each member States of the Council of

Europe. After its examination ECRI draws up country reports containing its

analysis of the situation in the country concerned as well as suggestions and

proposals as to how to tackle the problems identified.

The approach is positive in essence and not negative, meaning that the

aim of the approach is not to point fingers at a particular country but rather to

stimulate the countries in question to follow those adopting best practices. In

this regard, in its country-by-country approach, ECRI makes every effort to deal

with all of the 46 member States of the Council of Europe on an equal footing.

At the same time, ECRI attempts to take up a position as neutral as possible as

well as not to exceed its authority as an independent human rights monitoring

agency[59].

Procedure

The work of the country-by-country approach takes place in rounds, each round

lasting around four or five years, covering nine or ten countries per year. The

reports of the first round were completed at the end of 1998; those of the

second round at the end of 2002. Work on the third round reports started in

January 2003 and is due to be completed in 2007.[60]Aim of the later rounds

is to follow up if the main recommendations in previous report(s) have been

followed and implemented, to update the information contained therein and

also to provide a more in depth analysis of certain issues of particular

interest in the relevant countries.

The working methods for the preparation of the country reports initially

involved only documentary analyses, i.e. national and international written

literature. As the result of the first round was however considered to be far too

theoretical and rather weak as it was based only on secondary information, a

new procedure on top of the documentary analysis was initiated since the

second round, namely the so - called contact visit. This procedure involves

that rapporteurs pay a visit to the country in question and meet with the

representatives of the various ministries and public administrations responsible

for issues relating tot ECRIs mandate, as well as with the representatives of

the concerned (international) non governmental organisations. In order to

guarantee the full independence of these NGOs, the government is never
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn58http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn58http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn58http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn59http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn59http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn60http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn60http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn60http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn60http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn59http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn58


26/72

informed about which NGOs ECRI will consult, since the NGOs are also inquired

after their opinion about the official version of the facts.

After finishing the documentary analysis and the contact visit, ECRI

formulates a first draft, which is transmitted to the country in question through

the ECRI representative of this country. ECRI then engages in a confidential

dialogue with the national authorities of this country. During this process the

national authorities can propose amendments to the draft report, if they deem

this necessary. Next, ECRI reviews the content of the first draft in the light of

the confidential dialogue, without however being obliged to correct any errors

that the national authorities might want to see rectified. In a plenary session,

the - likely - revised version of the first draft is then adopted, after which this

second draft is again transmitted to the country concerned, this time via an

intermediary national officer who forwards the draft to the government and

vice versa forwards the comments of the government to ECRI. The content of

this second draft is then a second time reviewed in the light of the comments of

the government in question, without, this time too, ECRI being obliged to

change anything. Next, in a second plenary session the report is adopted in its

final version. If the national government however still disagrees on some

points, it can request to append its differing viewpoints to the final version of

the report. Yet, these amendments do not form part of ECRIs analysis and

proposals concerning the country in question. Finally, the report is made public,unless the government in question is expressly against its publication. In

conclusion, the country-by-country approach is a slow procedure, almost one

year passing by as from the first draft of the report until the adoption of the

final version. At the same moment, it is however a politically very correct

process, guaranteeing ECRIs - full - independence.

Monitoring criteria and recommendations

In each round, ECRI examines the situation with regard to racism and

intolerance in the different Council of Europe member States according to the

same structure. This does however not exclude the possibility of new accents

or the incorporation of new elements in the reports. The section on specific

issues was for instance introduced during the second round.

In general terms, the country reports are broken up into two main

sections, namely a first section giving an overview of the situation in the

country under review as well as a follow up of the previous report(s) and, a

second section focussing on issues of particular interest or concern in the


27/72

country in question. While the second section varies from one round to another

and from one country to another[61], the first section inquires roughly into the

following criteria : legislation (international legal instruments, constitutional

provisions and other basis provisions, criminal law provisions and, civil and

administrative law provisions); administration of justice; specialised bodies and

other institutions; education, training and awareness raising; reception and

status of non citizens (refugees and asylum seekers); access to public

services (education, housing, employment); vulnerable groups (Romas and

Gypsies, Jewish community, Muslim community); media; conduct of law

enforcement officials and monitoring of the situation in the country (data and

statistics).

The country reports drawn up by ECRI do not only reflect the analysis of the

situation in the countries concerned, but they also contain suggestions and

proposals, following this analysis, as to how the problems of racism and

intolerance identified in each country might be overcome. The aim of this

exercise is to formulate recommendations, which may assist the national

governments in taking practical and precise steps to counter racism and

intolerance. Hereby, ECRI very regularly refers to its General Policy

Recommendations. As mentioned earlier, these documents are addressed to the

governments of all Council of Europe member States and cover the main areas

of current concern in the fight against racism and intolerance.[62] They are

intended to serve as guidelines that policy makers are invited to use when

drawing up national strategies and policies to combat racism and intolerance.

ECRIs country-by-country approach : an analysis [63]

Examination

As justified in the introductory chapter, I have chosen to study the country-by-

country reports of Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain and

Hungary.[64]Rationale for this choice is the fact that Sweden and the United

Kingdom are seen as the most typical examples of the multiculturalist model,

Germany of the exclusion model and France of the republican model; whereas

Spain for its part is a recent immigration country and Hungary is one of the newaccession countries of the European Union who were only recently freed from
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn61http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn61http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn62http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn62http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn62http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn63http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn63http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn64http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn64http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn64http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn64http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn63http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn62http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn61


28/72

the yoke of communism. As to the timeframe, I have chosen to study only the

latest version of the country reports available for each of the six selected

states. In concrete term, this means that I examined the second round country

reports of Sweden, the United Kingdom and Spain and, the third round country

reports of Germany, France and Hungary.

In order to make the information contained in the country-by-country reports

of ECRI readable, I transferred the data of the reports to a frame ( see annex).

[65] In this way, not only does the situation in one particular country become

clear at a single glance, but also the differences and similarities between the

six different countries examined. The frame drawn up is broken down in three

sections, namely Overview of the situations, Specific issues in the country in

question and Assessment by ECRI. The first section follows as much as

possible the structure and criteria applied by ECRI in its country-by-country

approach. The second section fits, to a certain extend, in with the section on

specific issues in the country reports. However, I also added some additional

information in this section that I found in other parts of the country reports.

The third section represents ECRIs assessment of the situation in the country

concerned, which can be derived from reading the country reports.

The most elaborated section in the frame is the first section which, more

or less in line with ECRIs reports, pays attention to the following criteria :

international law provisions;, constitutional provisions and other basis

provisions, criminal law provisions (including whether racist acts are treated as

specific offences and a racist motivation is taken into account as an

aggravating circumstance; whether criminal law is effectively applied and

enforced and, whether incitement to racial hatred is categorised as a criminal

offence), civil and administrative law provisions, shift of the burden of proof

[66], notion of indirect discrimination [67], specialised bodies and other

institutions, monitoring of the situation in the country through data andstatistics of racist offences, the role of the media as a promoter of diversity,

reception and status of non citizens (refugees and asylum seekers),

vulnerable groups (Romas and Gypsies, Jewish community, Muslim

community), education, training and awareness raising, access to public

services (education, housing, health care, employment) and conduct of law

enforcement officials (training courses, equal treatment by law enforcement

officials, independent inquiry for incidents and mixed recruitment). Per

country, I investigated the presence or the absence of these criteria held back.
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn65http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn65http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn66http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn66http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn67http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn67http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn67http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn66http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn65


29/72

I represented the result of this inquiry in the frames by a Yes, No or +/-

(more or less).

I am aware of the restrictions of my examination. First of all, I am limited to

those criteria that belong to ECRIs country-by-country reports. Secondly, as

ECRIs work on the country-by-country approach takes place in rounds, each

round lasting approximately four or five years, the situation represented in the

different countries is not completely synchronic. The latest country report of

europe all different all igual

Documents