Europe All Different All Igual
-
Upload
mit-manta-phd -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of 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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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.
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn5http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn5http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn5http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn5 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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.
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn8http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn8http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn8http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn9http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn9http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn9http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn9http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn8 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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.
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn10http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn10http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn10http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn11http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn11http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn11http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn11http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn10 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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
-
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn12http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn12http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn12http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn13http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn13http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn13http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn13http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn12 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn14http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn14http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn14http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn15http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn15http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn15http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn15http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn14 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn19http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn19http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn19http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn20http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn20http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn20http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn20http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn19 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn21http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn21http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn21http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn22http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn22http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn22http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn22http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn21 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn26http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn26http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn26http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn27http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn27http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn27http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn27http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn26 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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.
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn28http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn28http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn28http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn29http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn29http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn29http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn29http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn28 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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.
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn30http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn30http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn30http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn31http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn31http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn31http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn32http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn32http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn32http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn32http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn31http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn30 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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]
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn33http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn33http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn33http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn34http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn34http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn35http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn35http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn36http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn36http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn35http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn34http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn33 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn38http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn38http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn38http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn38 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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
http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn53http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn53http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn53http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn54http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn54http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn54http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn55http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn55http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn55http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn55http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn54http://www.ethesis.net/europe/europe.htm#_ftn53 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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
-
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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 -
8/3/2019 Europe All Different All Igual
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