Contents · Ivanov and Susanne Milcher present the UNDP ex-perience in assessing the development...

roma rights quarterly ✵ number 2, 2004roma rights quarterly ✵ number 2, 2004 3

ETHNIC STATISTICS

New

s

Contents

Th

em

eE

RR

C A

ctio

n

EDITORIAL

Ethnic Statistics Dimitrina Petrova .........................................................................................5

NOTEBOOK

The United Nations Development Programme’s Vulnerability Projects, Roma

and Ethnic Data Susanne Milcher and Andrey Ivanov ..............................................................7

Legitimacy, Statistics and Research Methodology – Who Is Romani in Hungary

Today and What Are We (Not) Allowed to Know About Roma Ferenc Babusik ...........14

The Monkey That Does Not See Lilla Farkas .......................................................................19

Ethnic Monitoring, Gypsies and Travellers Sasha Barton ..................................................24

Void at the Centre: (The Lack of) European Union Guidance on Ethnic Data

Claude Cahn ...................................................................................................................30

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

No Compromise with the Universality of Human Rights Interview with

Anna Karamanou ............................................................................................................38

NEWS ROUNDUP: SNAPSHOTS FROM AROUND EUROPE

Bosnia and Herzegovina ✦✦✦✦✦ Bulgaria ✦✦✦✦✦ Czech Republic ✦✦✦✦✦ Denmark ✦✦✦✦✦ Finland ✦✦✦✦✦

Greece ✦✦✦✦✦ Hungary ✦✦✦✦✦ Italy ✦✦✦✦✦ Kosovo ✦✦✦✦✦ Macedonia ✦✦✦✦✦ Romania ✦✦✦✦✦ Russia ✦✦✦✦✦ Serbia

and Montenegro ✦✦✦✦✦ Slovakia ✦✦✦✦✦ Slovenia ✦✦✦✦✦ United Kingdom ✦✦✦✦✦ Ukraine ......................43

ADVOCACY

UN Committee against Torture Urges the Czech Republic to Investigate Alleged

Coercive Sterilisation of Romani Women Cristi Mihalache ..........................................69

HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION

Romani Women Discuss Women’s Rights Action Larry Olomoofe ......................................71

LEGAL DEFENCE

Litigating Discrimination in Access to Health Care Alan Anstead .....................................75

FIELD RESEARCH

The Culture of Giving and Roma Charity Leonid Raihman ..................................................78

ROMANI LANGUAGE PUBLICATIONS

“Stigmata: Segreguime Edukacia e Rromengi ande Centralo thaj Easto Europa”

Romani-language translation of the executive summary of the recently published ERRC

report “Stigmata: Segregated Schooling of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe” ...............83

MEET THE ERRC

Romani Politics as a Profession Rumyan Russinov ............................................................86

CHRONICLE ..................................................................................................................................88

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM3

Black

roma rights quarterly ✵ number 2, 2004roma rights quarterly ✵ number 2, 20044

Editor-in-chief Dimitrina Petrova

Executive editor Claude Cahn

Associate editor Savelina Danova Russinova

News co-ordinator Tara Bedard

Design and layout István Fenyvesi

© July 2004 European Roma Rights Center ISSN 1417-1503. The opinions expressed in authored pieces are

not necessarily those of the European Roma Rights Center. The contents of this journal are free from all

copyright restrictions on condition that the source is mentioned and reproduction is not for commercial

purposes. The ERRC requests that three copies of the reproduced text be sent to the editors.

Roma Rights is published quarterly in Budapest, Hungary, by the European Roma Rights Center.

Address 1386 Budapest 62, P.O. Box 906/93, Hungary

Telephone (36-1) 413-2200

Fax (36-1) 413-2201

E-mail [email protected]

Internet http://errc.org

SUPPORT THE ERRC

The European Roma Rights Center is dependent upon the

generosity of individual donors for its continued existence.

If you believe the ERRC performs a service valuable to the

public, please join in enabling its future with a contribution.

Gifts of all sizes are welcome, bank transfers to the ERRC

account are

preferred. Please

send your

contribution to:

Bank name: Budapest BankBank address: Báthori utca 1, 1054 Budapest

Bank account holder: European Roma Rights CenterUSD bank account number: 99P00-402686

(USD IBAN: HU21-10103173-40268600-00000998)EUR bank account number: 30P00-402686

(EUR IBAN: HU54-10103173-40268600-00000307)SWIFT (or BIC) code: BUDAHUHB

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM4

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

Ethnic Statistics

Dimitrina Petrova

discrimination and figures, statistics on racial dispari-ties had been successfully brought in the courts ofUK and some countries outside Europe as evidencein discrimination cases. Then in July 2000 the Euro-pean Council Race Equality Directive (EC Directive2000/43, para.15) explicitly included statistics amongthe possible means establishing discrimination. Thisprovision – as well as many others in the Race Equal-ity Directive – improved the prospects for future anti-discrimination litigation – especially when challengingsystemic inequalities.

In recent years, the need for statistics on Romabecame ever more acute, as governments have be-gun to develop special programmes related to Roma.A common defect of all these programmes is thatthey are not based on reliable demographic, labour,health, education and housing statistics broken downby ethnicity. The reasons for the miserable state ofRoma-related data include:

1. misperception that personal data protection lawsprohibit the gathering of ethnic data;

2. failure to understand the strategic importance of eth-nic monitoring for the fight against discrimination;

3. fear that ethnic statistics can be misused to harmthe respondents;

4. weakness of political will of governments draft-ing programmes for Roma integration, lack ofvision of genuine reform based on quantitativeassessment of needs and readiness to allocateadequate resources;

5. fear in governments that they may be embarrassedif statistics reveals ugly corners in their societies;

6. methodological difficulty of the question: whoshould be counted as “Roma”, those who state

ROM THE POINT OF VIEW of humanrights defence, ethnic statistics can be definedas a component of:

a) a right: the fundamental right to be free from ra-cial discrimination should be interpreted as imply-ing the right of the victim to obtain statistical databroken down by race/ethnicity, if such data wouldbe critical evidence proving discrimination.

b) a duty: the positive obligation of the governmentto ensure effective equality irrespective of raceor ethnicity should be interpreted as including thecollection, processing, analysis and use of imper-sonalised statistics disaggragated by ethnicity.

In 2004, the complaint that there are no reliable sta-tistics on Roma has become trivial. So has the call ongovernments to collect them. Criticism and recom-mendations regarding this issue are coming from allquarters, including governments of countries with sig-nificant Romani populations. Over the last six-sevenyears, the European Roma Rights Center has beenamong the most consistent advocates of collecting eth-nic data for purposes of fighting racism and discrimi-nation and for drafting viable equality programmes.Our position has been initially developed in the con-text of implementing anti-discrimination law to benefitthe members of the most disadvantaged groups inEuropean societies. More recently, as part of acces-sion obligations, governments of European Union can-didate countries worked with the Employment andSocial Affairs Directorate of the European Commis-sion on Joint Inclusion Memoranda, to be followed byNational Action Plans. In the process, the deficiencyof reliable Roma-related statistics loomed large as amajor obstacle to rights based policy of Roma inclu-sion. The ERRC addressed the issue in most of itsadvocacy interventions in this regard.

Although in the late 1990s the case law of conti-nental Europe did not know the link between racial

F

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM5

Black


editorial

their Romani ethnicity or a much larger group de-fined through external attribution;

7. methodological difficulty of dealing with the re-fusal of Roma to “admit” their ethnic belonging -a refusal which differs widely across space andsub-ethnic identity.

Perhaps all of the above obstacles were presentin a recent story covered by the Hungarian media.The Ministry of Health had commissioned a socio-logical survey on Romani health, involving the gath-ering of both objective and subjective data. On thesubjective (opinion) side, the survey sought to meas-ure attitudes toward Roma in the medical profes-sion, as well as Roma’s perception of how the healthcare system treats them. In November 2003, the pro-fessional association of doctors and nurses in Hun-gary rebelled against the survey. A public debatefollowed. Purportedly, at stake were the doctors’honour, the freedom of social research, and the fu-ture of the government’s policies on Romani health.Eventually, the debate subsided, unresolved. The re-sults of the study were shelved. The Ministry ofHealth did not make them public, nor did it take astand against the survey for which it had paid. Much-needed figures on Roma’s access to healthcare re-

main officially out-of-reach, whereas unofficiallyavailable to those who care.1

This issue of Roma Rights revisits and recapitu-lates Roma statistics from several angles. AndreiIvanov and Susanne Milcher present the UNDP ex-perience in assessing the development needs of Romain Eastern Europe. Ferenc Babusik reveals the dilem-mas that Hungarian sociology has been trying to solvewhen collecting data on Roma. Lilla Farkas looks atthe issue from the prism of international law, revealingthe paradoxical epistemological situation of knowingwhile not knowing the numbers of Roma. Sasha Bartoncomments on the British practice of ethnic monitoringand presents grounds for optimism even as it tran-spires that Gypsies and Travellers in the UK have notbenefitted from ethnic monitoring. Claude Cahn notesthat the European Union has not yet provided mean-ingful guidance on ethnic statistics.

Together, the articles take the Roma rights ap-proach to ethnic statistics to a new level, by buildinga more detailed case for numbers and percentages.This effort is meant as a response to the positivetendency to step beyond rhetoric and to get down tobusiness in many of the departments where Roma-related programmes and projects are being drafted.

1 The ERRC took the research results paper from the victims of Hungarian style censorship, translated them intoEnglish, and will be soon circulate copies, as well as publish a summary in the next issue of Roma Rights.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM6

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

The United Nations Development Programme’sVulnerability Projects: Roma and Ethnic Data

Susanne Milcher and Andrey Ivanov 1

Introduction

Romani ethnicity is a high risk factor in Centraland Eastern Europe. Although Roma in WesternEurope are also faced with serious problems, thescope and depth of the problem is much greater inthe former Communist countries – as was demon-strated by the unrest in Eastern Slovakia’s Romanicommunities in early 2004.2

Although official poverty data disaggregated byethnic status is limited, survey evidence for Bul-garia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania andSlovakia, confirms that poverty rates for Roma ex-ceed by far those of the overall population. In Hun-gary, Roma are approximately eight times morelikely to experience long-term unemployment thanthe general population. Unemployment among theRoma substantially exceeds average non-Romaunemployment rates. In Slovakia, while Roma com-prise 5 percent of those unemployed for up to sixmonths, they represent as much as 52 percent ofthose unemployed for more than four years. Romaniethnicity in these countries brings the risk of per-manent labour market exclusion.

Virtually all basic social indicators are worse forRoma compared with other ethnic groups in Centraland Eastern Europe. Low levels of education, lackof access to health care, poor housing conditions, highunemployment and discrimination contribute to theirlow social status. In addition, Roma live predomi-nantly in disadvantaged regions, where they face adeteriorating socio-economic situation – such as weakemployment opportunities – disproportionately. In the

case of the new EU member states, the most eco-nomically depressed regions are likely to turn into“Roma-dominated regions of the EU”’ when thecurrent national borders lose their significance. Inthe Balkan countries, Roma often make up a largepart of refugees or internally displaced persons(IDPs), and this makes them more vulnerable interms of income, access to health and education.Targeted social inclusion policies and reforms arerequired, and monitoring of vulnerable groups is amajor prerequisite for any future policy measures.In order to identify vulnerable groups at risk of pov-erty and social exclusion, quantitative datadisaggregated by ethnicity and other socio-economiccharacteristics is necessary. However, monitoring thesocio-economic situation of the population by ethnic-ity is a challenging task. First, in some cases, such asin France, ethnic monitoring is prohibited by the Crimi-nal Code. In many countries, however, data protec-tion laws are largely misinterpreted to prohibit anykind of ethnic data collection, while this legislationonly requires certain guarantees regarding theprocessing of ethnic data. Second, members of eth-nic minorities might not be willing to self-identify assuch because of fear of discriminatory practices.

Addressing a number of methodological problems,as well as a data deficit, are the main challengesconfronting the United Nations Development Pro-gramme’s work in this area. This article outlines theUNDP’s previous experience with collecting ethnicdata, the challenges encountered and the solutions tothem. Subsequently, it presents the UNDP’s plannedinitiatives in this area, which are also within the frame-work of the Decade of Roma Inclusion.

1 Susanne Milcher is Research Associate at UNDP Regional Centre in Bratislava. She has focused onissues of Romani education, sampling methodologies and poverty analysis. Andrey Ivanov is HumanDevelopment Adviser at the UNDP Regional Centre in Bratislava. His area of specialisation is povertymeasurements and vulnerability analysis.

2 For details of unrest among Roma in Slovakia in early 2004, please see: http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1884.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM7

Black


UNDP’s Experience with Ethnic Data

Collection

Household surveys and censuses often signifi-cantly underestimate the Romani population. In cen-suses, Roma often opt not to self-identify, for fear ofdiscrimination. National representative survey sam-ples are usually based on census data. Roma whodid not identify as Roma in the census are thereforelikely to be undersampled.

Data on household incomes and expendituresdisaggregated by ethnicity is scarce. For many rea-sons, statistical institutes do not monitor householdbudgets by ethnicity. In the Roma context, this re-flects both political sensitivity and resistance fromRomani organisations. The latter have (not whollyunreasonable) concerns that ethnically disaggregateddata could be used for discriminatory purposes (inaccess to jobs or active labour market policies forthe unemployed).

And here both researchers and policy-makersface a peculiar vicious circle: Data is necessarybut not available. When available, it is not reliable(different estimations of Roma can be equally ac-ceptable and justified using different sets of argu-ments). As a result, the opportunity for datamisinterpretation is disturbingly broad: Dependingon whether higher or lower estimates “work” bet-ter in the particular political context, different ac-tors can argue for or against some current politicalissue using data that does not accurately describethe situation of Roma.

Roma in Central and Eastern Europe

Filling these data holes (at least in part) was oneof the objectives of the regional UNDP/ILO largescale survey on Roma in five Central and EasternEuropean (CEE) countries conducted in 2001. Thesurvey looked at the situation of Roma from a “hu-man development” perspective. With the ultimategoal of expanding people’s choices, human devel-opment looks at areas of health, education and liv-ing standards. In terms of living standards, Romanirespondents were asked to assess their householdincomes, main income sources, total expenditures,and expenditures by main product and service

groups. The results do not just show that Roma areamong the poorest of the poor in Central and East-ern Europe (this is an evident fact). What is moreimportant, they outline how much worse the situa-tion of Roma is, and what the specific characteris-tics of their status are (for example, what are theincome sources or the causes of unemployment).Answering these specific and concrete questionsin quantitative figures is a necessary precondition,both for understanding the underlying causes andaddressing them adequately.

The survey data collected from face-to-face in-terviews with 5,034 Roma respondents in Bulgaria,the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania andSlovakia was analysed in the UNDP RegionalHuman Development Report “Avoiding the De-pendency Trap,” which was published in 2002. Theresults from each country are comparable becausethey are based on a common questionnaire, trans-lated into the respective local languages, and on anidentical sampling design methodology. The sam-ple size in each country was close to 1,000, makingthe survey fairly representative of the Romanipopulation in each country.

The data set contains over 400 variables, whichare mostly qualitative. Overall, 100 questions wereasked, taking into account equally the individual andhousehold level. Half of the questions in the surveywere “individually-oriented” and the rest were“household-oriented.” Individuals, not households,were interviewed, but some of the questions con-cerned the respondent’s household. Data based onthe household rather than on the individual as theunit of observation is particularly important in orderto calculate poverty rates and to perform quantita-tive poverty analysis.

The UNDP survey used stratified random sam-pling for Roma older than 18. Sampling was basedon data provided by the last census in each coun-try. The total number of Roma in the census data ismost probably inaccurate due to (i) the time lapsesince the last census and (ii) under-representationof Roma because of deficient self-identification.However, although in all countries the numbers ofpeople identifying themselves as Romani are sub-stantially below the actual Romani population num-bers, it was assumed that the census results

notebook

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM8

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

adequately reflect Romani popu-lation structures in terms of rural/urban, age and sex distributions.The quotas for neighbourhoodsand villages populated mainly byRoma were identified on the ba-sis of census data about the terri-torial distribution of the population.Households were picked ran-domly within each sample cluster.In the case of Roma, completesampling frames, such as lists, reg-istered addresses or files are usu-ally not available. Therefore,sampling households follows asystematic technique, such aspicking each third house on theleft side of the street within eachsample cluster.

The exact profile of the re-spondent to be interviewed wasdetermined for each sampling clus-ter. Field operators identified theindividuals to be interviewed, cor-responding to the profile of re-spondents for the cluster, with theassistance of local governmentadministrators and social assist-ance services.

Regarding ethnic affiliation, theresearch team followed theFramework Convention for theProtection of National Minorities,which combines subjective self-identification with culturally-based objective criteria. Ethnicitywas identified through a numberof different questions, includingself-identification (“Do you feelRomani?”), interviewer identifi-cation, language and ethnicity ofthe majority of children in school. Only 9 percentof the respondents identified by field operators, lo-cal administration and Romani NGOs as beingRomani did not consider themselves to be Roma.The responses of those who did not identify them-selves as Roma implicitly suggest that most of themare of Romani ethnic background but for various

reasons prefer not to reveal it. These respondents,however, share socioeconomic characteristics andcultural patterns with their Romani neighbours.Thus, 13 percent of the respondents who statednon-Romani affiliation answered that the ethnic ma-jority in the school which their children attendedwas Romani. The same answer was given by 19

PHASES OF A SAMPLE SURVEY

1. Deciding on the target population (Roma, IDPs, refugees)2. Sampling frame. This is the list of units from which the

sample is selected, such as population lists, files orregister forms. This frame is necessary so that any part ofthe population has a chance of being included in thesample. The major problem here is related to non-coverage: Where ethnicity is not included in the censusquestion, population lists would not be available forRoma. Another problem could arise from the clusters ofelements: In one dwelling there can be more than onehousehold.

3. Sampling design.✦ Simple random sampling: This is a method of selecting

households from the sampling frame with randomnumbers. It requires a complete list of the totalpopulation. Each household of the population has anequal chance of being chosen.

✦ Stratified random sampling: According to this method,the target population is divided into non-overlappinggroups (strata) that differ in characteristics, such asgender, age, ethnicity or geographical location. Withineach stratum, samples are drawn randomly. Theadvantage of this method is that it also representssubgroups of the total population, such as minorities.Stratified random sampling may have more statisticalprecision than simple random sampling when thegroups are homogenous in terms of the targetedvariable (for example, income, education or healthstatus), because variability is expected to be lower inhomogenous groups than in the overall population. Inthe case of Roma, using stratified random sampling ishelpful because Roma are very homogenous in terms oftheir socio-economic situation.

Identification of regions/villages with high percentage ofRoma, IDPs or refugees might be difficult due to lack ofquantitative data and because ethnicity is not reported inthe census. In addition, Roma may also belong to thegroup of refugees, a situation that makes the sampling ofthree separate groups almost impossible.

4. Questionnaire and fieldwork. The problems here are relatedprimarily to non-sampling errors that could occur due tomistakes of the interviewer or unwillingness of Roma torespond. Therefore, participation of people from thecommunities in the field-work is particularly important.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM9

Black


percent of the respondents in the overall sample.Further, 32 percent of the respondents who declarednon-Romani affiliation use the Romani language athome. In the overall sample 54 percent of the re-spondents stated they use Romani language at home(see Table 1, below).

The UNDP dataset represents a valuable input forthe analysis of Roma. The scope of the data allowsfor a comprehensive analysis of poverty among Roma.However, several shortcomings are visible. The sur-vey cannot claim complete statistical representative-ness as the question “who is Romani?” cannot beanswered precisely. Due to such conceptual deficits,the size of the Romani population in each country cannotbe set at a precise figure either. Also, the question-naire was not designed to capture comprehensivehousehold profiles on expenditures, education, healthand employment. Even a perfectly designed sample islikely to over-represent the worst-off segments of theRomani population, since they are recognisably Romaniand most unlikely to be integrated into majority com-munities. Furthermore, the missing sample of the ma-jority population as a control group is also ashortcoming. Some of these shortcomings were takeninto account by the UNDP when designing the sur-vey of Roma in Montenegro.

Household Survey of Roma, Refugees

and Internal Displaced Persons in

Montenegro

The Household Survey of Roma, Refugees andInternally Displaced Persons, undertaken in 2003on the initiative of the UNDP Montenegro, is a richcomparative analysis of the situation of vulnerablegroups in Montenegro. The sample included four

sub-samples: Roma, refugees, IDPs, and the ma-jority population as a control group. For the datacollection among all four sub-samples, a uniformquestionnaire was used with the same basic objec-tive: to better understand poverty and vulnerabilityamong marginalised populations in Montenegro and

to help develop baselines for regular monitoring. Inaddition to a household roster, housing conditions,durable assets, food and non-food consumption, em-ployment and personal and individual income, thequestionnaire also included questions on citizenshipstatus, real estate in country of origin, plans for re-patriation, family planning, etc. In total, the ques-tions were to a great extent based on households,which provided the opportunity to calculate the pov-erty head count for Roma, IDPs and refugees sepa-rately, as well as other socio-economic indicatorsfor the three groups.

The samples have been designed based on the dataabout refugees and IDPs received from the Com-missariat for Displaced Persons and UNHCR. Af-ter territorial distribution and after municipalities wereidentified, households were randomly selected. Thesurvey was conducted by the Institute for StrategicStudies and Prognoses (ISSP). In addition, based onthe UNDP recommendation, an informal network ofRomani non-governmental organizations “Romskikrug” was engaged to complement expert data.Based on data received from this network, the sam-ple for the Romani population was created.

The major problem that arises with this type ofsurvey is that Roma can fall into more than one cat-egory (refugees, IDPs). The overlap of these threegroups makes stratified sampling more difficult andcomparison between the three groups may lead to

notebook

Table 1 Identification of Roma

(Percentage of overall sample)

Self-Identification 91

Language 54

Romani ethnicity declared in last census 48

Romani ethnic majority in school 19

Source: UNDP/ILO survey 2001

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM10

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

biased results. Possible solutions to overcome thischallenge will be discussed below.

With concern for the cultural sensitivity of the Roma,Romani surveyors were given special training sessions,in addition to the regular training delivered for ISSPinterviewers. For data collection, direct face-to-faceinterviews were conducted. The final form of the ques-tionnaire resulted from previous ISSP experience, co-operation with the World Bank experts, comments ofthe UNDP office in Podgorica, as well as other UNProgrammes (like UNHCR, UNICEF, etc.), and theRomani NGO network.

UNDP’s Contribution to the Decade of

Roma Inclusion

The Decade of Roma Inclusion corresponds to theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) for the mostvulnerable group in Europe – the Roma. The UNDPhas consistently called for MDG disaggregation, sothat the concerns of those most in need are reflected.Without data, however, MDGs – as well as imple-mentation of sustainable policies for improvement ofthe situation of vulnerable groups – are empty slo-gans. Only based on quantitative data can the actorsinvolved (governments, donors, implementing partners)outline priorities and measure progress. Disaggregatedquantitative data is a precondition for relevant national-level policies for sustainable inclusion of vulnerablegroups, and Roma in particular. This is the reason whythe UNDP sees the elaboration of consistent and com-parable quantitative socio-economic datadisaggregated for major vulnerable groups as a pre-condition for sustainable improvement of thesepopulations’ situation and for the success of initiativessuch as the Decade of Roma Inclusion.

South-Eastern Europe (SEE)

Vulnerability Survey

Based on the UNDP’s previous experience withethnic data collection, as outlined above, its main con-tribution to the Decade of Roma Inclusion is a baselinehousehold survey, representative for Roma, IDPs andrefugees. In this particular case, however, the prob-lems faced in the first survey on Roma in CEE havebeen given particular attention and the methodology

has been substantially improved. First, the survey willhave a majority population sample as a control groupin all the countries. It will not just provide comparativedata for vulnerable groups and the majority but willprovide an opportunity for a more sophisticated analy-sis such as correlation analysis using various datasources (like the Household Budget Survey). Second,the questionnaire design allows maximum comparabil-ity with the existing datasets on vulnerable groups, inparticular the UNDP dataset on Roma in Central andEastern Europe. However, more emphasis will be givento household questions on consumption, living stand-ards, employment, education and health, in order tocalculate household based poverty, deprivation and un-employment rates for the different groups.

The sample design will be similar to the one usedfor designing the survey in Central and Eastern Eu-rope. However, certain lessons will be taken into ac-count to ensure even better data reliability and quality.The samples should be representative for sex, age andrural/urban distribution of Roma populations, majorrefugee groups and IDPs communities living in therespective countries. The inclusion of the majoritypopulation in the survey will allow comparing the liv-ing conditions of the Roma with those of the majoritypopulation. Given these requirements, an increasedsample is necessary to ensure representativeness. Onaverage (with minor variations from country to coun-try), the samples will include 700 households (Roma,refugees, IDPs and majority), which would not be suf-ficient for claiming complete statistical relevance (asin a microcensus for example) but would be sufficientfor sociological representativity. Given the fact thatthe status of all members of the household (demo-graphic, educational, employment, etc.) will be re-corded, the total number of individuals covered by thesurvey will range between 2,000 and 5,000, depend-ing on the specific group.

Since Roma in many countries are marginalisedand vulnerable according to various criteria (for ex-ample, being Roma and refugees at the same time),some of the Roma households will appear in twosamples, that for the “Roma” subgroup and that forthe “refugees” subgroup. Sampling will be based onthe available official data, from national statisticaloffices or other official institutions, adjusted by ex-perts’ estimations of population distribution and byinformation about unregistered migration provided by

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM11

Black


international humanitarian organisations and localNGOs dealing with ethnic or vulnerability issues.Households will be randomly chosen and all house-hold members that are present can respond to thehousehold questions, so the survey is one step closerto a “census-type” exercise. The sample design andthe fieldwork will be conducted with the active par-ticipation of NGOs dealing with issues of vulnerabil-ity and experts from international organisations (suchas the World Bank and OSI).

The major challenge in this survey is the overlapof populations in the three groups. Roma can be inmore than one category and will represent not onlyRoma but also refugees and/or IDPs. Therefore,taking three separate samples will be almost im-possible. One solution could be post-stratification.This method is a sensible alternative when it is notknown to what stratum the individual population el-ements belong. First, two separate samples will bedrawn. The first sample is representative of theRomani population and the second sample repre-sents the majority population. After the samples havebeen drawn, in the phase of data analysis, the house-holds will be classified according to the strata (IDPs,refugees) to which they belong. The data will re-veal into which category the households will fall andin this way create a virtual sample of refugees andIDPs. Post-stratification is especially useful whereresponses are not available. By dividing the house-holds into strata after the samples have been drawn,correlations between non-responses and the targetvariable (e.g. the educational attainment of Romarefugees) within one stratum can be taken into ac-count and the population estimator will be more pre-cise. Whereas, using simple random sampling, a highpercentage of non-responses can lead to large dis-tortions in precision and biased results.

In addition to new sampling techniques, empha-sis should be placed on improving the fieldwork.One of the major prerequisites for relevant data, asthe experience with the Montenegro survey hasproven, is participation and involvement of the com-munities surveyed in the process. The issue is par-ticularly relevant for Roma who often feel isolatedfrom the state – and any structures perceived as“alien” to the community. Due to high levels of dis-trust, without explicit efforts in this area, figuresobtained during the survey may not correspond to

reality. This is the reason why Roma participationin the survey will be mainstreamed and consistentlysought. After the sample model is ready and thesampling clusters are identified, young Romani in-dividuals will be identified from each cluster withthe assistance of Romani NGOs. They will betrained in the basics of sociological data collection,interviewing techniques and the contents and con-text of individual questions. The questionnaire willalso be translated into Romani language. When thefieldwork per se takes place, each interviewer willbe accompanied by an “assistant interviewer” fromthe surveyed community.

The role envisaged for the “assistant interview-ers” is much broader than community penetration.These people could constitute the core of the futureRoma data collectors, who could actively cooperatewith the national statistical institutes and other bod-ies interested in collecting adequate data on the socio-economic status of marginalised groups. This is along-term investment that goes far beyond the valid-ity of the results of this particular survey.

Experts’ Group on Data and

Measurements

As a second initiative within the framework ofthe Decade of Roma Inclusion, the UNDP coordi-nates the experts’ group on data and measurement.Apart from consulting and methodologically support-ing data collection in individual countries involvedin the Decade of Roma inclusion, the experts’ groupwill work on scaling up the experience generatedwithin the survey on vulnerable groups, elaboratingreliable methodologies applicable to specific coun-tries’ contexts. They are expected to suggest spe-cific (feasible) ways of overcoming existing barriersin the area of ethnically disaggregated data collec-tion (in all areas – capacity, legislation and politicalcommitment). The objective of this initiative is todevelop capacity for collection of disaggregated dataat country level. By 2006-2007, the whole respon-sibility for the data collection should be transferredto the relevant bodies in the individual countries.Ideally, the group should consist of one member fromthe national statistical office, one member from therespective government body dealing with minorityissues and members of Romani NGOs.

notebook

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM12

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

Conclusion

Ethnic data collection, particularly sampling eth-nic minorities, is far from being an easy undertak-ing. The UNDP has done tremendous work in thisarea, has learned from previous experience and iscurrently working on finding new methods to over-come these challenges.

Some major lessons learned are: First, with regardto sampling design, it is necessary to apply HouseholdBudget Survey and Labour Force Survey type ofmethodologies. Second, sampling cannot be based onthe official numbers of Roma registered by the cen-suses alone. Census data, however, gives a good ideaof the structure and territorial distribution of Roma. Itis possible to complement this data with expert esti-mates (taking into consideration particularly data fromRomani NGOs) of the ethnic background of the popu-lation in certain areas or settlements. This could besufficient for constructing adequate and representa-tive samples.

Another crucial element in surveys is fieldwork.Even perfect samples would not do much unless thereis sufficient work with communities and there is truston the side of the respondents. Avoiding the mistrustamong Roma is possible if Roma themselves are in-volved in the fieldwork. The UNDP is actively coop-

erating with several Romani and non-Romani organi-sations active in the area of Roma development on arange of issues, starting with the design of the ques-tionnaire and extending the establishment of a net-work of contacts with Romani organisations thatcould be involved in the fieldwork of the survey, andlater on, in the data analysis.

However, several challenges remain: First, if cen-sus data does not reveal ethnicity because of legal re-strictions or unwillingness to self-identify, a precisesampling frame cannot be made and selection of thesample will be inaccurate. Therefore, wrong estima-tions can be made if one cluster of Roma is not repre-sented in the sample. Second, even if legal constraintsare absent, how can abuse of the collected data beprevented? Third, how can subgroups that overlap(IDPs, refugees) be sampled? Post-stratification seemsto be a sensible solution, but the stratum that will berevealed from the data analysis might be small and isthen not necessarily representative. The accuracy ofthis method also depends on the willingness of indi-viduals to give correct answers to the questions thatwill categorize the strata. Also, self-identification andexternal identification might diverge considerably. Toconclude, the UNDP has not overcome all challengesin terms of sampling vulnerable groups yet, but it ispushing governments and other agencies in Central andEastern Europe to elaborate more on these issues.

ENDNOTES1 UNDP, ‘The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe:

Avoiding the Dependency Trap’, Regional HumanDevelopment Report, UNDP Bratislava 2002.

2 UNDP refers to the UNDP Regional Centre inBratislava, http://www.undp.sk/ if not otherwisestated.

3 Complete data sets and the regional and nationalRoma reports are available at http://roma.undp.sk).

4 Council of Europe, ‘Framework Convention for theProtection of National Minorities’, ExplanatoryReport, 1995.

5 UNDP Montenegro, http://www.undp.org.yu/, 2004.6 World Bank, ‘The Decade of Roma Inclusion’, http://

lnweb18.worldbank.org/ECA/ECSHD.nsf/docbyid/5ACB3FB63019D944C1256D6A00438015?Opendocument&Start=1&Count=5, 2004.

7 The survey covers Albania, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbiaand Montenegro (with Serbia, Montenegro andKosovo treated as separate entities) and Romania.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM13

Black


Legitimacy, Statistics and Research Methodology– Who Is Romani in Hungary Today and What AreWe (Not) Allowed to Know About Roma

Ferenc Babusik 1

HE QUESTION OF WHO CAN BEconsidered Romani in Hungary goes wellbeyond issues of ethnic identity or, in awider sense, the cultural anthropological

aspects of ethnicity. As will be shown below, theterms “Roma” and “Gypsy” themselves indicate adivergent web of problems burdened by various in-terests. This article discusses the topic from anumber of fundamental aspects: legal, statistical,methodological, theoretical, minority policy and prac-tice among research organisations – all independ-ent from the issue of how the group in question, theRoma, identify themselves.

Let us begin with the least complex issue, thelegal regulations. Prior to the political changes in1989, and until 1993, ethnic classification in Hun-gary was not limited to ethnic self-definition. Ac-cordingly, primary and secondary school statisticsregistered individuals of Romani origin, and teach-ers evaluated the educational development ofRomani pupils separately. School statistics werecentrally processed and were available to the pub-lic. Furthermore, school statistics reflected thejudgement of teachers rather than the self-defini-tion of the respective Romani students or their fami-lies. Before any humanist or human rights concernsare raised against this procedure, it has to be saidthat it was the prevailing distortion of census datathat led to the method of “external judgement”.Namely, according to census data gathered onceevery 10 years (and based on self-identification),the number of Roma in Hungary was half the numbercalculable on the basis of the school data. Such dis-tortion was apparent even in the 2001 census.

It is thus evident that the inherent contradiction inthe question “Who is Romani?” must not be ignored.Clearly, those who deny their identity, for example,for reasons stemming from fear of discrimination,2

but whose parents are Romani and, moreover, whoseRomani environment considers them to be Romani,may “drop out” of the Romani public community.This means that, from a politically correct and a le-gally unassailable standpoint, these individuals are bydefinition no longer “Romani” while continuing to betreated as “Gypsies”.

The 1992 Data Protection Act imposed strictsafeguards on data related to the ethnic or racialorigin of the individual, by making access to andprocessing of such data subject to authorisation bylaw or the written consent of the individual. Thislegal regulation is in force to date and, for internalpolitical reasons, is unlikely to change. Under thelaw, state bodies are not allowed to officially pos-sess information about data concerning ethnic iden-tity, unless they have the written consent of thedata subject. The 1993 Hungarian Act on the Rightsof National and Ethnic Minorities (Minorities Act)clearly made ethnic classification the exclusive rightof the individual. Self-identification has thus be-come the sole legal ground for defining ethnicity.These new legal regulations have fundamentallychanged the system of data gathering, and conse-quently any research concerning Roma. It is noaccident that the Central Statistical Office is pre-pared to perform its first data gathering with a di-rect focus on Roma since 1989 in 2005-2006,following a fairly lengthy legal and methodologicalpreparatory phase.

T

1 The author is director of Delphoi Consulting social science research group.2 Personal research experience indicates that the memory of the Romani Holocaust is still alive. Many

Roma tend to link the act of “census taking” to the extermination of Roma by the Nazis, and,consequently, they refuse to publicly acknowledge their ethnic identity.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM14

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

The theoretical and legal debates notwithstanding,and given the huge distortion of the number of Romain Hungary census data today, empirical sociology maycome to rely on statistics based on the judgement ofthe environment about the ethnic status of the indi-viduals. There has been a need to work out proce-dures that would simultaneously comply with both legaland statistical reliability requirements. Hungarian so-ciologists Gábor Kertesi and Gábor Kézdi first elabo-rated a method by which it became possible to estimatethe actual Romani population in Hungarian settle-ments.3 In my own experience, this method of popu-lation estimation by settlement is the most valid one. Itworks as follows: The authors estimate the totalRomani population using the last school statistics totake account of ethnicity (1993) – the census returnsare dubious regarding the actual number of Roma, butthey do provide fairly reliable information on age-dis-tribution, average family size and the number of chil-dren per family. The number of Romani children inprimary and secondary education offered a reason-able basis for an assessment of the total Romani popu-lation beyond school age. However, in the smallvillage-type settlements of Hungary, several settle-ments may constitute one school district, and childrenfrom a number of surrounding villages go to school inthe same settlement. Consequently, in a few hundredcases, the Kertesi-Kézdi estimation by settlement isincomplete. Furthermore, data concerning largertowns, and Budapest in particular, cannot be consid-ered absolutely reliable, since assessments setting outfrom the school data were inaccurate in the largerdistricts.4 In spite of all its weaknesses, this popula-tion-assessment method has produced the only dataseries describing the level of Romani population in mostHungarian settlements. This can be used as a basisfor research using as a sample reference point settle-ments with a known figure of the Romani population.

Before briefly describing the theoretical debates onthe definition of “Roma”, it is worth mentioning a na-

tional data gathering and data processing practice con-cerning Roma that contains all the contradictions re-sulting from the legal constraints. Hungary’s LabourCentres (LCs) operate at the county level and in thecapital. Their manifold tasks include reintegration ofsocially and economically vulnerable strata, includingRoma, into the labour market. The existing legal regu-lations prohibit both employers and LCs from identify-ing and registering the ethnic status of their employeesor the unemployed. A contradiction, however, arisesfrom the fact that the state budget provides a targetedallocation for the integration of Roma in the labourmarket. That is, if the state is to pursue integration ofRoma in the labour market, it has to identify in someway the members of its target group. The LCs re-solve this contradiction by applying a special “trick”:They enter into contracts with the local Romani or-ganisations and the Gypsy minority self-governmentswhich then, as representatives of the Romani minor-ity, gather information about who is unemployed andwhat qualifications they have. Romani organisations,which are also bound by the legal regulations on dataprotection, have data about those individuals who reg-ister with them in order to find a job. The Romaniorganisations may then hand over lists of potentialemployees to the LCs, but these lists cannot revealdata about the Romani ethnicity of the individuals listedby name. Data on enterprises that employ Roma inlarger numbers is gathered in a similar way. Ulti-mately, through this procedure, the LCs “know” inpractice who is Romani, though formally, accordingto the law, they possess no such information. Duringresearch I carried out in 2001 on enterprises em-ploying Roma,5 I came across this practically in-soluble contradiction: Although it is in the interest ofthe LCs to know these enterprises better, they areunable to reveal data for the purposes of researchsince de jure they cannot possess it.

Serious theoretical debates on “who is Romani?”began in the years following the adoption of the

3 Kertesi, Gábor and Gábor Kézdi. “A cigány népesség Magyarországon (dokumentáció és adattár)”. Socio-typo, Budapest, 1998.

4 In the larger settlements or districts, that is, where the internal migration of the Romani community inboth directions is strong, the population assessment based on the number of children is inevitablyimprecise, because the annual school statistics are incapable of following actual migration.

5 Babusik, Ferenc-Dr. Adker Judit. “Roma vállalkozások kutatása.” In: A romák esélyei Magyarországon.Kávé Kiadó, Delphoi Consulting. Budapest, 2002.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM15

Black


Minorities Act. Two opposing standpoints are worthmentioning in this regard. One is mainly associ-ated with the Hungarian sociologists IstvánKemény, Gábor Kertesi and Gábor Kézdi. GáborKertesi’s work has been briefly outlined above.István Kemény is seen as the “elder statesman”of Hungarian research on Roma, in appreciationof a number of national studies he has conductedsince the 1970s. These authors have argued thatempirical research and data accuracy have greatersignificance than the subtle philosophical debateon the essence of ethnicity.6 In their view, sinceethnic self-identification results in major statisticaldistortion, Romani ethnicity can be determinedthrough the judgement of the external environment.The authors are aware of the problem that, as aresult of this procedure, Roma who do not con-sider themselves Romani, and who are not consid-ered Romani by their own environment, “drop out”of the public community of the Roma. Nonethe-less, the method seems to produce more accurateresults. In trying to determine who is Romani,Kemény, Kertesi and Kézdi very frequently relyon non-Romani informers.

From among those who represent the opposingstandpoint, the sociologists Iván Szelényi and JánosLadányi stand out.7 They criticise the method ofKemény, Kertesi and Kézdi because, in its classifi-cation of Romani ethnicity, the most important im-plicitly present criteria for arriving at a judgementis the socio-economic status or, more precisely, themarginalised position of the individuals. The coreof Szelényi and Ladányi’s concept is that the judge-ment of the non-Romani environment is based onfactors such as poverty and marginal status. Thus,if Roma are primarily perceived as the representa-tives of a poverty culture, then this group may in-clude numerous non-Roma in a marginal situation,and vice versa: prosperous and educated Roma willbe excluded from this category. Kemény’s group,however, argues that a change in the social statusand the level of integration with it will not result in

ethnic re-classification quasi-automatically or as astrong tendency.

The above-mentioned debate also appears at thelevel of views held by Romani politicians. Politicianswho accept the view of Szelényi and Ladányi assessthe number of poor and marginal Roma to be muchlower, thus emphasising that the majority of Romahave been integrated as “productive citizens”. Onthe other hand, politicians who are interested in in-creasing state support for Roma tend to accept theview of the Kemény group – after all, the nation-wide representative surveys regularly indicate a largenumber of Roma living in severe poverty.

It should be noted, furthermore, that the very ter-minology involved in this discussion is under dis-pute. The words Roma [Roma] and cigány[Gypsy] are used as synonyms in Hungary, althoughthere is no consensus on the correct un-stigmatisedname. The Minorities Act, the various governmentdocuments and minority self-governments use theterm cigány, as does the bulk of the referencedHungarian literature. However, political usage in-ternationally prefers Roma as the name for this eth-nic group. International convention agrees that allpeoples have the right to use the name of theirchoice. A great part of Roma in Hungary, theRomungro or “Magyar Cigányok” (Hungarian Gyp-sies) or the Beás, frequently do not call themselvesRoma, yet the term Roma has come to be increas-ingly accepted in political usage.

I will now outline my own research experience, inwhich I have tried to find a way out of the afore-mentioned theoretical contradictions and the trap cre-ated by the legal regulations. In the process I presentbelow, I have successfully carried out several na-tion-wide and regional research projects.

No objective data is available concerning thenumber of Roma in Hungary by locality, and the onlyvalid data series in this regard are the estimates by

6 Gábor Havas, István Kemény and Gábor Kertesi, “A relatív cigány a klasszifikációs küzdotéren” in Kritika,1998/3; Gábor Havas, Cigányok a szociológiai kutatások tükrében = A cigányok Magyarországon, FerencGlatz, ed. MTA. Budapest, 1999.

7 Ladányi, János and Iván Szelényi. “Ki a cigány?”. In Kritika. Budapest, 1997/2; Ladányi, János and IvánSzelényi. “Az etnikai besorolás objektivitásáról”. In Kritika, 1998/3.

notebook

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM16

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

Kertesi and Kézdi that reflect the situation as of1993. Since there is no data about migration of Romawithin the country, and, in the absence of any otherdata, no estimation is possible, the only available routeis to mechanically extrapolate the 1993 data for thesubsequent years. The work of László Hablicsek,leader of the Demographic Research Institute of theCentral Statistical Office, served as the starting point.The study developed a demographic forecast of thetotal population and the Romani sub-system until2050.8 The forecast, which describes several sce-narios overall, has a neutral version, according towhich, in the period ahead, the situation of the Romanipopulation will neither change catastrophically nor

improve radically. Based on this assumption, data canbe extrapolated for a period of approximately 10 yearsfollowing the date of the estimation (since the possi-bility of error in the projection will rise sharply afterthe 10th year). Thus the Kertesi-Kézdi data aboutthe number of Roma according to settlements canbe extrapolated up to 2009 without major errors.

The research set out with a selection of settle-ments in which the numbers of the Romani popula-tion were estimated according to the extrapolatedversion of the Kertesi-Kézdi data. In these settle-ments, the local Gypsy minority self-governments andthe staff of schools produced their own estimations

8 László Hablicsek. A Roma népesség demográfiai jellemzoi, kísérleti elõreszámítás 2050-ig. KSHNépességtudományi Intézet, Budapest, 1999.

Romani family in Gyöngyös, central Hungary, February 2003.PHOTO: ERRC

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM17

Black


by settlement. Analysis of the surveys so far indicatesa substantial difference between the two data series:one prepared by the Gypsy minority self-governmentand the school authorities, and the other based on theo-retical data by settlement. Meanwhile, the median ofthe three data lines regularly represents the extrapo-lated theoretical data by settlement. This means thatthe exact number of Roma in a given settlement can-not be established through this method either, but afairly accurate picture of the number of Roma at mi-cro-regional and regional levels appears. Since the ul-timate aim of wider-ranging research is exact accuracyof assessment at the micro-regional level, it can besaid that this method can soundly be used in drawingup settlement patterns for data gathering.

In the next step, the survey is partly based on self-definition of Roma and partly relies on the confidencegenerated by the involvement of the ethnic commu-nity in the survey. Our research team sent interview-ers of Romani origin to the settlements selected onthe basis of the above-described assessment. Oneof their tasks was to establish the distribution of Romain a given settlement – identifying streets, town ar-eas or districts where Roma live in larger numbersand locations where they live in fewer numbers. Helpwas sought from local Romani organisations whowere familiar with the respective settlement. Oncethe settlement was mapped out, Romani interview-

ees were selected proportionally to the settlement“map”. People were asked if they would declarethemselves to be Roma/Gypsies. In our experience,irrespective of their level of assimilation, those inter-viewed would identify themselves as Roma/Gypsiesto an erudite interviewer of Romani origin, who ismore integrated than assimilated.9

As demonstrated above, this method moves alongthe scale from judgement by the external environ-ment to self-definition, but at the same time operateswith the socio-psychological phenomenon of willing-ness to associate with an ethnic community. In myexperience, this procedure can be used with reason-able accuracy, while remaining within the bounda-ries of the legal regulations.

Nevertheless, attention needs to be called to a prob-lem: If the predictably high level of internal migrationresulting from changes in the economic environmentis taken into consideration, then, by circa 2010, eventhis method will not be suitable for representative re-search on Roma. Reshaping the legal framework willprobably be insufficient to resolve this question. Thestrong inclination toward assimilation that drives nearlyhalf of the Romani population of Hungary to concealtheir identity in public surveys (a disposition catalysedby justifiable fear) will likely jeopardise the collectingof accurate data in the future.

9 In this study I use the term assimilated to mean a person who strives to dissolve into the majority society,while integrated represents an individual who has managed to emerge from an underprivileged positionwhilst being proud of their ethnic identity.

notebook

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM18

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

B

The Monkey That Does Not See

Lilla Farkas1

ETWEEN THE RIGHT to the protec-tion of sensitive data, such as one’s eth-nic origin, the right not to bediscriminated against, and the right ofethnic minorities to the use of their lan-

guage, culture and to political representation, everydemocratic state needs to strike a fair balance. Thebalance in today’s Hungary, it is submitted, is far frombeing fair, and as such is not acceptable. If equalityis to mean that equals are treated equally, whereasun-equals are treated unequally, then it is imperativeto know who needs equal treatment and who needsunequal treatment. To know a person for who he is,we need to see him as such in practice and in lawalike. Our task may be hampered by having visibleas opposed to non-visible minorities.

If a person is Romani and claims this is his/herethnicity, we need to see him/her as such. If a per-son does not identify as Romani but says he/she isperceived as such, then we need to see him/her asRomani. If a person claims to be Romani but is notperceived as such, then we need to see him/her asRomani. We might wonder, however, why the latterperson claims to be Romani – especially if by doingso he can have access to additional rights, withoutsuffering the disadvantages characteristic of the situ-ation of Roma. In Hungary, for instance, citizens re-gardless of their ethnic origin, can vote for minority

self-government candidates. The wife of the mayorof Jászladány – a village notorious for segregatingRoma primary school children from non-Roma – canhold an elected office in the local Roma minority self-government. Likewise, non-Romani parents canclaim that they are Romani in order to conceal racialsegregation.2 Similarly, in court proceedings non-Romani employees testify to be Roma in order tofound claims of ethnic discrimination. The play withminority origin does not only occur in relation to Roma.At present, the National Armenian Minority Self-Gov-ernment has among its members a former MP – pre-viously not known for his Armenian background.

These categories of persons exist in practice. Atruly colour-blind state and its servants – be theypolicemen, judges, teachers – can never claim oth-erwise. If this is the case, a truly colour-blind legalregime must accommodate the rights and interestsof all these persons. Failing to do so, the state and itslaw will be no more than monkeys which do not see.

Hungarian law at present allows for the handling ofdata on racial and ethnic origin only with the consentof the person concerned.3 This severely impedes theprospect of litigation against discrimination, simply inestablishing the plaintiff’s ethnic origin, which is re-quired under domestic law, but more particularly inproving indirect discrimination or institutional racism.4

1 Lilla Farkas is a private attorney affiliated with the Budapest-based Hungarian Helsinki Committee andthe Legal Defence Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities (NEKI). She holds an LLM degree from theUniversity of London, King’s College. She hereby gives her written consent to the handling of datarelating to her affiliation with these organisations.

2 For a detailed case description, see Roma Rights 2003/1-2, pp. 107-108. In the summer of 2003 theBudapest-based non-governmental organisation Roma Press Center conducted fact-finding in relation tothe alleged segregation of Roma in the school of Jászladány revealing that at one point non-Romaniparents signed a petition in which they too claimed to be Romani.

3 Articles 2(2) and 3(2) of Act No. 63 of 1992 on the protection of personal data and the publicity ofpublic data (Data Protection Act).

4 Under Article 19(1) b, of Act No. 125 of 2003 on equal treatment and the promotion of equalopportunities the plaintiff must establish his ethnic origin in order for the burden of proof to be reversed.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM19

Black


notebook

Furthermore, it gives rise to what is commonly knownas “ethno-business” or “ethno-corruption”, especiallyin relation to participation in minority elections andelection of minority self-governments. Finally, it di-minishes the hope to devise or implement positiveaction programmes.

The situation is so desperate that now even theformer Hungarian data protection commissioner isarguing for a reform that would reconcile the right tothe protection of sensitive data with the policy needto generate accurate ethnic data. The same author-ity also recommends an official mechanism to con-trol that only those eligible by virtue of their ethnicorigin can have access to positive action measuresand minority self-government offices.5

As researchers have argued for a decade, dis-crimination in fact is based not on self-identification,but on perception.6 And the collection of anonymousdata relating to one’s perceived ethnic origin for re-search purposes is not explicitly prohibited.7 This isnot contrary to the Hungarian Act on the Rights ofNational and Ethnic Minorities (Minorities Act) ei-ther, for the latter covers only those Hungarian citi-zens who affiliate with a national or ethnic minorityfor the specific purpose of having access to their(additional) minority rights (use of their mother tongue,right to cultivate their culture and to minority repre-sentation).8 The Minorities Act’s material scope doesnot extend to, for example, scientific research,whereas the Data Protection Act’s may. Further-

more, the Minorities Act has no argument to offeragainst arrest warrants crammed with references tothe suspect’s ethnic origin, but the Data ProtectionAct may.

Indeed, at present the majority does vindicate theright to say who is Romani. Despite the lack of offi-cial data, when confronted by researchers, heads ofprisons provide estimates about the number of Romainmates. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee’s re-search into discrimination against Roma defendantsin the criminal justice system was based on perceivedethnic origin. As researchers explained, they caredlittle about discrimination based on self-identification.Their focus was on discrimination stemming fromthe perception of policemen, prosecutors and judgesof the defendant’s ethnicity.9

In Hungary, as well as in many of the ‘new’ Mem-ber States of the European Union, arguments basedon community law have proved the most effective inthe field of anti-discrimination. Thus, an analysis froma community law perspective seems the most fruitfulhere. The Race Equality Directive10 (RED) providesclear definitions for key concepts but fails to defineracial and ethnic origin for its own purposes. Giventhat at present there is no definition in community law,practicing lawyers shall turn to domestic, regional andinternational law for assistance on this matter.

In Hungary, for instance, national and ethnic mi-norities are specifically protected under the Minori-

In any case, under Article 8 protection is based on ethnicity, thus he must clear this issue when bringinga case. In cases of indirect discrimination not only the ethnicity of the plaintiff(s) but also of thecomparator(s) must be established. The latter may prove an impossible task, given data protectionprovisions.

5 See Majtényi, László. A kisebbségek közjogi testületei, az identitás nyilvántarthatósága és a privacyfogalma (Minority bodies under public law, the registration of identity and the notion of privacy), pp. 1-3,March 2004, kézirat, unpublished paper.

6 Two major camps fight in social sciences, those in favour of self-identity, such as János Ladányi and thosein favour of perception, such as Gábor Havas, István Kemény and Gábor Kertesi.

7 Indeed, the Data Protection Act defines sensitive data as that relating to racial origin, national andethnic minority affiliation – not perceived racial origin etc., see also footnote 3.

8 Article 1 of Act No. 77 of 1993 on the rights of national and ethnic minorities.9 See Lilla Farkas, Gábor Kézdi, Sándor Loss and Zsolt Zádori. “A rendõrség etnikai profilalkotásának

mai gyakorlata”. (The current police practice of ethnic profiling). In Belügyi Szemle (Interior AffairsReview), 2004/2-3, p. 33.

10 Directive 2000/43 EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective ofracial or ethnic origin. Official Journal of the European Communities 2000, L 180/22.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM20

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

ties Act. This Act recognises 13 minorities, amongthem the most sizeable ones, i.e. Roma and Ger-mans.11 It does not, however, define the term ethnicor national minority. As a result of political negotia-tions, Jews and Chinese12 are not included amongnational and ethnic minorities for the purposes of thisAct, which, however, will not prevent them frombeing covered by the RED and general domestic anti-discrimination legislation.

Notwithstanding domestic concepts, internationaltreaties ratified and pronounced by EU MemberStates, such as the International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(ICERD) and regional instruments, for instance theFramework Convention for the Protection of NationalMinorities (FCNM), do have a bearing on every daypractice. It must certainly be borne in mind thatwhereas ICERD has been widely ratified, this is notthe case for the Framework Convention. Greece andFrance, for example, have not ratified it.

Article 1 ICERD takes ‘racial discrimination’ tomean “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or pref-erence based on race, colour, descent, or national orethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nul-lifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or ex-ercise, on an equal footing, of human rights andfundamental freedoms in the political, economic, so-cial, cultural or any other field of public life”. ICERD’spersonal scope is thus extremely wide, going muchfurther than one would expect when hearing theword ‘race’.

As point 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum tothe FCNM explains “[i]t should also be pointed outthat the Framework Convention contains no defini-tion of the notion of ‘national minority’. It was de-cided to adopt a pragmatic approach, based on therecognition that at this stage, it is impossible to arriveat a definition capable of mustering general supportof all Council of Europe member States.” This, it issuggested, does not narrow the definition provided in

ICERD. It shall also be borne in mind that the Euro-pean Court of Justice, when ruling on fundamentalrights, considers the common constitutional heritageof Member States. Taking into account the numberof ratifications from Member States, it would be dif-ficult to argue that ICERD does not form part of thiscommon heritage.

If there were clear definitions, whether or not acertain plaintiff belongs to a racial minority could stillbe disputed in court. As has transpired during thetraining of judges in Hungary, two distinct categoriesshall be considered when ruling on these matters.First and foremost, one’s self-identification with acertain ethnic or national minority is not equal to his/her perceived belonging to such minorities. If thesetwo categories were identical, then there could beno difference – as presently there is – between thenumber of those identifying themselves as Roma inthe national census and those identified as Roma forthe purpose of sociological studies dealing with thenature and extent of discrimination against Roma.

Perceived ethnic origin and self-identity are ratherdifferent notions, the former being an objective cat-egory, and the latter a subjective one. Neither canbe established with indisputable certainty, as therewill always be, for example, Roma who bear fewervisible signs of their ethnicity than the commonstereotyped view of who is a “Gypsy”. By the sametoken, persons identified by the majority as beingRoma may deny affiliation with this ethnic groupon account of having lost cultural and language linkswith the group. What can be said with utmost cer-tainty is that this axiom works not only for clearlyvisible minorities but also for less visible ones, suchas Germans, Jews, etc.

Curiously, when penalising violence against a mem-ber of an ethnic group, Hungarian criminal law rec-ognises the difference between self-identification andperceived ethnic origin and attaches the same crimi-nal liability to violence committed on either ground.13

11 Section 61.12 The Jewish community refused to be included among the minority groups for the purposes of the

Minorities Act, while in the case of the Chanese community, the request for the inclusion of the lattermade by the Chinese Embassy was rejected by the Hungarian authorities.

13 Article 174/B of Act 4 of 1978 on the criminal code.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM21

Black


notebook

As Hungarian judges seem to understand now, aplaintiff who does not profess himself in court asbelonging to the Romani minority, can at the sametime claim that he was discriminated on the groundof his perceived ethnic origin. It is in fact the percep-tion of Romani ethnicity and not self-identificationthat establishes the ground of discrimination.

The fact that data protection laws may – as inHungary14 – prohibit the handling of sensitive data,such as ethnic origin, without the concerned person’sexplicit permission, shall under no circumstances betaken to mean that data on the perceived ethnic ori-gin of individuals cannot be handled.

The issue of ethnic data collection is far from be-ing limited to Hungary. With the notable exceptionsof the UK and the Netherlands, in half of Council ofEurope member states – specifically those with largeRomani populations – national constitutions prohibitthe collection of ethnic data.15 In Hungary, the pro-hibition depicts a struggle with a racist past, whereethnic data were abused and misused to formulateanti-Romani, among other, policies. It is against thisbackground that minority organisations oppose thecompulsory gathering of ethnic data.

As Goldston argues,16 public interest lawyersare handicapped without ethnic data, as the “verynotion of indirect discrimination implies a need fordata”. Recital 15 RED, however, suggests that datado not have to come in the form of statistics.17

This is important, because even though in Hungary,on the national level, the existence of such statisticsis denied, ethnic data is collected by many institu-tions – for the purposes of administering minorityscholarships, for example.

It is submitted that EU Member States will haveto reconsider existing domestic regulations in thelight of the Directive on the protection of individu-als with regard to the processing of personal dataand on the free movement of such data, under whichthe processing of personal data, would still be per-missible where it “relates to data which are … nec-essary for the establishment, exercise or defenceof legal claims”.18 Certainly, an argument for theneed of ethnic data at national level and state liabil-ity for the failure of its provision could be advancedon the basis of this provision taken in conjunctionwith Recital 15 and Article 2(b) RED.19 Given thatpositive action programmes were implemented asallowed by Article 5 RED, the need for ethnic datawould be even stronger.

In the fields of both sex and race discrimination,specific attention is paid to means on the basis of whichindirect discrimination can be established. Commen-tators emphasise that these means are far from beingreduced to using statistics. At present, viewing statis-tics as the main proof of indirect discrimination wouldindeed be counter-productive in race discriminationcases because of the widespread absence of suchdata. This, however, shall be rectified if strategies suc-

14 Articles 2(2) and 3(2) of Act No. 63 of 1992 on the protection of personal data and the publicity ofpublic data.

15 Roma and Statistics: Strasbourg, 22-23 May 2000, (2000), Council of Europe, Paragraph 41.16 James A. Goldston. “Race and Ethnic Data: A Missing Resource in the Fight against Discrimination”. In

Ethnic Monitoring and Data Protection: The European Context. CPS Books, Central European UniversityPress–INDOK. Andrea Krizsán (ed.), 2001, pp. 19-41.

17 “The appreciation of the facts from which it may be inferred that there has been direct or indirectdiscrimination is a matter for national judicial or other competent bodies, in accordance with rules ofnational law or practice. Such rules may provide in particular for indirect discrimination to beestablished by any means including on the basis of statistical evidence.”

18 Article 2 of Council Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement ofsuch data. Official Journal of the European Communities of 23 November 1995 No L. 281 p. 31.

19 Article 2(b) of the Race Equality Directive states: “Indirect discrimination shall be taken to occurwhere an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons of a racial or ethnicorigin at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion orpractice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriateand necessary.”

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM22

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

20 Article 8b(4) states: “To this end, employers should be encouraged to provide at appropriate regularintervals employees and/or their representatives with appropriate information on equal treatment for menand women in the undertaking. Such information may include statistics on proportions of men and womenat different levels of the organisation and possible measures to improve the situation in cooperation withemployees’ representatives.” See Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle ofequal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion,and working conditions. Official Journal L 269 , 05/10/2002 P. 0015-0020.

cessfully employed in the field of sex discriminationare to be transferred to race discrimination.

It is to be noted that Article 8b(4) of the RevisedEqual Treatment Directive20 calls on Member Statesto encourage the provision of information on equal

treatment for men and women and that this informa-tion may include employer-level statistics. Regretta-bly, a similar solution has not found its way into theRED. However, domestic lawyers should not shyaway from drawing analogies between sex and racediscrimination legislation in this regard.

A new ERRC country report:

The Non-ConstituentsRights Deprivation of Roma in

Post-Genocide Bosnia and Herzegovina

The new ERRC country report details the human rights situation of Roma in

Bosnia and Herzegovina and focuses on the regular exposure of Roma to abuses

of their civil, political, economic and social rights as a

result of their official second-class status in Bosnia and

Herzegovina, and also because of entrenched

anti-Romani sentiment in Bosnia and

Herzegovina.

Order ERRC reports at: [email protected]

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM23

Black


Ethnic Monitoring, Gypsies and Travellers

Sasha Barton1

Introduction

Ethnic monitoring plays an important role in theUK in providing a source of evidence that can beused to tackle unlawful racial discrimination and alsoto develop policies and practices that promote raceequality and good race relations. Although, in manyparts of Europe, ethnic monitoring is feared, or evenprohibited, the experience of ethnic monitoring in theUK has been positive. The Commission for RacialEquality (CRE), a publicly funded body set up underthe Race Relations Act of 1976 to tackle racial dis-crimination and promote equality of opportunity andgood race relations, believes that, provided the ap-propriate safeguards are in place, ethnic monitoringis a powerful lever to bring reform. The CRE pro-vides advice on ethnic monitoring and on what thesesafeguards might be.

Statistics have been used effectively in the courtsto challenge discrimination, and ethnic monitoring hasbeen a key tool to drive changes in the public sector, inboth employment and service delivery – in central gov-ernment, education, local government, health, criminaljustice, and a wide range of other areas. However,Britain’s Gypsy and Traveller communities have notyet benefited from ethnic monitoring. There is littlereliable data on these groups and this means that wedo not fully know about the level of deprivation anddiscrimination that Gypsies and Travellers face. How-ever, from the word-of-mouth evidence, and the scat-tered data that we do have, we can get an idea of thelevel of disadvantage that exists:

✦ Gypsies and Travellers are the group most at riskin the education system, and by halfway through

secondary school only 20 percent are in regularschool attendance;

✦ Gypsies and Travellers have poor health, with thelife expectancy rates 10 years less for men and 12years less for women than for other ethnic groups;

✦ There are high levels of public hostility towardsGypsies and Travellers: In a recent poll, over onethird of those questioned said that they felt per-sonally prejudiced against Gypsies and Travellers– even more than were prejudiced against asylumseekers and refugees.

This article will start by looking at the successfuluse of ethnic monitoring in Britain, how it has beenused to prove cases of discrimination, to inform anddrive forward developments in policy and practice,and what safeguards are in place. It will then look atwhat data is collected on Gypsies and Travellers andwhat changes need to take place if these communi-ties are to benefit from ethnic monitoring as othercommunities have done.

Ethnic Monitoring and the Courts

Ethnic monitoring has been important in Britain inproving cases of discrimination. In cases of directdiscrimination, when a person claims they have beentreated less favourably on racial grounds than an-other person is or would be treated in the same orsimilar circumstances, ethnic monitoring statistics arenot so relevant in actually proving discrimination, butcan be an important part of the background to estab-lishing a case of discrimination. The example below

1 Sasha Barton has been working at the UK Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) since January 2002.Initially, she focused on public policy in local government, education and housing sector. Now, workingin the Strategy and Delivery Unit, she guides Gypsy and Traveller Policy. She recently developed a three-year Gypsies and Travellers strategy for the CRE, covering all aspects of CRE’s work across England.She is now responsible for its implementation.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM24

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

illustrates the use of ethnic monitoring data in a di-rect discrimination case:

In cases of indirect discrimination, ethnic monitor-ing statistics have been important in proving in thecourts that discrimination has occurred. Indirect dis-crimination occurs when a policy or rule has a dis-proportionate impact on one group, and there is noacceptable reason for this condition. The examplebelow is a sex discrimination case (statistics havebeen far more frequently used in sex discriminationcases than in race discrimination cases over the lastfew years) but demonstrates the effective use ofmonitoring in establishing discrimination:

In July 2003, amendments were made to theRace Relations Act2 to introduce a second defini-tion of indirect discrimination,3 in order to complywith the Race Directive 2000. The pre-2003 defi-nition still applies to cases based on colour and na-tionality, but for cases taken on the grounds of race,ethnic or national origins, a new definition applies.The new definition of indirect discrimination isbroader. It will cover informal practices in addi-tion to more formal ones, and it does not requirestatistical evidence of disadvantage. So ethnic

2 The Race Relations Act of 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003.3 The definition that applies to colour and nationality only (the pre-2003 definition) is that person

indirectly discriminates against another…if “he applies to that other a requirement or condition whichhe applies or would apply equally to persons of the same group as that other but which is such that theproportion of persons of the same racial group as that other who can comply with it is considerablysmaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group who can comply with it; and which hecannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins ofthe person to whom it is applied; and which is to the detriment of that other because he cannot complywith it”. The definition which applies to race or ethnic or national origins only in relation to certain

Mrs Edwards, a single parent with a young child,was employed as a train operator. Her rosteringarrangements allowed her to be at home in themornings and evenings until her employers,London Underground Ltd., introduced a newflexible shift system as part of a cost-saving plan,meaning that she would either have to workmornings and evenings, or earn less money forlonger hours. Unable to reach an agreement withher managers despite union involvement, MrsEdwards resigned and claimed unlawful sexdiscrimination. An industrial tribunal ruled inher favour because a considerably smallerproportion of female single parents than malesingle parents could comply with the rosteringcondition. London Underground appealed on thegrounds that the comparator should not havebeen male single parents but all train operatorsto whom the new arrangements applied. A secondindustrial tribunal found that 100% of the 2,023male train operators would comply with the newrostering conditions, but Mrs Edwards was theonly one of the 21 female train operators whocomplained that she could not comply, so that theproportion of women who could comply was95.2%. The tribunal concluded that taking intoaccount the few female train operators and alsothat females are more likely to be single parents,considerably fewer females could comply with thecondition and that the employers should havealtered their new plans to accommodate theapplicant. (London Underground LTD v Edwards[1998] IRLR 364)

In West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive vSingh, Mr Singh complained of racial discriminationafter he applied for promotion to senior inspectorbut was unsuccessful. The employer, West MidlandsPassenger Transport Executive, denied racialdiscrimination, showing its equal opportunitiespolicy and the system it had of ethnic monitoring ofapplications and appointments. The employerprovided details of the ethnic origins, qualificationsand experience of all applicants for the job of seniorinspector, but refused to give details of the ethnicorigins of the applicants for, and those appointed to,posts within a band of grades broadly comparableto senior inspector during the period since the equalopportunities policy was adopted. The Court ofappeal ruled that the applicant was entitled to thisinformation and that this material was relevant as itwould help to determine whether the employersdiscriminated against Mr Singh. (West MidlandsPassenger Transport Executive v Jaquant Singh[1988] 1 WLR 730). Important points arising fromthis case are that statistical evidence can be used toestablish a clear pattern – in this case of thetreatment of an ethnic minority staff regularly failingto obtain promotion – and that such a patternindicates possible discrimination. While thestatistics in themselves are not conclusive, theyshow disparities, and without a satisfactoryexplanation, it is reasonable to conclude thatdiscrimination has occurred.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM25

Black


monitoring may play less of a role in the future insuch cases.

It is important to note, however, that this broaderdefinition only applies to certain provisions of the RaceRelations Act of 1976, and that in those other provi-sions, statistical evidence will remain important.

Ethnic Monitoring and Equal

Opportunities Policies and Practices

Ethnic monitoring also plays a key role in the de-velopment of equal opportunities policies and prac-tices. It has provided powerful evidence that hassignificantly influenced government policy and prac-tice in a number of areas.

✦ All central government departments collect sta-tistics on the ethnicity of their staff. On the basisof these statistics, targets are set for increasedrepresentation. Government statistics publishedin 2003 revealed that five central government de-partments had no senior ethnic minority staff,though, with the exception of the Ministry of De-fence, all departments had ethnic minorities intheir total workforces in numbers equivalent tominority representation among the population atlarge. On the basis of this, CRE questionedwhether the target set by Whitehall was suffi-ciently challenging departments to guarantee suf-ficient minority representation, and it is currentlyworking with the government to assist in improv-ing the ethnic staff profile.

✦ A Cabinet Office report “Ethnic Minorities andthe Labour Market” of March 2003,4 looked indetail at the variation of labour market achieve-ment by ethnic group through analysing ethnicstatistics. Key findings include: Indians and Chi-nese are doing well in school and often out-per-

form majority whites in schools and in the labourmarket. Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and BlackCaribbeans experience far higher unemploymentand lower earnings. All ethnic minority groupsare not doing as well as they should be in thelabour market, given their qualifications and otherfactors. Following the publication of the report, across-Whitehall taskforce was established andis taking forward key recommendations of thereport and tackling the inequalities identified.

✦ People from ethnic minority groups experiencemuch worse health than the white British major-ity in Britain. Disproportionalities are particularlypronounced in mental health. Research in 2003revealed that black people constituted 30 percentof the patient group in medium secure servicesand 16 percent of high secure services; blackpeople were over six times more likely than themajority population to be detained under theMental Health Act; and women born in India andEast Africa had a 40 percent higher suicide ratethan those born in England and Wales. In light ofthese findings, the Department of Health launcheda consultation framework for black and ethnicminorities identifying priority areas for improve-ment. Further work is now underway to take theagenda forward.

✦ Schools in England and Wales are now obliged toinclude Roma/Gypsy and Irish Traveller catego-ries in the Pupil Level Annual School Census. Thismeans that, for the first time, data on attendanceand attainment is being collected for these groups.Initial findings, though based on small numbers,underscore the need for targeted action. At theage of 15-16, attainment for Gypsy pupils is lessthan half the national average and around halfthat of Bangladeshi and Pakistani pupils (thegroups classed as amongst the lowest achiev-ers).5 The Department for Education and Skills

RRA provisions (as a result of 2003 regulations) is that a person indirectly discriminates if “he applies tothat other a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of thesame race or ethnic or national origins as that other, but which puts or would put persons of the same raceor ethnic or national origins as that other at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons,which puts that other at that disadvantage, and which he cannot show to be a proportionate means ofachieving a legitimate aim”.

4 The report is available at: http://www.number10.gov.uk/su/ethnic%20minorities/report/pdf.htm.5 Unpublished.

notebook

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM26

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

is currently developing targeted programmes ofwork to raise ethnic minority achievement, andthe new data has been influential in ensuring thatgovernment focuses its efforts on Gypsies andTravellers within this wider programme.

The Race Equality Duty

In the public sector, increased emphasis has beenplaced on ethnic monitoring in employment and serv-ice delivery through recent changes to the Race Re-lations Act of 1976.

These changes came about after Stephen Law-rence, a black teenager, was killed by white youth.An inquiry into the killing revealed the presence ofinstitutional racism in parts of the police service. In-stitutional racism was defined by the Lawrence In-quiry as “the collective failure of an organisation toprovide an appropriate and professional service topeople because of their colour, culture or ethnic ori-gin”. The report also highlighted the failure of thepolice to acknowledge the racial motivation of theoffence and the lack of support and respect accordedto the teenager’s parents.

The Race Relations (Amendment) Act of 2000was the government’s legislative response to the in-quiry – the basic aim was to plan potential racismout of public sector systems by taking steps toproactively identify ethnic disproportionalities and toaddress the barriers to equality.

The government, quite rightly, did not confine thenew legislative requirements to policing, or even thecriminal justice system, but applied them across thepublic sector. The Race Relations Act of 1976 asamended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act2000 places a positive legal obligation on over 40,000public bodies, including local authorities, police, schools,higher and further educational institutions, health bod-ies and central government to “have due regard to theneed to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to promoteequality of opportunity and good relations betweenpersons of different racial groups” in carrying out alltheir functions (“the race equality duty”).

In order to assist bodies to better comply with therace equality duty, certain agencies have been given

additional specific duties. The main public authori-ties, including local authorities, police, health authori-ties and central government, have specific duties toprepare and publish a race equality scheme. In thisscheme they are obliged to list the functions and poli-cies they have assessed as being relevant to raceequality, set out arrangements for consulting on andassessing the impact of new and proposed policies,monitor the impact of existing policies and ensurepublic access to information and training staff on duty.In addition such bodies have a separate duty to moni-tor their employment practices.

The additional duties for schools differ: Schoolsmust publish a race equality policy instead of a schemeand assess and monitor the impact of their policieson pupils, staff and parents of different racial groups,in particular, the impact on the attainment levels ofsuch pupils. They must also take reasonably practi-cable steps to publish annually the results of the schoolmonitoring. Some public authorities, such as parishcouncils, only have to comply with the race equalityduty and are not obliged to comply with the addi-tional duties.

The race equality duty, supported by the additionalduties, requires public bodies to be proactive aboutrace equality. Ethnic monitoring is a critical tool un-derpinning this proactive approach. As was outlinedabove, many bodies are now required to collect dataon employment, and they are to make arrangementsto monitor the impact that their policies have on dif-ferent racial groups. This will mean collecting data onservice delivery and other functions. If a public bodyfinds that a policy has an adverse impact on particularracial groups, then, if this impact cannot be justifiedwithin the wider policy aim, the body will need to makechanges to mitigate this adverse impact. For exam-ple, if a local authority was collecting data on usersatisfaction of particular relevant services and ana-lysing this by ethnic group, it may discover that a par-ticular group or groups was dissatisfied with theservices offered or under-represented as users of par-ticular services in comparison with local census data.The authority would need to look further into the rea-sons for this disproportionality and make necessarychanges if the reason could not be justified. This placesa new focus on ethnic monitoring, and it shifts thefocus further onto the proactive use of ethnic data topromote race equality.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM27

Black


Some Necessary Safeguards

To ensure that ethnic monitoring is not misused andthat people’s rights are protected, safeguards are nec-essary. The CRE has recently published guidance onethnic monitoring,6 setting out the measures that shouldbe in place to ensure that this happens in practice.Most importantly, monitoring must be carried out inaccordance with the Data Protection Act of 1998.This legislation enumerates rights for individuals aboutwhom data is held and gives duties to those who holddata. Key points to be aware of are listed below:

✦ Personal data must be processed fairly, and sensi-tive personal data, which includes information aboutracial or ethnic background, can only be processedif it meets one or a set of conditions set out in theact. One such condition is that such data is neededto carry out equal opportunities monitoring.

✦ Data subjects’ rights and freedoms must be pro-tected – s/he does not need to give permissionfor data to be processed, but if the data will beused for another reason, then permission shouldbe sought.

✦ Those collecting the data should try to make theprocess fair by making sure that the data subjectknows who the person/organisation collecting thedata is, that they know why the data is being proc-essed and that they have access to any other im-portant information.

✦ Data can only be collected for lawful and speci-fied purposes and should not be used in other waysthat the subject is not aware of.

✦ The data collected must be relevant, not exces-sive and must also be adequate to make usefulfindings;

✦ Data should be accurate and kept up-to-date andnot retained for longer than necessary.

✦ Personal data must be kept securely, so there shouldbe security systems and trusted staff.

✦ Data subjects must not be identifiable from pub-lished data, so, for example, if the numbers wereso small that an individual could be identified, thiswould not be sufficient.

✦ A person has the right to object to racial/ethnicdata collection on certain grounds – if, for exam-ple, it would cause him/her excessive distress.

The CRE’s guidance also covers a wide range ofissues including which categories should be included,how to compare data, how data should be collected,analysed and interpreted, how action should be takenon the basis of this data and targets set.

Ethnic Monitoring, Gypsies and

Travellers

Gypsies and Travellers are not included in the na-tional, 10-year census, and, since most public bodiesbase their own monitoring categories on those of thecensus, they are not monitored at the local level (otherthan in education, as set out above). Similarly, in al-most every sector, research fails to generate statisticson Gypsies and Travellers. Effective implementationof the race equality duty relies on ethnic monitoring,and unless Gypsies and Travellers are monitored bypublic authorities, they may not fully benefit from theduty (even though lack of data in no way releasesauthorities from their obligations in relation to thesegroups). The CRE’s advice is that authorities shouldbase their monitoring categories on the Census 2001categories, but adapt their ethnic classification systemto the particular local circumstances, so that it includesthe particular ethnic groups they employ or serve. So,for example, Gypsies and Irish Travellers could be in-cluded as a specific sub-category of “white other”.However, the majority of authorities are not ethnicallymonitoring Gypsies and Travellers. And this meansthat there is no authoritative evidence to act as a driverfor improvement, so Gypsies’ and Travellers’ needsare likely to be overlooked.

Take policing. We know, for example, that ethnicminorities are the most likely to be the victim of a

notebook

6 See CRE website www.cre.gov.uk and guidance document, “Ethnic Monitoring: A guide for PublicAuthorities”, CRE.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM28

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

racist incident. In fact, the 2000 British Crime sur-vey found that the risk of victimisation for blackpeople was six times more than for white people,nine times more for Indians and 10 times more forPakistanis and Bangladeshis. But the Gypsies andTravellers who were victims of a racist incident arehidden somewhere among the statistics for whitepeople. Most police forces are thus unable to iden-tify how many racist incidents involve Gypsies andTravellers, nor how many stops and searches arecarried out on Gypsies. The official report, whichall criminal justice agencies are required to com-plete annually on criminal justice outcomes by ra-cial group, may make no reference to Gypsies andTravellers at all. This picture is replicated acrossthe public sector.

It is essential that more comprehensive data iscollected across the board on Gypsies and Travel-lers, if accurate analysis is to be made and targetsset for improvement. The Commission for RacialEquality argues that a category should be includedfor Gypsies and Irish Travellers in the next Census(2011), that public authorities should be encouragedat the local level to collect data on Gypsies and Trav-ellers, and that government departments should setspecific targets for improvements in each sector. TheCRE recently consulted on a three-year Gypsies andTravellers Strategy, setting out how it plans to im-prove equality of opportunity for Gypsies and Trav-ellers over the next three years. Work aroundimproved ethnic monitoring is one key area, and theCRE has already begun discussions with the Officefor National Statistics, which is responsible for set-ting the census categories.

However, while there is a major need for moreaccurate data, the issue of data collection is compli-cated. The level of social exclusion experienced byGypsies and Travellers is such that, even if therewere categories identifying them in local and na-tional monitoring systems, many would lack the con-fidence to self-ascribe their ethnicity, fearing thatthis in turn would lead to further disadvantage anddiscrimination. When the CRE recently consultedon its draft strategy, this point was made emphati-cally. It was also suggested that monitoring wouldneed to be carried out sensitively by members ofGypsy and Traveller communities or trusted thirdparties, and that the full benefits of monitoring wouldneed to be explained and demonstrated in practicefor any system to be workable.

Conclusion

Experience in the UK has shown that ethnic moni-toring can be a key tool in identifying inequalities, inwinning discrimination cases and in developing tar-geted action to promote equal opportunities for disad-vantaged racial groups. Gypsies and Travellers havenot as yet benefited from this approach, and the ex-tension of ethnic monitoring to these communities is akey gap that needs to be filled. However, the develop-ment of a more robust monitoring system for Gypsiesand Travellers must be accompanied by a campaignto raise awareness amongst Gypsies and Travellersabout the reasons for, and benefits of, ethnic monitor-ing. It must also be sensitively established, with safe-guards in place to ensure that monitoring does not riskfurther social exclusion and disadvantage.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM29

Black


Void at the Centre: (The Lack of) European UnionGuidance on Ethnic Data

Claude Cahn 1

HIS PAPER NOTES, on the basis of avery brief overview of data guidance atthe level of the European Union (EU),that increasing EU efforts to combatracism and racial discrimination notwith-

standing, the EU has not yet ventured meaningfullyinto providing guidance on the production of ethnicdata. This is odd, in light of (i) increasing data pre-occupations at the EU level in social matters gener-ally and (ii) a history of recognition at the EU levelthat data is a key instrument in securing (gender)equality. This paper further notes that the silence inthe area of EU guidance on ethnic data is growingmore evident, due to the growth of EU guidance ondata (and other matters) in social areas generally.Indeed, the lack of guidance on ethnic data mattersmay be having the apparently unintended but never-theless perverse effect of communicating to Mem-ber States the message that the EU may not be veryserious in its commitments to racial equality, despiterepeated action aimed at tackling racism. The fail-ure to devote sufficient attention to ethnic data mayundermine EU commitments to implementing theprinciple of racial equality.

The Union and Racism

Since the beginning of the 1990s, there has beenserious concern at an increase in racism in Europe,as well as its most pervasive (if not always demon-strable) public expression, racial discrimination. Con-cerns at the continuing legacy of racism in Europehave been driven by a range of unsettling facts dur-ing the 1990s, such as (to name only two) the geno-cidal ethnic war just beyond the borders of theEuropean Union in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and

Tthe increasing success of explicitly racist or xeno-phobic political parties in the Union itself. Efforts tocombat the growth of racism (or, perhaps moreaccurately, to extrude it from an embedded posi-tion) have been undertaken in a number of Euro-pean countries, most notably in the United Kingdom,where a high level public inquiry pronounced theLondon Metropolitan Police services infected by“institutionalised racism”, after police investigationfailed to prosecute a number of white youths sus-pected of the 1993 killing of Stephen Lawrence, ablack teenager.

The European Union institutions have repeatedlyentered the fray among those working to check thegrowth of racism in Europe. The Union proclaimed1997 the European Year Against Racism. Also in1997, the European Union Monitoring Centre onRacism and Xenophobia (EUMC) was establishedand in 1998 the EUMC commenced activities. Inearly 2000, European Union governments suspendedbilateral relations with Austria after a xenophobicparty – and one widely held to endorse racist views– joined the Austrian government. As a result of theAustrian episode and related concerns, amendmentswere included in the Treaty of Nice establishing amechanism for the suspension of certain EuropeanUnion treaty rights to Member States in the eventof severe breaches of human rights or rule of lawstandards.2

Arguably the most fundamental change in theUnion relating to combating discrimination and rac-ism has been the adoption of a series of anti-dis-crimination directives, adopted pursuant to therevised Article 13 of the Treaty Establishing theEuropean Community (TEC) after its Treaty of

1 Claude Cahn is Programmes Director of the European Roma Rights Center. He can be contacted at:[email protected].

2 Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Nice.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM30

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

Amsterdam amendments.3 Of particular signifi-cance, Directive 2000/43/EC “implementing the prin-ciple of equal treatment between personsirrespective of racial or ethnic origin” (“EU RaceDirective”) introduced legal standards throughoutthe Union aimed at ending differential treatmentbased on the arbitrary criteria of race or ethnicity.4

The EU Race Directive provides details as to thescope and content of laws banning racial discrimi-nation. The Directive includes, among other provi-sions, the requirement of legal remedies for victimsof racial discrimination through “judicial and/or ad-ministrative procedures” for the enforcement ofanti-discrimination obligations “available to all”5 andthe provision that in cases in which complainants“establish, before a court or other competent au-thority, facts from which it may be presumed thatthere has been [...] discrimination, it shall be for therespondent to prove that there has been no breachof the principle of equal treatment”.6 The EU RaceDirective also requires that domestic law imposeeffective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions forviolation of anti-discrimination norms. These shouldinclude “the payment of compensation to the vic-tim”.7 Directives are binding on all EU MemberStates8 and transposition has also been required ofcandidate countries.

Although a number of early hermeneutic effortshave attempted to view the EU Race Directive asspecifying merely formal equality of treatment, theDirective resists such a reduction. In the first place,its name (“implementing the principle of equal treat-ment between persons irrespective of racial or eth-nic origin”) anchors in place ambitions above andbeyond mere formal procedural neutrality. In its tex-tual provisions, the Directive provides a firm basisfor moving toward securing equality of outcomesby banning both “direct” and “indirect” discrimina-tion.9 The former sails to the wind of guaranteeingonly procedural neutrality by defining direct discrimi-nation as having occurred “where one person istreated less favourably than another is, has been orwould be treated in a comparable situation ongrounds of racial or ethnic origin”.10 However, “in-direct discrimination” is taken to occur “where anapparently neutral provision, criterion or practicewould put persons of a racial or ethnic origin at aparticular disadvantage compared with other per-sons, unless that provision, criterion or practice isobjectively justified by a legitimate aim and themeans of achieving that aim are appropriate andnecessary”, thus opening the way for challenges toa range of policies, practices and laws which mayhave a disparate (negative) impact on certain eth-

3 Beginning in 2000, and in particular under expanded powers provided by an amended Article 13 of theTreaty Establishing the European Community, the European Union adopted a number of legal measureswhich have significantly expanded the scope of anti-discrimination law in Europe, notably threeDirectives: (i) Directive 2000/43/EC “implementing the principle of equal treatment between personsirrespective of racial or ethnic origin” (“Race Directive”) (ii) Directive 2000/78/EC “establishing ageneral framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation” (“Employment Directive”) and(iii) Directive 2002/73/EC “on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and womenas regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions”,providing an increased level of protection against discrimination based on sex and amending an earlierdirective in this area. In addition to the Directives adopted under Article 13, a revised Article 29 of theTEC now gives police and judicial authorities heightened powers to co-operate on matters related to,among other things, “preventing and combating racism and xenophobia”.

4 The full text of the European Union Race Directive is available on the Internet at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/legis/legln_en.htm.

5 EU Race Directive Article 7(1).6 EU Race Directive Article 8.7 EU Race Directive Article 15.8 Where Member States have not transposed elements of similar directives in the past, the European Court

of Justice has applied the provision at issue directly.9 EU Race Directive Art. 2(2)(a).10 EU Race Directive Article 2(2)(b).

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM31

Black


nic groups. One important tool for demonstratingindirect discrimination against particular ethnicgroups is statistical data on the impact of policiesdis-aggregated by ethnicity.

The Union and Statistical Data

While the EU is a relatively new leader in the fieldof combating racial discrimination, the Union is a veryestablished player in the area both of generating sta-tistics (an entire EU division – Eurostat – works atthe regular production of statistical data), as well asof “setting benchmarks” and elaborating “commonindicators” – markers against which all memberStates must provide data. Traditionally, data gatheredunder Union guidance has been predominantly in ar-eas of European Union competence. It should notcome as a surprise that an institution which began asa treaty about coal and steel has focussed for muchof its lifetime extensively on data regarding mattersrelated to trade.

However, EU data activities have become, in re-cent years, ever more socially preoccupied. Thus,for example, key elements of the conclusions of theLisbon European Council in 2000, which decided uponan ambitious programme of “modernising the Euro-pean Social Model by investing in people and build-ing an active welfare state” included the goals of“promoting a better understanding of social exclu-sion … on the basis of commonly agreed indicators;the High Level Working Party on Social Protectionwill be involved in establishing these indicators;” and“establishing, where appropriate, quantitative andqualitative indicators and benchmarks against the bestin the world and tailored to the needs of differentMember States and sectors as a means of compar-ing best practice”, to name only two.11

Since 2000, the Union has acted upon decisionstaken at Lisbon by developing the so-called “LaekenSocial Exclusion Indicators”, named after the Eu-ropean Council at which they were approved. These

provide governments with guidelines to provide dataunder ten “primary indicators” and eight “second-ary indicators”, measuring especially poverty, butalso related issues such as “self-perceived healthstatus”.12 The data generated under the LaekenIndicators should provide comparability on anumber of facets of social exclusion between EUMember States.

Guidance on statistical data is not only in proc-ess in relation to EU work on poverty generally, butis also increasingly a matter for individual EU divi-sions focussing on particular sectoral fields. Thus,for example, the EU Directorate General of PublicHealth is currently in the process of developing“common health indicators”. According to informa-tion provided on the European Union website, the2004 work plan sets up seven working parties onlifestyle and other health determinants, mortality andmorbidity, health systems, health and environment,mental health, accidents and injuries, and health in-dicators. Also according to the EU website, theseworking parties will in the future carry out projectsin their fields with respect to: identifying and devel-oping indicators; supporting the collection of datafor the indicators at the domestic level; making dataavailable at EU level; “reporting the knowledge de-duced from the indicators” and other informationand promoting the use of the results at EU level.13

EU data action on social issues has already pro-ceeded extensively into the particular concern ofequality. Equality, for the purposes of EU data ef-forts to date, however, is almost exclusively genderequality. Indeed, gender targets appear in very highlevel EU policy decisions. For example, in the fieldof education, the European Council has set five Eu-ropean benchmarks for the improvement of educa-tion and training systems in Europe up to 2010:1. An EU average rate of no more than 10% early

school leavers should be achieved;2. The total number of graduates in mathematics, sci-

ence and technology in the European Union shouldincrease by at least 15% while at the same time

11 Presidency Conclusions, Lisbon European Council, 23 and 24 March 2000, pt. 37.12 See European Union Social Protection Committee, “Report on Indicators in the field of poverty and

social exclusion”, October 2001.13 See http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_information/indicators/indicators_en.htm.

notebook

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM32

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

the level of gender imbalance should decrease;(emphasis added)

3. At least 85% of 22 year olds in the European Un-ion should have completed upper secondary edu-cation;

4. The percentage of 15 year old low achievers inreading literacy should have decreased by at least20% compared to the year 2000;

5. The European Union average level of participa-tion in Lifelong Learning should be at least 12.5%of the adult working age population (25-64 agegroup).14

Gender equality and data ambitions are evenmore explicitly linked in the very central EU policyarea of employment. At the Lisbon EuropeanCouncil, the European Union set itself the goal ofbecoming “the most competitive and dynamicknowledge-based economy in the world, capableof sustainable economic growth with more andbetter jobs and greater social cohesion”. The Coun-cil also considered that the overall aim of thesemeasures should be to raise the overall EU em-ployment rate to 70% and to increase the numberof women in employment to more than 60% by2010. The Stockholm European Council (March2001) added two intermediate and one additionaltarget: the employment rate should be raised to67% overall by 2005, 57% for women by 2005 and50% for older workers by 2010.

One might expect that the combined force of (i)long-term experience with gender equality policy,(ii) increasing attention generally to data in socialfields, and (iii) vigorous new policy and law in thefield of combating racism and racial discrimination,might together provide a sound basis for the expan-sion and enrichment of EU guidance on frameworksfor data on the particular situation of ethnic groups

and the impact of race-neutral policies on particu-lar groups, particularly where there are clear indi-cations that socially exclusionary forces are veryfrequently race-based. However, to date this hasnot been the case.

Ethnic Data and Ethnic Data

Frameworks in the European Union

EU data frameworks to date have been note-worthy for the vacuum appearing where datameasuring social exclusion impacts on ethnicgroups should be. Thus, for example, the EuropeanCommission publication “European Social Statis-tics: Income, Poverty and Social Exclusion” in-cludes no data whatsoever on the situation ofindividuals belonging to minority groups, includingRoma, or the impact of socially exclusionary forceson specific ethnic groups.15 The more recent Com-mission publication “The Social Situation in theEuropean Union 2003”, although also providing sta-tistical data on social exclusion, is similarly silenton matters related to the impact of racial discrimi-nation.16 The Statistical Annex to the 2003 “Com-mission Staff Working Paper ‘Draft Joint InclusionReport’”, although including data and “new” indi-cators going beyond the 18 social exclusion indi-cators adopted at the Laeken European Council inDecember 2001, likewise includes no frameworksfor the provision of data by ethnicity.17 And, at thehigher end of the range, while the Lisbon objec-tives include specific objectives to reduce unem-ployment among women and the elderly, there isno similar objective to bring down unemploymentamong excluded ethnic groups.

Ethnicity occassionally slips into EU data and im-pact considerations via the gender gate, for example

14 Commission of the European Communities, “Commission Staff Working Paper: Progress Towards theCommon Objectives in Education and Training: Indicators and Benchmarks”, Brussels, 21.1.2004,SEC(2004) 73.

15 European Commission, Eurostat, “European Social Statistics: Income, Poverty and Social Exclusion”,Detailed Tables, European Communities, 2000.

16 European Commission, Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs, “The Social Situation inthe European Union 2003”, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2003.

17 COM(2003)773 final.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM33

Black


when EU policies note the need to pay particularattention to the needs of women from minoritygroups. Here some of the language is revealing, par-ticularly in the apparent anxiety in some corners ofthe EU of even talking about ethnicity. Ponder, forexample, the following formulation, from a documentdefining objectives in the fight against social exclu-sion: “the social integration of women and men atrisk of facing persistent poverty, for example becausethey have a disability or belong to a group experi-encing particular integration problems” (empha-sis added).18 It is not easy to be optimistic about theprospects of success of policies to combat the ex-clusion of particular ethnic groups where those aredesigned by an institution which appears to fear giv-ing voice to the possibility of ethnicity.

To date, a distinct tremulousness in the area ofethnic data notwithstanding, the Union has under-taken several key steps in the field of ethnic data.First of all, it has specified that generalised datadisaggregated by ethnicity is not an area covered byEU data protection rules. Most recently, Regulation(EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and ofthe Council of 18 December 2000 “on the protectionof individuals with regard to the processing of per-sonal data by the Community institutions and bodiesand on the free movement of such data” states: “(a)‘personal data’ shall mean any information relatingto an identified or identifiable natural person herein-after referred to as ‘data subject’; an identifiableperson is one who can be identified, directly or indi-rectly, in particular by reference to an identificationnumber or to one or more factors specific to his orher physical, physiological, mental, economic, culturalor social identity”.

Simply setting aggregate ethnic data outside thescope of data protection laws may seem like a negligi-ble step (and it is not much really), until one becomesaware that the primary argument brought by authori-

ties as to why ethnic data is so scarce is that gatheringethnic data may violate data protection laws. For ex-ample, in its response to the Opinion of the Council ofEurope’s Framework Convention on the Protectionof National Minorities Advisory Committee, the Ger-man Government stated that “Germany could not con-sider collecting any such data due to basic legalconsiderations.”19 As a number of articles in this issueof Roma Rights make clear, this fig leaf is worn by thegovernments of a number of countries, particularly butnot only in Central and Eastern Europe.

A second step taken by some divisions in the EUrecently has been to begin telling Member Statesgovernments that they are free to – and should –gather and make public data on the situation of par-ticular ethnic groups. In Directorate General Employ-ment and Social Affairs, this has been refered to asencouraging the development of “tertiary” indicators(i.e., those developed at the level of the MemberState), in the absence of “primary” and “secondary”indicators (agreed upon at the EU level, and there-fore refered to as “common indicators”). In so do-ing, the EU joins a number of international monitoringbodies which have both generally called for the pro-vision of data on the situation of weak ethnic groups,as well as repeatedly called on states – includingEuropean Union Member States – to provide statis-tical data on the situation of ethnic groups in varioussectoral fields.20

However, it is not at all apparent that this stop-gapmeasure is sufficient. In the first place, it is not clearwhy for example Italy should comply with a requestthat France won’t. Secondly, with data requirementsfrom the EU increasing now at a dramatic rate, itdoes not seem likely that, absent other incentives,states will voluntarily add to their data production load.Finally, the central idea of the common indicators isto provide for data comparability between MemberStates. Without such comparative data, it will be

18 See European Union document, “Fight against poverty and social inclusion – Definition of appropriateobjectives”, Brussels, 30 November 2000).

19 Comments by the Federal Republic of Germany on the Opinion of the Advisory Committee on theFramework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Opinion on Germany (19th July 2002),reference GVT/COM/INF/OP/I(2002)008, Section III, Re Art. 3, number 75.

20 For a summary of such calls for statistical data, see Goldston, James A., “Race and Ethnic Data: AMissing Resource in the Fight against Discrimination”, in Ethnic Monitoring and Data Protection: TheEuropean Context, Budapest: CPS Books, Central European University Press – INDOK, 2001.

notebook

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM34

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

significantly more difficult to know which policies workand which ones do not. Or at least, it will not be possi-ble to know which policies work better than others.

The View from the Member States

The primary obstacle to the production of ethnicdata right now is that in the current conditions, thedata generated will be embarrassing to those gov-ernments not yet willing to address the issues con-cerned seriously. This is evident already fromresponses to data generated as a stop-gap effort bynon-governmental organisations and sociologists. Totake only one example, the ERRC research con-ducted on the situation of Roma in the Czech schoolsystem in the school year 1998-1999 documentedextreme levels of racial segregation in Czechschools.21 Intensive research was carried out in theCzech city of Ostrava. The ERRC secured fromschool directors (who are perfectly aware of the eth-nic composition of schools and who in a number ofinstances already have such data on file) statisticaldata on the placement of pupils, by ethnicity, for theapproximately 90 primary schools in the Ostravamunicipality. This revealed that, during the 1998-1999school year:

✦ More than half of the student body of so-called“remedial special schools” for the mentally disa-bled were Romani;

✦ More than half of the population of Romani chil-dren of the age of mandatory school attendancein Ostrava were being educated in remedial spe-cial schools;

✦ Any given Romani child was more than 27 timesmore likely than a non-Romani child to be schooledin a remedial special school.

These are massive racial disparities. The ERRCalso conducted similar research in a number of other

Czech municipalities, and this research indicated thatdisparities were similar or, indeed, worse, throughoutthe Czech Republic.

In the intervening five years since this data wasfirst made public, the Czech government has on anumber of occasions had the opportunity to present itsefforts to address the problem of racial segregation inschooling, and in particular disproportionate placementof Romani children in schools for the mentally disa-bled. Recent Czech government pronouncements in-dicate an increasing awareness that the issue of racialsegregation in the school system is a problem, but asyet no basis for any assessment as to the impact ofpolicy measures adopted. Here, for example, is theCzech government’s discussion of the issue in its De-cember 2003 “Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion”,prepared with the European Commission:

Groups with multiple disadvantages are the most vul-nerable. Unemployment is high among the Roma.However, its levels can be only estimated, as no spe-cial ethnic origin-based statistics are available. [...]The unsatisfactory situation in educating children ofthe Roma community, who represent the majority ofpupils from socio-culturally disadvantaged back-grounds, remains the permanent target of criticismfrom the inspection bodies of international human rightsagreements, regular European Commission reports andlocal and international non-governmental organisationsmonitoring human rights compliance. They criticiseespecially the fact that a large proportion of them at-tend special schools, which de facto – although nolonger de jure – limits their chances of attaining highereducation levels and limits the possibility of achievingsocial integration. In vocational training these pupilsare primarily directed towards obtaining qualificationsfor manual occupations. The percentage of Romapupils attending special schools cannot be determinedprecisely and the existing qualified estimates cannotbe generalised for the whole of the country.22

The Czech government enters into more detail on

21 See European Roma Rights Center, A Special Remedy: Roma and Schools for the Mentally Handicapped inthe Czech Republic, Budapest, 1999.

22 Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic and European Commission DirectorateGeneral of Employment and Social Affairs, “Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of the CzechRepublic”, December 18, 2003.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:01 PM35

Black


the issue of disproportionate rates of placement ofRomani children in schools for the mentally disabledin its May 2003 report to the United Nations Com-mittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination(CERD).23 Here, although a range of policy meas-ures are discussed, it is again evident that no basisexists to determine whether any of these measuresare having any positive impact. Absent the presen-tation of data on the impact of these policies, therecan be no clear assessment of their efficacy or, in-deed, if any of the measures described have any truelife outside the confines of the Czech government’sreporting to international bodies.

The Czech example is only one among many, butit is particularly illustrative, especially when data gapsare examined in light of the existing EU data frame-work. Precisely in the field of education, the currentEU data framework seems especially prone to mis-read issues related to ethnicity. There are 29 “Indi-cators for Monitoring Performance and Progress ofEducation and Training Systems in Europe”.24 Atleast two of these may actually register racial segre-gation of Roma in schools for the mentally disabledas a positive measure. These are indicators 4 and 5under the heading “Investments in Education andTraining” which measure expenditures per pupil/stu-dent. Since in some Member States (including in theCzech Republic), expenditures for pupils in schoolsand classes for the mentally disabled are higher thanthose for pupils in mainstream education, racial seg-regation into substandard, inappropriate and inad-equate schooling would, in the absence of otherinformation, register under the present indicator sys-tem as a positive measure for Roma.

Conclusion

The focus of this article has been the EU dataframework, although the failings described above

have been the failings of a particular Member Stateto provide adequate data on an ethnic basis. Onechallenge to the thesis of this paper might be, then,that the paper places pays attention to the EU level,when a focus on Member States’ frameworksmight be more relevant. It has not been the inten-tion of this paper to facilitate any interest in reliev-ing the primary obligation of Member States toprovide such data. It has been the sole aim of thispaper to note that a void currently exists in thebroader framework, and that in light of an expan-sion in other areas, this void is becoming increas-ingly noticeable and is having increasingly perniciouseffects. Said differently, there is an increasinglypowerful EU framework underpinning the Czechgovernment’s current (and traditional) line of de-fence of policy inertia cited above: “The percent-age of Roma pupils attending special schools cannotbe determined precisely and the existing qualifiedestimates cannot be generalised for the whole ofthe country.”25 The absence of data (and the stud-ied unwillingness to gather it) is constant; the frame-work justifying it strengthens.

Among the most compelling reasons for elaborat-ing an EU framework for ethnic data is that manygovernments are currently doing themselves and thesocieties they govern a very significant disservice. Gapsin race-specific statistical data deprive policy makersof a clear and justifiable basis for action. Data, par-ticularly where such data indicates serious disparity,can be among the most powerful tools available forensuring policy efficacy, facilitating social change andguaranteeing race equality. Without such statisticaldata, little concrete information exists which might mo-tivate change. Perhaps most importantly, it can assistmembers of the public in arriving at an increasedawareness of the societies in which they live, enrich-ing the possibilities for democratic participation.

A number of concepts currently under elabora-

23 See CERD/C/419/Add.1 23 May 2003, pts. 119-128.24 The 29 “Indicators for Monitoring Performance and Progress of Education and Training Systems in

Europe” can be found in Commission of the European Communities, “Commission Staff Working Paper:Progress Towards the Common Objectives in Education and Training: Indicators and Benchmarks”,Brussels, 21.1.2004, SEC(2004) 73.

25 Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic and European Commission DirectorateGeneral of Employment and Social Affairs, “Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of the CzechRepublic”, December 18, 2003.

notebook

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:02 PM36

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

tion aim at pushing the requirement to avoid negativeimpacts on particular ethnic groups to the level ofthe policy itself, through the inclusion of regular as-sessments and adjustments to policy. Ever more willbe heard in coming years about currently misunder-stood approaches such as “mainstreaming”.26 TheEuropean Union can and should facilitate increasingattention to the disparate impact of certain policies

on ethnic groups by elaborating its data frameworkto include ethnic data in all areas. This can only as-sist those (often embattled) policy makers seeking tocombat racial discrimination, and will result gener-ally in pressure on governments to tackle issues ofexclusion on an ethnic basis. The intrinsic good se-cured finally is the cultivation of vibrant, multi-cul-tural societies characterised by social peace andregularly enriched by inter-ethnic understanding.

26 See for example “Mainstreaming Equality in European Union Law and Policy-Making”, a reportprepared for the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) by Jo Shaw, Professor of European Law,University of Manchester and Senior Research Fellow at the Federal Trust, March 2004, forthcoming byENAR, July 2004.

S e g r e g a t e d S c h o o l i n g o f R o m ai n C e n t r a l a n d E a s t e r n E u r o p e

S t i g m a t a

A new ERRC report:

Order ERRC reports at: [email protected]

The new ERRC report explores

how Romani children in Bulgaria, Czech

Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia are

denied equal dignity by a system of racially-

based segregation in education.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:02 PM37

Black


No Compromise with the Universality ofHuman Rights

In April 2004, the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) held an interview with Ms Anna Karamanou,1

Member of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities at the European Parliament.

ERRC: Within the EU institutions, is there a clearunderstanding of the problems facing Romaniwomen? Has there been any surveys, reports,etc., focusing on Romani women? Are there cur-rently discussions about developing programmestargeting Romani women in particular?

Anna Karamanou:I think understanding ofthese problems is in-creasing. The Enlarge-ment will further boostEuropean Institutions’ in-terest in combating dis-crimination. The Com-mittee on Women’sRights and Equal Oppor-tunities of the European

Parliament, for example, has already invited theEuropean Roma Information Office (ERIO) totestify about Romani womens’ problems. How-ever, at this stage, I don’t think the problems ofthe minorities in Europe are very high on the po-litical agenda. We have to intensify our efforts inorder to increase awareness and sensitivity in theEU and therefore promote implementation of mi-nority programmes. We know that the EU has aninterest in solving the problems of minorities andcreating a common space for freedom, equalityand respect for human rights. Human rights are abasic value of the EU, as is evident by its inclusionin all major European documents, as well as in thePreamble of the draft EU Constitution.

ERRC: In general, to what extent have minoritywomen benefited so far from equal opportunitypolicies in the EU? Have there been any studiesto assess the impact of equal opportunity poli-cies on minority women?

A.K.: I don’t think minority women have had ad-equate access to gender equality programmes. Idon’t think there has been special interest in theproblems of minority women in general. The Com-mittee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportuni-ties has made reports on the problems of women,including Romani women, and we have tried togive prominence to their concerns. Nevertheless,despite our efforts, little progress has been made.This pertains not only to the situation of Romaniwomen but also to the situation of women be-longing to religious minorities; women from Is-lamic countries; women coming from placeswhere severe human rights violations are takingplace, or even women belonging to some groupswho have brought along practices which violatewomen’s rights, such as genital mutilation. Weknow that this hideous practice is taking placewithin the borders of the EU and I don’t thinkmuch has been done to tackle these problems.Violations of basic rights occur also within theRomani community, such as forced marriage, forexample. We know that there is violence againstRomani women. Even though violence againstwomen is universal, the structure of some mi-nority communities is more patriarchal thus en-couraging such abominable practices.

1 More information about Ms Anna Karamanou can be found at: www.karamanou.gr.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:02 PM38

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

ERRC: How can we avoid the reinforcement ofanti-Romani stereotypes while carrying on anopen discussion on human rights violationstaking place within the community, such as do-mestic violence and other violations ofwomens’ rights?

A.K.: I believe that only through an open, sincere,public dialogue we can find functioning solutionsfor such complicated problems. Dialogue has totake place within the EU institutions and withinthe Romani community. The dialogue can be pro-moted by Romani women themselves. This is theonly way to avoid the reinforcement of stereotypes,because stereotypes are based on ignorance anddialogue promotes knowledge and understandingof our share in the problem.

Certain communities have different perceptions ofthe respect for human rights. What the rest of usmay consider a violation of human rights, in theRomani community may be considered a privilege.For example, challenging the practice of fathers toselect a husband for their daughter is regarded, bysome Romani people, as a violation of the father’srights. We need to understand the roots of humanrights violations and the whole structure of the mi-nority community, in order to have an effectivepolicy. We cannot judge minorities all the time ac-cording to our own standards. On the other hand,we must bear in mind that human rights are univer-sal and there can be no compromise. As regardsthe Roma community, we have to, first and fore-most, improve their living conditions and level ofeducation. We have to recognise full citizenship forRoma, full access to education and decent housing,in order to combat the feeling of exclusion they ex-perience and promote their sense of belonging to

our communities, of sharing our values and thus re-specting such universally accepted human rights.

ERRC: One serious obstacle in implementing ef-fective Romani policies has been the lack ofdata about the state of Roma in various sectoralfields. This same problem applies to data aboutminority/Romani women. Are you aware of col-lection of data disaggregated both by ethnic-ity and gender within the EU?

A.K.: We need to act on EU level and on nationallevel. We have to cooperate with local authoritiesif we want to have a clear picture. It is true thatthere is complete lack of data. We don’t even knowthe numbers of Roma. If we don’t know how manythey are, how can we have data on their living andworking conditions? We need research on Romaand I think this is a responsibility of the EU andthe Eurobarometer.

Furthermore, the history of Roma is not known inEurope. We know that they are not all the same,even within one national state there are differencesin language, in traditions. Since the 1st of May, wehave millions of Romani European citizens. It is ahigh time we learnt more about them.

Roma add to the cultures of Europe. We have topreserve their culture as part of the multitude ofcultures in Europe. At the same time, we have toensure that Roma have access to material wealth,to educational wealth, and to full enjoyment ofhuman rights. This development will be a benefitfor Europe. It is not enough not to discriminateagainst Roma. We have to recognise their right tobe themselves.

RR 2004 ii body 1.p65 7/16/2004, 3:02 PM39

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

SNAPSHOTS

FROM

AROUND

EUROPE

SNAPSHOTS

FROM

AROUND

EUROPE

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:10 PM41

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

News Roundup: Snapshots From Around Europe

The pages that follow include Roma rights news and recent developments in the following areas:

➣ Collective and illegal expulsions of Roma from Denmark and Finland; KosovoOmbudsperson urges against forcible return of Roma, Ashkaelia and Egyptians to Kosovo;and asylum seekers lose social support in the United Kingdom;

➣ Physical abuse and other inhuman and degrading treatment by police and other officials in Italy,Kosovo, Macedonia, Russia and Ukraine; including police killings in Bulgaria; and childjustice issues in Hungary;

➣ Racial killing, attacks and harassment by skinheads and others in Bulgaria, Czech Republicand Russia;

➣ Intimidation of Roma seeking justice in Romania;

➣ Death of Roma following substandard medical care motivated by racial animosity in Bulgaria andHungary; and other access to adequate medical care issues in Bulgaria,

➣ Plans to address access to education of Roma in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

➣ Forced evictions, and planned evictions, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Italy, Serbiaand Montenegro and the United Kingdom; and other issues related to the right to adequatehousing in Czech Republic and Greece;

➣ Discrimination in access to fundamental social and economic rights in Bulgaria, Hungary andSerbia and Montenegro;

➣ Access to justice issues in Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary and Serbia and Montenegro;and European Court of Human Rights finds Bulgaria and the United Kingdom in violation ofthe human rights of Roma;

➣ Anti-Romani sentiment issues in Greece, Hungary, Serbia and Montenegro and the UnitedKingdom;

➣ Notification to desegregate schools issued by Romania; school segregation concerns in Roma-nia; and controversial proposal regarding Romani education by EU Commission Ambassador toSlovakia;

➣ Comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation adopted in Slovakia; and action against “Anti-Gypsy signs” by anti-discrimination body in the United Kingdom;

➣ Access to citizenship and personal documents issues in Slovenia;

➣ United Nations Committee against Torture reviews Czech Republic; and

➣ United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reviews Greece.

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:10 PM43

Black


news roundup: snapshots from around europe

BOSNIA AND HEZEGOVINA

✦✦✦✦✦ Bosnian Ministry ofHuman Rights and RefugeesAnnounces Plan to AddressRomani Education Problems

The Bosnian Ministry of HumanRights and Refugees, togetherwith the Council of Ministers ofBosnia and Herzegovina, at theend of February 2004, introducedan Action Plan on the EducationalNeeds of Roma and Members ofOther National Minorities inBosnia and Herzegovina. TheAction Plan is to have retroactiveeffect to the beginning of the 2004/2005 school year. With specificregard to access to education ofRoma, the Action Plan identifiedfive overarching goals with par-ticular actions required for theachievement of each. Within theframework of the Action Plan, therelevant authorities are responsi-ble for:

– Promoting systemic change inorder to ensure accommodationof the educational needs ofRoma;

– Removing financial and admin-istrative barriers to Romanischool enrolment and comple-tion. Special budgetary means,based on available funds, shouldbe allocated within the 2004budget lines and progressivelyincreased as conditions allow;

– Preservation of the Romani lan-guage and culture;

– Garnering the support and par-ticipation of Romani parents andcommunities; and

– Increasing the representation ofRomani teaching staff and sen-sitising non-Romani teachingstaff to the needs of Romanistudents.

In other news related to theeducation of Romani pupils inBosnia and Herzegovina, onMarch 2, the Republika Srpska-based news agency SRNA re-ported that a conference was heldin Banja Luka regarding the edu-cation of Roma children in el-ementary schools in RepublikaSrpska. Ms Olivera Damjanovicof the international non-govern-mental organisation Save theChildren, which organized theevent, stated that “a small per-centage of Romani children at-tend elementary schools, and itoften happens that children whostart school soon stop their edu-cation.” A number of Roma chil-dren had been enrolled in schoolsduring the 2003/2004 school year,most of whom were reportedlyattending integrated classes.However, according to theRepublika Srpska-based dailynewspaper Glas Srpske of Janu-ary 5, 2004, a segregated Romaniclass, attended by thirty-threeRomani pupils, was formed at theJovan Ducic elementary school inBijeljina. (Glas Srpske, SRNA,ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Repeated Eviction ofRomani Community inBosnia and Herzegovina

On March 24, 2004, the BanjaLuka-based daily newspaperNezavisne novine reported thatpolice evicted several itinerantRomani families from the tempo-rary residence they had con-structed in front of the castle in thecentre of the northern Bosnian cityof Banja Luka. The daily reportedthat the families were not providedwith an alternative site on whichto set up their accommodation.They reportedly moved near a cardealership to the outskirts of townbut were again evicted by police.Within several days, however, theyhad re-established their tents infront of the castle. Police repre-sentatives were reported by thedaily to have stated that the Romanigroup would be forced to leave thesite. The housing rights situation ofRoma in Bosnia and Herzegovinacompromises a major portion of theERRC country report The Non-Constituents: Rights Deprivationof Roma in Post-GenocideBosnia and Herzegovi-na, avail-able on the ERRC’s Internetwebsite at: http://lists.errc.org/p u b l i c a t i o n s / i n d i c e s /bosnia.shtml. (Nezavisnenovine)

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:10 PM44

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

BULGARIA

family to bring a photo of MrStoyanov and his ID card with-out saying why. When they re-turned with the documents, theywere sent to the morgue whereMr Stoyanov’s guardian identifiedhis body. According to the au-topsy report, the cause of deathwas a gunshot to the head in thevicinity of the right eye. The au-topsy confirmed the absence ofdrugs or alcohol in Mr Stoyanov’sblood. As of June 11, 2004, a po-lice investigation into the fatalshooting of Mr Stoyanov wasunderway. The two police ser-geants have been suspended fromduty pending the outcome of theinvestigation. Lawyers HristinaNikolova and Emil Yoshev areproviding legal representation inthe case. For more information onthe situation of Roma in Bulgaria,see the ERRC’s Internet websiteat: http://lists.errc.org/publica-tions/indices/bulgaria.shtml.(ERRC, HRP)

✦✦✦✦✦ Eviction of Roma inBulgaria

On March 30, 2004, the munici-pal council of the southeastern Bul-garian city of Burgas adopted adecision according to which, withinone month, the mayor of Burgasshould prepare protocols establish-ing illegal construction in the city’slarge neighbourhood MedenRudnik, and undertake “all legalmeasures to stop illegal settlementand destroy the illegal construc-tions in the Meden Rudnik neigh-bourhood of Burgas.” Thedecision, which does not envisionthe provision of alternative hous-ing, targets Romani makeshiftdwellings constructed without le-

gal permission housing about 200Roma. The Romani dwellingswere built about five years ago onthe periphery of the neighbour-hood. Meden Rudnik has bothnon-Romani and Romani resi-dents. According to ERRC re-search conducted in April 2004,the shacks had neither electricitynor running water. Water was pro-vided by one pump located amongthe shacks. Some of the Roma,mostly those who had moved toMeden Rudnik from neighbouringvillages and towns in the past sev-eral years, did not have identitycards and were not registered inany municipality. At the end ofMay, 2004 the municipality startedpresenting the Roma with evictionprotocols according to which theRoma were obliged to demolishthe illegal construction at their ownexpense within fourteen days.After the expiry of the deadline,municipal authorities in the pres-ence of the local police proceededwith the demolition of the shacks.As of July 7, 2004, according to MrRumen Cholakov, a Romani activ-ist from Maden Rudnik, at least 25makeshift dwellings, housing about90 Roma were destroyed. Thepeople moved to live with relativesand friends in neighbouring houses.On April 19, 2004, Roma fromMeden Rudnik with whom theERRC spoke stated that there weretwo likely reasons for the decisionto demolish the Romani dwellings– the pressure of the Bulgarianresidents of Meden Rudnik and theplans of the municipality to build asupermarket at the place of theRomani ghetto.

According to Rumen Cholakov,in addition to the illegal Romani con-structions in the neighbourhood,

✦✦✦✦✦ Bulgarian Police FatallyShoot a Romani Man

According to the information cen-tre of the Bulgarian Ministry ofInternal Affairs, between 3:00 and4:00 AM on the morning of March27, 2004, a police sergeant from the6th Police Station in the city ofPlovdiv fatally shot Mr K.Stoyanov, a 24-year-old Romaniman. According to the Ministry,the fatal shooting happened whenMr Stoyanov tried to run awayfrom two police sergeants at-tempting to conduct an ID check.One of the sergeants reportedlyfired a warning shot in the air andthey then chased Mr Stoyanov.When one of the sergeants caughtMr Stoyanov, Mr Stoyanov re-portedly pulled a knife on him. Thesergeant grabbed for MrStoyanov’s wrist and, according tothe Ministry, Mr Stoyanov grabbedthe sergeant’s arm and a struggleensued during which the gun wasfired, killing Mr Stoyanov.

ERRC research, conducted inpartnership with the Sofia-basednon-governmental organisationHuman Rights Project (HRP),calls into question the version ofevents put forth by the Ministryof Internal Affairs. Mr M.J., MrStoyanov’s guardian, informed theERRC/HRP that when MrStoyanov left the house before thefatal incident, he was not carry-ing a weapon. Mr M.J. stated thatMr Stoyanov suffered from adrug addiction and left the housewith the intent of purchasingdrugs. When Mr Stoyanov did notreturn home, later that morning,his mother and Mr M.J. went tothe police station in search of him.Officers reportedly instructed the

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM45

Black



there are also illegally built garagesbelonging to non-Roma but themunicipality has not targeted themfor demolition.

In 2000 a petition signed by theethnic Bulgarian residents ofMeden Rudnik called for the demo-lition of the Romani dwellings andthe expulsion of the Roma from theneighbourhood. The alleged rea-sons for the protests by ethnic Bul-garians were the threats to healthposed by the unsanitary conditionsof the Romani dwellings and thedisturbance of public order causedby the Romani residents. A “CivilMovement for Protection ofMeden Rudnik” was established,which has been pressuring localauthorities to expel the Roma sincethen. During the local electioncampaign in Burgas in October2003, the candidate of the rightcoalition, Ms Emilia Nasheva, in-cluded the destruction of the ille-gal Romani dwellings in MedenRudnik in her plan of action for thecity of Burgas.

In its General Comment 7 onthe right to adequate housing andforced evictions, the United Na-tions Committee on Economic, So-cial and Cultural Rights, whichmonitors states’ compliance withthe International Covenant onEconomic, Social and CulturalRights, stated that forced evictions“should not result in individualsbeing rendered homeless or vul-nerable to the violation of otherhuman rights. Where those af-fected are unable to provide forthemselves, the State party musttake all appropriate measures, tothe maximum of its available re-sources, to ensure that adequatealternative housing, resettlementor access to productive land, asthe case may be, is available.”(ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Bulgarian DoctorComments “One GypsyLess” at the Death of aRomani Youth afterSuspected NegligentTreatment

According to information pro-vided to the ERRC by the Sofia-based Bulgarian HelsinkiCommittee (BHC), on May 1,2004, 22-year old Mr MihailTsvetanov, a Romani man fromthe northeastern Bulgarian townof Isperih, died in his home. Theprevious day Mr Tsvetanov wasreleased from hospital and, ac-cording to the information pro-vided by the medical personnel tohis parents, he was in good con-dition.

According to the testimony ofMs Anguelina Todorova, MrTsvetanov’s mother, to the BHC,Mr Tsvetanov was admitted to thehospital due to stomach pains onApril 16, 2004 and held for sev-eral days, though he was never di-agnosed with an illness. At around10:30 AM on April 21, MrTsvetanov complained of an acutestomach ache to his father, MrMihail Todorov, who was visiting.Mr Todorov asked the nurses tocall for a doctor to examine hisson but was reportedly told towait. Following repeated requestsby Mr Todorov, a nurse called DrKrastev, Mr Tsvetanov’s doctor.However, Dr Krastev failed toarrive. Despite repeated requestsby Mr Todorov that a doctor ex-amine his son who continued toexperience persistent sharp ab-dominal pains, only at 6:30 PM dida doctor examine Mr Tsvetanov.Dr Minkov established that MrTsvetanov had a perforated ulcerand required an emergency opera-tion. After the operation, MrTsvetanov was released on April

30. Ms Todorova stated that DrKrastev informed her that her sonwas in good condition.

At around 3:00 AM on May 1,Mr Tsvetanov told his mother thathe felt seriously ill and that he wasabout to lose consciousness. Mrand Ms Todorov called an ambu-lance, which arrived only afterone hour and a second phone callthough they live less than one kilo-metre from where the ambulanceservice is located. When it arrived,the medical team established thedeath of Mihail Tsvetanov.

On May 3, Mr Todorov met DrKrastev at the hospital to ask forhis son’s medical file. Mr Todorovdemanded that Dr Krastev explainwhy, after he stated Mr Tsvetanovwas in good health, his son had died.Dr Krastev then allegedly stated, “Itis not a big thing – one Gypsy less.”In the following days, Mr Todorovwent to the hospital several timesto obtain the medical file but eachtime was denied access by DrKrastev who claimed that the fa-ther did not need the document.

Mr and Ms Todorov filed a law-suit against the hospital in Isperih.The BHC provided legal represen-tation in the case. (BHC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Ambulance Refuses toEnter RomaniNeighbourhood in Bulgaria

On April 4, 2004, Ms BrigitaHristova of Novi Pazar testified tothe ERRC that at around 11:00 PMon March 29, 2004, Mr MitkoAsenov, a Romani man from theRomani neighbourhood in thenortheastern Bulgarian town ofNovi Pazar, called an ambulancewhen his 3-year-old daughterEmiliya Mitkova fell seriously ill,

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM46

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

but it did not arrive. After sometime, Mr Asenov brought Emiliya,who was experiencing a high fe-ver and stomach pains, to the hos-pital in a car he borrowed from aneighbour’s guest. According toMs. Hristova, doctors at the hos-pital told Mr Asenov and his wifeZyulbie Asenova, that they mighthave lost Emiliya had they arrivedlater. A number of Roma with whomthe ERRC spoke in Novi Pazarstated that ambulance operatorsrefuse to service their neighbour-hood, even in cases of emergency.

Article 24(1) of the InternationalConvention on the Rights of theChild, ratified by Bulgaria in 1991,states, “States Parties recognizethe right of the child to the enjoy-ment of the highest attainablestandard of health and to facilitiesfor the treatment of illness and re-habilitation of health. States Par-ties shall strive to ensure that nochild is deprived of his or her rightof access to such health care serv-ices.” Article 10(2) of the Bulgar-ian Act on the Protection of theChild prohibits limitations on theright to protection based on, interalia, race, nationality and ethnicorigin. (ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Racially MotivatedAttack against Romani Manand Non-Romani Woman inBulgaria

Mr Martin Simeonov, a 22-year-oldRomani man, testified to the ERRCon May 1, 2004, that on March 19,2004, four ethnic Bulgarian menbrutally attacked him and his 21-year-old ethnic Bulgarian girlfriend,Ms Pepa Stoyanova, in the north-eastern Bulgarian town ofShumen. Mr Simeonov informedthe ERRC that he and MsStoyanova were walking on the

street when the four men attackedthem from behind while shouting,“Hey Mangal, do you know whatstate you are living in” and cursinghis Gypsy mother. “Mangal” is aderogatory word for Roma in Bul-garia. The men punched andkicked Mr Simeonov all over hisbody, and also beat him with chains.They also reportedly punched MsStoyanova. Mr Simeonov statedthat he and Stoyanova managed toescape but the men threw emptyalcohol bottles at them as they ranaway. At this time, several carsdrove by and the attackers ranaway. Mr Simeonov and MsStoyanova called the police, whowere unable to find the four menwhen they arrived. Mr Simeonovsustained cuts all over his face andone of his teeth was broken duringthe attack. Ms Stoyanova sustainedbruises on her back. On March 20,Mr Simeonov went to the hospitaland was issued a medical certifi-cate attesting to his injuries. As ofthe beginning of May 2004, a po-lice investigation into the case wasongoing. (ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Kindergarten WorkersAbuse Romani Boy inBulgaria

On April 29, 2004, Ms RumyanaAngelova, a Romani woman fromthe northeastern Bulgarian town ofShumen, testified to ERRC thatseveral weeks earlier a worker ather son’s kindergarten known as“Dida” physically and verballyabused her 6-year-old son DavidMarinov. According to MsAngelova, for about one week,Dida made such racist statementsto her son as “You are a nastytribe” and “You are dirty and yourmother is dirty, too.” She also re-portedly slapped David on the backon several occasions and violently

pulled his ears. David’s teacher,Ms Yordanova also reportedly ver-bally harassed David. Ms Angelovaconfronted Dida and MsYordanova about their behaviourand was told she should send Davidto another kindergarten if shedidn’t like the one he attended.Soon thereafter, David was movedto another kindergarten, which isattended by a larger number ofRomani pupils. Ms Angelova alsowrote a letter of complaint to thedirector of the kindergarten, but asof the end of April 2004, there hadbeen no response. (ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ European Court of HumanRights Finds BulgarianGovernment ViolatedHuman Rights

On March 11, 2004, the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights in Stras-bourg found the Bulgarian Govern-ment in violation of the EuropeanConvention for the Protection ofHuman Rights and FundamentalFreedoms in the case of G.B. v.Bulgaria. G.B. is a Bulgarian na-tional of Romani origin. On De-cember 8, 1989, he was convictedfor murder and sentenced to death.His sentence was upheld on appealon July 28, 1990. Following amaratorium on executions intro-duced by Bulgarian parliament inJuly 1990, on December 10, 1998,the death penalty was abolished.The applicant’s sentence was com-muted to life imprisonment withoutthe possibility of parole.

G.B. complained about his de-tention in Sofia Prison, where hewas alone in his cell for almost 23hours a day. He was not allowedto join other categories of prison-ers and his food was served in hiscell. He was allowed only two vis-its a month and human contact was

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM47

Black



severely limited. G.B. stated thathe was a victim of the “death rowphenomenon”, where he facedfear of a possible resumption of ex-ecutions. Furthermore, the appli-cant alleged that his detentionamounted to inhuman and degrad-ing treatment in violation of Arti-cles 3 and 13 of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights.

In its judgement of March 11,2004, the Court noted that there

was medical evidence that G.B.suffered from psychological prob-lems. The Court also observedthat the applicant was subjectedto a special regime in Sofia Prisonwhich was very stringent and in-volved scarce human contact, andthat though this itself is not inhu-man treatment or punishment, thatall forms of solitary confinementwithout appropriate contact arelikely to have detrimental effecton the prisoner’s social and men-

tal abilities and faculties. TheCourt deemed that G.B. facedstrict custodial regime, whichcaused him suffering above andbeyond the unavoidable level in-herent to deprivation of liberty.The Court ruling made it clear thatfundamental human rights andfreedoms belong to everyone, in-cluding individuals convicted forsome of the most serious crimes,such as murder. (ERRC)

CZECH REPUBLIC

✦✦✦✦✦ Pharmaceutical FirmOrdered to PayCompensation forDiscriminating againstRoma in Czech Republic

On March 31, 2004, the City Courtof Prague ruled that the pharma-ceutical company Rossman, spol.s.r.o. had discriminated against MsRenata Kotlárová, a Romaniwoman from Czech Republic, andordered that the company pay her50,000 Czech crowns (approxi-mately 1,580 Euro) in non-pecuni-ary damages and issue a formalapology, according to the Prague-based non-governmental organisa-tion Centre for Citizenship/Civiland Human Rights (Poradna).The Court’s decision came afterMs Kotlárová applied for work ata Rossman pharmacy in the west-ern Czech town of Cheb in June2003, after the position of shop-keeper was advertised. When MsKotlárová applied, she was in-formed that the position had alreadybeen filled and was not inter-viewed. Several minutes after MsKotlárová left, a non-Romani em-ployee of Poradna entered theshop, applied for the position, wasinterviewed and informed about the

home and striking it with baseballbats. After a short while, the menalso threw stones at family mem-bers. The family called the policeand the men attempted to runaway, but a group of Roma fromthe area caught and held them untilthe police arrived. Two of the menwere reportedly taken to the localpolice station, while the third manwas released. A police investiga-tion was reportedly underway asof April 13.

Earlier, on April 9, 2004, sev-eral men brutally attacked a 40-year-old Romani man on the streetin the eastern Czech town of Zlín,according to the Zlín -based news-paper Zlínske noviny. The news-paper reported that the Romaniman was left lying on the groundin a pool of blood. Police werecalled to the scene and were con-ducting an investigation into theattack as of the beginning of June2004. Further information on thehuman rights situation of Roma inCzech Republic is available on theERRC’s Internet website at:http://lists.errc.org/publica-t i o n s / i n d i c e s /czechrepublic.shtml. (ERRC,ROMEA, Zlínske noviny)

✦✦✦✦✦ Racist Attacks againstRoma in Czech Republic

On April 20, 2004, three menphysically attacked two Romaniwomen, aged 22 and 30, in Baníkrestaurant in the eastern Czechcity of Ostrava, according to theon-line news source ROMEA ofApril 20, 2004. ROMEA quotedMr Milan Klézl, a spokespersonfor the Ostrava police as havingstated that the attackers slappedand kicked the women, ripping theskirt of one of them, while shout-ing Nazi slogans. A Romani manhelped the women, who reportedthe case to the police. ROMEAreported that the case was underinvestigation as rioting, battery,and as the criminal act of “sup-pression of civic rights andfreedoms”.

Earlier, on April 12, three menverbally assaulted the Romanifamily Voroš in the northern Czechcity of Broumov, according towebsite of the Czech Police De-partment. According to thewebsite, the men cursed theRomani ethnicity of the family andthreatened to kill them while stand-ing at the gate of the family’s

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM48

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

working conditions and salary. MsKotlárová and the representativeof Poradna put forth the samequalifications. Ms Kotlárová haddemanded 250,000 Czech crowns(approximately 7,880 Euro) and anapology as compensation.Poradna brought the case on be-half of Ms Kotlárová together withattorney David Strupek. As of June10, 2004, Poradna informed theERRC that Rossman, spol. s.r.o.appealed the decision. (Poradna)

✦✦✦✦✦ ERRC Initiates LegalAction in Czech Republic onthe Right to AdequateHousing

On May 12, 2004, the ERRC, to-gether with local lawyer JaroslavPoredský, filed a legal complainton behalf of Mr Imrich Polák, a53-year-old Romani man, and hisfamily against RTV-5 Ltd., a pri-vate company of which MrZdenìk Dolezel is the secretary,asking that the conditions of theirflat be improved. Since Novem-ber 1992 when they signed a leasecontract for an undetermined pe-riod with the Municipality ofBøeclav for a low standard socialflat, Mr Polák, his wife Bla•ena,their three children and grandchildhave lived in their current home.On June 3, 2002, the municipalitysold the building to Mr Dolezel,who declared in the sales contractthat he “is aware of the fact thatthe flat is leased by ;the Poláks[…] and that he has acquired thehouse with all the rights and du-ties stemming from the relation-ship lesser-tenant […].” On July19, 2002, Mr Dolezel sold theproperty to RTV-5 Ltd.

According to Mr Polák, MrDolezel promised not to increasethe rent. However, at the end of

October 2003, he presented thetenants of the building with newrental contracts ending on Octo-ber 31, 2004, which stated, “Af-ter the period expires, the tenantspromise to leave the flat withoutcompensation. […] Should thetenants use the flat after the pe-riod has expired and should thelesser not file a complaint againstthem with the court ordering themto leave the flat within 30 days,the contract shall be prolonged by1 year, with a rent 5 times theamount stipulated in the currentcontract.” Mr Polák stated thatalthough Mr Dolezel threatened toevict any families who do not signthe new contracts, his family re-fused to sign.

Since the family refused to signthe new contract, in November2003, Mr Dolezel stopped the sup-ply of electricity and running wa-ter to the flat though the familyhad paid their bills. Skinheads havealso reportedly attacked theirhome on five separate occasionsthough there had never been aproblem previously. Mr Polák re-ported that during the attacks,groups of skinheads shout cursesabout their Romani ethnicity andhave broken windows in theirhome with stones. The police havebeen called and the perpetratorshave in one instance been caughtbut released without charge. ThePoláks also informed the ERRCthat Mr Dolezel occasionally stopshis car in front of their house andspits. The Polák family fears theywill be made homeless if evicted,because they cannot afford moreexpensive housing.

On April 21, 2004, Mr Polákfiled a complaint with the localprosecutor, alleging that MrDolezel was not respecting theircontract or providing adequate liv-

ing conditions. On May 31, 2004,the local prosecutor found that MrDolezel had not committed anycrime and recommended that MrPolák pursue a civil case. As ofthe date this edition went to press,there had been no response to thecomplaint filed against RTV-5 Ltd.(ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ United NationsCommittee against TortureReviews Czech Republic

On May 13, 2004, the United Na-tions Committee against Torture is-sued its Concluding Observationsand Recommendations regardingCzech Republic’s compliance withthe United Nations Conventionagainst Torture. The Committeeexpressed concern about “the per-sistent occurrence of acts of vio-lence against Roma and the allegedreluctance on the part of the Po-lice to provide adequate protectionand to investigate such crimes, de-spite efforts made by the Stateparty to counter such acts”. TheCAT also expressed concern about“allegations regarding some inci-dents of uninformed and involun-tary sterilizations of Roma women,as well as the government’s inabil-ity to investigate due to the insuf-ficient identification of theindividual complainants.” Further,the Committee recommended thatCzech authorities:

“a. exert additional efforts to com-bat racial intolerance andxenophobia and ensure that thecomprehensive anti-discrimi-nation legislation being dis-cussed includes all relevantgrounds covered by the Con-vention;

b. take measures to establish aneffective, reliable and inde-

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM49

Black



pendent complaint system toundertake prompt and impar-tial investigations into all alle-gations of ill-treatment ortorture by police or other pub-lic officials, including allega-tions of racially motivatedviolence by non state actors,in particular any that have re-sulted in deaths, and to punishthe offenders;

c. strengthen existing efforts toreduce occurrences of ill-treat-ment by police and other publicofficials, including that which isethnically motivated, and, whileensuring protection of an indi-

vidual’s privacy, devisemodalities of collecting data andmonitoring the occurrence ofsuch acts in order to address theissue more effectively;

d. strengthen safeguards providedin the Code of Criminal Proce-dure against ill-treatment and tor-ture, and ensure that, in law aswell as in practice, all personsdeprived of their liberty be guar-anteed and systematically in-formed of the right to a lawyerand to notify next of kin; […]

e. investigate claims of involuntarysterilizations, using medical and

personnel records and urge thecomplainants, to the degree fea-sible, to assist in substantiatingthe allegations; […].”

In the run-up to the Commit-tee’s review of Czech Republic,on April 16, 2004, the ERRC sub-mitted a letter of concern regard-ing instances of coercedsterilisations of Romani women.The full text of the Committee’sConcluding Observations andRecommendations can be foundon the Internet at: http://www.ohchr.org/ tbru/cat /Czech_Republic.pdf. (ERRC)

DENMARK

Ms Kaldaras’s deportation, towhich the Ministry had reportedlyresponded negatively. Romanoalso requested that the DanishAlien Authorities grant MsKaldaras a visa to stay in Den-mark pending the outcome of thecourt case, but this was also re-jected. Finally, Ms Kaldaras wasforced to pay for the cost of herexpulsion from Denmark.

On March 25, 2004, the ERRCsent a letter of concern to MrBertel Haarder, Denmark’s Min-ister of Refugee, Immigration, andIntegration Affairs, regarding thesituation of Ms Kaldaras. On May13, 2004, Mr Haarder respondedto the ERRC’s letter, stating thatMs Kaldaras’s expulsion had beenconducted in conformity with thelaw and that “The Ministry ofRefugee, Immigration and Integra-tion Affairs attached importanceto the fact that Mirjana Kaldarasand her spouse and children arenot prevented from exercising their

jected. According to Romano, theMinistry of Immigration, Refugeesand Integration reportedly advisedMs Kaldaras to seek asylum. OnJuly 1, 2002, Ms Kaldaras’s re-quest for asylum was rejected. Atthe time of her expulsion, MsKaldaras was still awaiting a de-cision from the Ostre LandsretCourt in Copenhagen in relationto an appeal of the refusal togrant her legal residence via fam-ily reunification procedures.

Prior to Ms Kaldaras’s expul-sion, Romano attempted to ap-peal to the Ministry ofImmigration, Refugees and Inte-gration to suspend the expulsionof Ms Kaldaras pending the out-come of her case before thecourt, but was unable to reach anofficial on the telephone.Romano spoke with a press of-ficer at the Ministry, who report-edly stated that the national policehad in the week previously askedwhether the Ministry objected to

✦✦✦✦✦ Romani Woman ForciblyExpelled from Denmark

According to the Danish Romaniorganisation Romano, at 5:20 PMon March 12, 2004, Ms MirjanaKaldaras, a 20-year-old Romaniwoman and mother of two, wasdeported to Belgrade from Den-mark, while appeals proceedingsregarding her legal residence werepending. Ms Kaldaras’ husbandDobrinko, who has permanentresidence in Denmark and a workpermit, and their two young chil-dren remain in Denmark. Mr andMs Kaldaras married in Denmarkin 2000 after Ms Kaldaras, an or-phan, moved to Denmark. Mr andMs Kaldaras were legally marriedin Denmark after having acquiredformal permission from theStatsamtet, a section within theDanish Ministry of Justice, asMirjana was a minor at the time.Ms Kaldaras applied for a resi-dence permit through the processof family reunification but was re-

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM50

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

family life in their home country.”Additional information on the hu-man rights situation of Roma in

Denmark is available on theERRC’s Internet website at:http://lists.errc.org/publica-

tions/indices/denmark. shtml.(ERRC, Romano)

FINLAND

26, 2004, approximately one hundredFinnish Roma and non-Roma pro-tested in the centre of Helsinkiagainst the deportation of Roma toSlovakia, expressing concern aboutthe unsafe situation Roma inSlovakia face. (ERRC)

hundred and thirty Slovak Roma toSlovakia during the first week ofApril. According to the Danishnewspaper Helsingin Sanomat ofMarch 9, 2004, since the beginningof 2004, there had been an increasein the number of asylum seekers inFinland from Slovakia. On March

✦✦✦✦✦ Collective Expulsion ofSlovak Romani AsylumSeekers from Finland

On April 6, 2004, Ms KristinaStenman, an asylum lawyer fromFinland, informed the ERRC that theFinnish government deported one

Demonstration of protest in Helsinki, March 26, 2004.PHOTO: JANETTE GRÖNFORS

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM51

Black



GREECE

acceded in 1985, guarantees atArticle 11, the right to an adequatestandard of living, including ad-equate housing. In its GeneralComment 4, the Committee onEconomic, Social and CulturalRights defined the right to adequatehousing in terms of seven compo-nents, including, “Habitability. Ad-equate housing must be habitable,in terms of providing the inhabit-ants with adequate space and pro-tecting them from cold, damp, heat,rain, wind or other threats to health,structural hazards, and disease vec-tors. The physical safety of occu-pants must be guaranteed as well.”Further information on the humanrights situation of Roma in Greeceis available on the ERRC’s Internetwebsite at: http://lists.errc.org/p u b l i c a t i o n s / i n d i c e s /greece.shtml. (ERRC, GHM,Macedonian Press Agency)

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ Greek Police Issue Anti-Romani Document

In mid-February 2004, Director D.Karras of the Police Directorateof Achaia issued a circular, on fileat the ERRC and its partnerGreek Helsinki Monitor (GHM)“Proposed measures for shopowners in view of the forthcom-ing carnival festivities”, which, atPoint 4, suggested, “not to ex-change money with private citi-zens, especially Gypsies.”According to the Greek nationaldaily newspaper Eleftherotypiaof February 19, 2004, Lieutenant-General Mr Fotis Bourantas, Po-lice Director of Western Greece,ordered the withdrawal of the cir-cular and the opening of a SwornAdministrative Inquiry (SAI),while stating that it had been writ-

ten “under the pressure of timeand a heavy workload.” TheGHM wrote to Lieutenant-Gen-eral Bourantas, expressing satis-faction with his decision, but notedthat his statement may influencethe outcome of the SAI. TheGHM called for the suspension ofPolice Director Karras for theduration of the investigation andrequested to be informed of theresults of the investigation.(ERRC, GHM)

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ United NationsCommittee on Economic,Social and Cultural RightsReviews Greece

Following a review of Greece dur-ing its 32nd Session, the UnitedNations Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights issued,on May 14, 2004, its ConcludingObservations regarding Greece’scompliance with the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights. The Committeenoted “the persistent discrimina-tion against Roma people in thefields of housing, health and edu-cation.” It also expressed concernat the “reported instances of po-lice violence against Roma,sweeping arrests, and arbitraryraids of Roma settlements by thepolice.” The Greek state wasurged “to investigate reported in-stances of police violence againstRoma and alleged arbitrary raidsof Roma settlements, and to bringperpetrators to justice” and “tocontinue its efforts to train policeofficers on international humanrights standards and to raiseawareness of the dimensions ofdiscrimination against Romaamong local authorities.”

✦✦✦✦✦ Extreme Harm to RomaLiving in SubstandardConditions

According to the online newssource Macedonian PressAgency (MPA) of March 19, 2004,a 5-year-old Romani girl sustainedserious burns to her body in a firein her family’s makeshift home inthe town of Armenis on the islandof Chios in mid-March 2003. Thegirl was reportedly transferred toAthens’ Children’s hospital“Paiden” where she was treatedfor blood poisoning.

Similarly, according to the MPA ofMarch 18, 2004, an 86-year-oldRomani woman died in a fire in hershack in the Assos Romani settle-ment in Korinthia. The MPA reportedthat the fire started in a wood stove.

According to ERRC research,conducted in partnership with theAthens-based Greek HelsinkiMonitor (GHM), earlier, on March1, 2004, the makeshift shack of MsDionisia Panayotopoulou, a Romaniactivist from the Nea Zoe Romanicommunity of Aspropyrgos nearAthens, burned to the ground. Thefire was reported to have originatedfrom the wood stove MsPanayotopoulou’s family used forheating. The Nea Zoe Romanicommunity existed for years with-out running water, electricity or anyother services, despite repeatedpromises of such by municipal au-thorities. As of June 21, 2004, MsPanayotopoulou’s family was liv-ing with relatives in a shack in thesame area.

The International Covenant onEconomic, Social and CulturalRights (ICESCR), to which Greece

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM52

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

The Committee extensivelycommented on the housing rightssituation of Roma in Greece andparticularly in the context of the2004 Olympic games, noting thatit was “gravely concerned aboutnumerous reports on the extraju-dicial demolition of dwellings andforced evictions of Roma fromtheir settlements by municipal au-thorities, often under the pretextof construction projects for the2004 Olympic Games, and fre-quently without payment of ad-equate compensation or provisionof alternative housing.” In this re-spect, the Committee requestedthe State party to “provide in itssecond periodic report, detailedinformation on the number ofRoma evicted from their homes,especially in the context of the2004 Olympic Games, and on anymeasures taken to remedy illegalacts which may have occurred inthat regard.” Further, the Commit-tee urged Greek authorities “totake measures towards providingfor all Roma, including itinerant andnon-Greek Roma, adequate and af-fordable housing with legal secu-rity of tenure, access to safedrinking water, adequate sanitation,electricity and other essential serv-ices, and meeting their specificcultural needs.”

Regarding the right tohealthcare, the Committee regret-ted the fact that it did not receive“adequate information from theState party on the frequency of

deployment of, or the number ofpersons serviced by, the mobilehealth units servicing itinerantRoma or the mobile mental healthunits providing basic psychologi-cal services to persons living in re-mote areas.” The Committeerequested the State party to pro-vide in its next report adequate in-formation on the matter.

Regarding the right to education,the Committee stressed that it was“concerned that a high percentageof Roma and Turkish-speakingchildren are not enrolled in school,or drop out at a very early stage oftheir schooling.” Further the Com-mittee noted that, “[…] membersof other [than Turkish] linguisticgroups have no possibility to learntheir mother tongue at school.”The Committee urged the Greekstate “to take effective measuresto increase school attendance byRoma and Turkish speaking chil-dren, including at the secondarylevel, to ensure, to the extent pos-sible, that children belonging tominority linguistic groups have anopportunity to learn their mothertongue, including regional dialects,at school, and to ensure an ad-equate staffing with teachers spe-cialized in multicultural education.”

The Committee urged the Greekstate “to reconsider its position withregard to the recognition of otherethnic, religious or linguistic minori-ties which may exist within its ter-ritory, in accordance with

recognized international standards,and invites it to ratify the Councilof Europe Framework Conventionfor the Protection of National Mi-norities (1995).”

Finally, the Committee noted withconcern that “economic, social andcultural rights which are normallyalso guaranteed to non-citizens,such as the right to non-discrimina-tion or the right to free education,are reserved to Greek citizens un-der the State party’s Constitution.”

In the run-up to the Committee’sreview of Greece, on April 14,2004, the ERRC submitted a com-prehensive report on the humanrights situation of Roma in Greece,published by the ERRC and theGreek Helsinki Monitor (GHM)in April 2003, highlighting the ma-jor obstacles and discriminationfacing Roma in Greece in theiraccess to fundamental socio-eco-nomic rights. The full text of theERRC/GHM report is available at:http://lists.errc.org/publica-tions/reports/. The GHM addi-tionally submitted a letter ofconcern regarding particularly pre-carious human rights situation ofdisabled Roma. Further informationon this is available at: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/e n g l i s h / s p e c i a l _ i s s u e s /cescr.html. The full text of theCommittee’s Concluding Observa-tions is available at: http://www.ohchr.org/tbru/cescr/Greece.pdf. (ERRC, GHM)

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM53

Black



HUNGARY

Just after the Romani couple leftthe hotel for the second time, a pairof non-Romani testers entered thehotel. The owner reportedly of-fered the non-Roma a range of ac-commodation and they booked tworooms. After checking in, the non-Romani testers were offeredchocolates. The next morning, thenon-Romani testers told the ownerthat they were looking for a train-ing venue. As the owner preparedtheir bill, they identified NEKI asthe client, without stating whatNEKI stood for, though the ownerasked. According to TransitionsOnline, the owner checked the res-ervation book and found that thehotel was partially reserved forsome of the days for which theRomani testers had tried to makereservations, though the reserva-tions were to be confirmed or can-celled on April 20, 2004. Thenon-Romani testers agreed to callback and were told they would bewelcome if any rooms opened up.One of the non-Romani testerscalled back on April 19 and foundthat the rooms would be available,though the owner asked whetherRomani guests would be coming.

At the beginning of May 2004,NEKI filed a complaint of discrimi-nation against the Centrum Panziowith the Debrecen Notary and theGeneral Inspectorate for ConsumerProtection, arguing that the hotelowner violated the Law on Nationaland Ethnic Minority Rights, the Lawon Guaranteeing Equal Opportuni-ties, as well as the right to personalprotection. In July 2004, theDebrecen City Court imposed afine of HUF 50,000 (approximately200 Euro) to the owner of the Cen-trum Panzio in Debrecen for re-fusing service to Roma. In addition,the Hungarian Consumer Protec-

tion Inspection Board fined thehotel HUF 100,000 (approximately400 Euro). Additional informationon the human rights situation ofRoma in Hungary is available on theERRC’s website at: http://lists.errc.org/publications/indi-ces/hungary.shtml. (TransitionsOnline, RSK)

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ Hungarian Court PunishesEmployment Discrimination

On May 10, 2004, the Pest CentralDistrict Court found thatTeremekmix Ltd., a private com-pany, had discriminated against MrJozsef Rádics, a Romani man, onracial grounds. In 1999, TeremekmixLtd. refused to employ Mr Rádicsas a leaflet distributor, stating thatthe position had been filled threeweeks after his application was reg-istered. The Budapest-based LegalDefence Bureau for National andEthnic Minorities (NEKI) providedlegal assistance in the case with fi-nancial support from the ERRC.Teremekmix Ltd. had reportedly ar-gued it had a “discretional right” inchoosing whom it wanted tohire.Teremekmix Ltd.decided not toappeal. (ERRC)

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ Hungarian Police HoldRomani Boy in CustodyArbitrarily

According to a Roma Press Center(RSK) press release of April 9, 2004,Ózd police detained L.E., a 15-year-old Romani boy from Putnok, onMarch 31, 2004, and questioned himwithout the presence of either hisparents or legal representation,then held him in custody on suspi-cion of theft. L.E. was detained onthe basis of witness statements.

✦✦✦✦✦Discrimination againstRoma in Access to PublicAccommodation inHungary

On May 19, 2004, the online newssource Transitions Online (TOL)reported that a Debrecen-basedhotel, Centrum Panzio, threetimes refused to let rooms toRoma. In the first incident, theowner of the Centrum Panzio re-portedly informed an employee ofthe Romaweb Internet website,operated by the Hungarian EqualOpportunities Ministry’s Roma In-tegration Directorate, trying torent rooms for a training, that thehotel “cannot put Gypsies up.” Af-ter this, Romaweb reportedly en-listed the assistance of theBudapest-based Legal DefenceBureau for National and EthnicMinorities (NEKI), who set up a“test” to see if in fact the hotelhad a policy of discriminatingagainst Roma.

On the morning of April 9, 2004,Mr Istvan V., a Romani man, andhis partner arrived at the hotel andwere not even permitted to enter.After ringing the bell, the owner in-formed the Romani couple that thehotel was full and he was too busyto deal with them. The couple thenreportedly stated that they wantedto reserve rooms for a training be-ing organised by the Roma MinoritySelf-Government. The owner againrefused but told them to come backin half an hour. The couple returnedlater and the owner again told themthat there were no vacancies andrecommended other hotel. He alsoinformed them, without checking theguestbook, when they tried to re-serve rooms for the second half ofMay for the training that there wereno availabilities until September.

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM54

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

A 13-year-old boy had reportedlyaccused L.E. of stealing 400 Hun-garian forints (approximately 2Euro), but on April 1, 2004, retractedhis accusation, stating that he had

in fact spent the money himself.However, on June 21, 2004, the RSKinformed the ERRC that L.E. wasbeing held in pre-trial detention un-til April 27, 2004, because, accord-

ing to Borsod-Abaúj-ZemplénCounty Police Spokesperson MrGyörgy Martossy, the “offendedchild’s confession hadn’t yet beenfiled.” (ERRC, RSK)

ITALY

cording to Ms Saletti Salza. OnApril 27, 2004, the ERRC visitedthe camp, which had only threeportable toilets and one small wa-ter container that was reportedlyfilled only once per week. Therewas no electricity or other sourceof water available. None of theRomani residents were present.

In another case, at 9:30 AM onApril 1, 2004, approximately sevenhundred police officers,carabinieri, traffic police, firefighters and military officersevicted more than two hundredRomanian Roma from the buildingthey had occupied at Via Adda 14in Milan for two years, accordingto the Italian national newspaperLa Repubblica, as reprinted in theRomanian national newspaperEvenimentul Zilei on April 13,2004. Around three hundred andfifty Romanian Roma “caught” inthe area had reportedly been ex-pelled to Romania in the weeksleading up to the eviction. MrErnesto Rossi, an activist workingon Romani issues in Milan, in-formed the ERRC that one hundredand eighty-five Roma from ViaAdda without legal permits to bein Italy were expelled to Romaniafollowing the eviction on a charterflight. Municipal authorities movedbetween sixty and seventy Romawith permits of stay to a newly con-structed camp on Via Barzaghi.

On April 26, 2004, Mr AdrianoTanasie, one of the Roma evicted

expelled following the eviction.One Romani woman was report-edly “invited” to go back to Roma-nia because she had not legalisedher stay in Italy. She did not go,but, according to Ms Saletti Salza,the authorities took away her child.The seventy Roma who had ap-plied for asylum occupied Turin’sImmigration Office for two daysfollowing the eviction. At this time,a number of vans arrived to movethem to an empty school, wherethey were to live temporarily.Twenty-four of the Roma con-cerned, afraid to get in the vans,left the office and the remainingthirty-six people were moved to theschool. After they arrived at theschool, local residents protested infront of the school, so the groupwas moved to a temporary campwith only three large tents in afield. Ms Saletti Salza stated thatthe Roma who fled the Immigra-tion Office have since requestedto be housed at the camp, but theImmigration Office refused. MrAlfredo Ingino, Coordinator ofNomad Camps for the Municipal-ity of Turin, informed the ERRCthat the group, which included anumber of children, had returnedto the river and rebuilt their shacks.Immigration officials reportedlynow visit the camp twice per dayin an attempt to control the numberof people living in the camp andhave announced that if the campgrows at all, they will close it. TheRoma have also been told that theywill not likely receive asylum, ac-

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ Italian AuthoritiesContinue To Forcibly EvictRoma Rendering SomeHomeless

According to the Bergamo-basednewspaper L’eco di Bergamo, onApril 22, 2004, approximately 30carabinieri (military police)evicted one hundred and fifty-twoRoma living in twenty-threecamper vans from a parking lot onVia Rampino, which they occupiedon April 18, in the northern Italiantown of Covo. The newspaper re-ported that following complaints bylocal residents, on April 21, theMayor notified the Romani groupthat they had to leave. Thecarabinieri arrived at the parkinglot at around noon on April 22 andjust after 1:00 PM, the Roma leftthe parking lot in a convoy headedin the direction of Bergamo, es-corted by carabinieri.

Earlier, on April 15, 2004, agroup of about ninety RomanianRoma, seventy of whom had ap-plied for asylum and about twentyof whom had not, were evictedfrom the shacks they had been liv-ing in by the river in the northernItalian city of Turin, according toMs Carlotta Saletti Salza, an ac-tivist working with Roma in Turin.According to Ms Saletti Salza, po-lice destroyed the shacks in whichthe Roma had been living, alongwith all of their personal posses-sions. Twenty Roma without anylegal papers to be in Italy were

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM55

Black



from Via Adda, testified to theERRC that the group was notgiven formal notice of the evic-tion prior to its execution; they hadlearned of it on television in thedays leading up to the eviction.To Mr Tanasie’s knowledge, theauthorities did not present a war-rant at the time of the eviction.The authorities reportedly told theRomani inhabitants of Via Addathat if they were quiet and did notprotest, nothing would happen tothem. Mr Tanasie testified thateveryone was brought to the po-lice station where their docu-ments were checked. Those withlegal documents to be in Italywere released at around noon ofthe same day and moved to thenew camp on Via Barzaghi. Theevicted Roma were not permit-ted to take their possessions.Appliances were reportedlyplaced in storage, but Mr Tanasietold the ERRC that he went backto Via Adda several days laterand saw workers collecting thegroup’s belongings as if it weregarbage. At the time of the ERRCvisit, the Roma were living intwelve containers and three tentsin Camp Via Barzaghi, sur-rounded by a cement wall ap-proximately 10 feet tall toppedwith barbed wire, under the 24-hour surveillance of two armedpolice officers in civilian clothing.Mr Tanasie stated that the offic-ers did not allow anyone asidefrom the inhabitants to enter thearea, not even family membersliving on the outside of the wall.Indeed, the ERRC conducted in-terviews on the street because itwas not permitted to enter thecamp. Mr Tanasie also stated thatthe officers checked their bagsevery time they entered thecamp. The camp was equippedwith six portable toilets and onewater tap. There was no electric-

ity, the showers in the containerswere not connected to the watersupply and there was no heating.There were also no cooking fa-cilities; the Roma were forced tocook outside on fires. The Romacomplained to the ERRC that themunicipality had not given themany information as to how longthey would stay at Camp ViaBarzaghi or whether they wouldmove. A number of people werereportedly having difficulties re-newing their permits of stay asCamp Via Barzaghi did not havea recognised municipal address.Further, the permit of at least oneresident, Mr M. B., had been re-newed but the authorities refusedto give it to him as he no longerlived on Via Adda, the address forwhich the permit was issued. Therefusal to issue permits by au-thorities was reportedly makingvery difficult gaining and keepingregular employment. The ERRCwas also informed that manyfamilies were separated during theexpulsions that took place; forexample Mr Lucian Tanasie toldthe ERRC that his common-lawwife Cristiana Porcescu and their5-year-old daughter were expelledto Romania following the eviction.

A number of families in whichnot all members had legal permitsto be in Italy who left Via Addaon March 31 to avoid the evic-tion were effectively made home-less by the eviction. Mr V.R., anapproximately 35-year-oldRomani man with a permit ofstay, testified that his family leftits Via Adda home on March 31because his wife and child did nothave legal permits to be in thecountry and they feared beingexpelled. Mr V.R. stated thatwhen he heard that persons fromVia Adda with permits of staywere being housed at Camp Via

Barzaghi just after the eviction,he asked the Civil Protection Of-fice that his family be housed inthe new camp but was refusedbecause they were not present atthe time of the eviction. Mr V.R.,his wife and baby were living ina 2-person pop-up tent outsidethe wall of the new camp. Thearea is without services, full ofrubbish and, according to MrV.R., infested with rats.

On June 18, the ERRC lodged acollective complaint against Italyunder the Revised European SocialCharter, alleging systematic viola-tions of the right to adequate hous-ing. The full text of the compaint isavailable at: http://www.errc.org/cikk.php? cikk=1917. (ERRC,L’eco di Bergamo)

✦✦✦✦✦ Italian Law EnforcementOfficials Abuse RomaniBeggars

According to his testimony publishedon the Internet listserve Conares onMay 18, 2004, D.E., a 16-year-oldRomanian Romani male from CampProfughi di Via Girelli in Brescia, waspicked up by police on May 10,2004. D.E. stated that two policeofficers, one male and one female,grabbed him by the arms and forcedhim into their vehicle number 55without saying anything, and droveapproximately 15 kilometres out ofBrescia to a deserted area at the topof a mountain. According to D.E.,the officers swore at him, thenforced him out of the car. D.E.stated that the male officer rippedhis pants while trying to pull themoff of him, while the female officerwatched and laughed. They then lefthim there to walk home.

Similarly, during an ERRC fieldmission to Italy, at Camp

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM56

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

Boscomantico on the periphery ofVerona, Mr B.N., a RomanianRomani man testified to the ERRCon April 29, 2004, that his 5-monthpregnant wife, Ms S.B., had sev-eral days earlier been dragged bytwo police officers into their ve-hicle after having been caughtbegging in the city centre. Ac-cording to Mr B.N., instead oftaking his wife to the police sta-tion as she requested, the offic-ers drove 15 kilometres out ofVerona in the direction oppositethe camp and left Ms S.B. on theside of the road. Romani residentsof the camp also informed theERRC that during the previousweek, A.M., a 14-year-old Roma-nian Romani girl, had similarlybeen picked up by police whilebegging in Verona. The officers

drove A.M. several kilometres outof Verona in the direction oppo-site the camp to a deserted areaand took her shoes from her. Theofficers then reportedly left A.M.to walk home barefoot.

Mr Lorenzo Monasta and MsFrancesca Bragaja, activists fromthe association Cesar K, workingwith the Romani and Sinti com-munity in Verona, reported to theERRC that such instances werecommon in Verona and elsewherein the country. In many cases, po-lice also reportedly take fromRoma money they have collectedwhile begging.

On June 1, 2004, the ERRC senta letter of concern to Mr GiuseppePisanu, Italy’s Minister of Interior,

expressing concern about reportsof Romani beggars being harassedand subjected to abuse by law en-forcement officials in Italy. TheERRC reminded Minister Pisanuthat such actions may rise to thelevel of cruel, inhuman and degrad-ing treatment, and requested thata general investigation into the al-legations be opened immediatelyand that any and all persons re-sponsible be brought swiftly to jus-tice. The ERRC also requestedthat a general order condemningsuch behaviour, and outliningproper procedures and potentialpunishments in such cases be is-sued to all law enforcement agen-cies in Italy. As of the date thisedition went to press, there hadbeen no response to the letter.(ERRC)

KOSOVO

ers to Kosovo. Mr Nowicki sent theletter after having received informa-tion that the aforementioned coun-tries intend to return a sizablenumber of Romani, Ashkaeli andEgyptian asylum seekers to Kosovo.In his letter, Mr Nowicki stressedthat Roma, Ashkaelia and Egyptianscontinue to face “considerable risksto their personal safety” in Kosovo,particularly after the pogroms ofMarch 17-20, 2004, and stressedthat the return of Romani, Ashkaeliand Egyptian asylum seekers wouldviolate international human rightsstandards. (ERRC)

p u b l i c a t i o n s / i n d i c e s /kosovo.shtml. (B92)

✦✦✦✦✦ Kosovo OmbudspersonUrges against the Return ofRoma, Ashkaelia andEgyptians to the Province

On May 18, 2004, Mr Marek AntoniNowicki, the Ombudsperson inKosovo, sent a letter of concern togovernment authorities in Belgium,Denmark, Germany, Netherlands,Norway and Sweden, strongly ad-vising against the return of Roma,Ashkaeli and Egyptian asylum seek-

✦✦✦✦✦ Kosovo Police OfficersBeat Romani Man

On the night of May 14, 2004,Kosovo police officers beat MrIrfan Kurtesi, a Romani man livingin a mixed Serb-Romani neigh-bourhood, in the eastern Kosovartown of Kosovska Kamenica, ac-cording to the Belgrade radio sta-tion B92 of May 14, 2004. B92reported that the attack was un-provoked. Further information onthe human rights situation of Roma,Ashkaelia and Egyptians in Kosovois available on the ERRC’s Internetwebsite at: http://lists.errc.org/

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM57

Black



MACEDONIA

officer brought Dehran to the po-lice station where he continued tobeat him while verbally abusinghim. According to DROM, Dehranwas only released from police cus-tody when his father arrived at thepolice station. Further informationon the situation of Roma in Mac-edonia is available at: http://lists.errc.org/publications/indi-ces/macedonia.shtml. (DROM)

munity Center Drom (DROM).DROM informed the ERRC that ataround 11:45 PM on the date inquestion, Dehran Rusitovski wasnear the Sredorek Romani settle-ment with his sister Djulten whena police officer saw them and im-mediately began to brutally beatDehran. The officer reportedlybeat Dehran until he lost con-sciousness. After a short while, the

✦✦✦✦✦ Police Abuse RomaniYouth in Macedonia

On April 14, 2004, DehranRusitovski, a 15-year-old Romaniboy, was physically attacked by apolice officer near the SredorekRomani settlement in the easternMacedonian city of Kumanovo, ac-cording to the Kumanovo-basedRomani organisation Roma Com-

ROMANIA

search issued a Notification,signed by Romanian Secretary ofState Ms Ioana Irinel Chiran, inwhich it proposed to ensureequality of access to and qualityof education for all children, par-ticularly Romani children, irre-spective of ethnic origin or mothertongue. According to an unoffi-cial translation of the Notification,because of reports of segregationof Romani children in educationand in order to comply with theInternational Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Ra-cial Discrimination, the Interna-tional Convention on the Rights ofthe Child and the UNESCO Con-vention on Discrimination in Edu-cation, the Ministry “bans theformation of groups in […] edu-cation […], comprising exclu-sively or preponderantly Romanipupils.” The Ministry went furtherto state “Segregation is an egre-gious form of discrimination […]Segregation has as a direct con-sequence the unequal access ofchildren to quality education.Separation in kindergartens andschools leads invariably to an in-ferior quality of education thanthat offered in groups, classes andschools with other ethnic major-

Frata Police Station for question-ing in connection with the theft ofan iron fence from Mr DorelSomblea, another cousin of Ms L.S.Ms Labo also reported that the in-vestigating prosecutor, Mr Otel ofthe Turda Prosecutor’s Office, in-timidated the women during inter-views, speaking about alleged andproven crimes committed by mem-bers of their families. Three of thewomen withdrew their complaintsas a result of the actions of MrMuresan and Mr Otel.

As of June 2, 2004, the NCCDhad not issued a formal decision,but the prosecutor had issued anon-indictment decision, which theERRC and Ms Labo intended toappeal. For additional informationon the human rights situation ofRoma in Romania, visit theERRC’s Internet website at: http://lists.errc.org/publications/indi-ces/romania.shtml. (ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Romanian GovernmentIssues Notification onDesegregation in Education

On April 20, 2004, the RomanianMinistry of Education and Re-

✦✦✦✦✦ Romanian RomaIntimidated After SeekingJustice for Rights Violations

In the northern Romanian villageof Frata, Police Officer DorelMuresan has reportedly begun har-assing eleven Romani women andtheir families who, in July 2003,filed discrimination complaints withthe National Council for Combat-ing Discrimination (NCCD) and theTurda County First Instance CourtProsecutor’s Office, with legal rep-resentation by the ERRC and locallawyer Ms Livia Labo. The womenfiled the complaints after havingbeen refused access to the birth al-lowances by Ms L.S., an employeeof the Frata Mayor’s Office on thebasis they were not legally married(background information is avail-able at: http://www.errc. org/rr_nr3_2003/snap34.shtml).According to Ms Labo, MrMuresan, who is Ms L.S.’s cousin,has been harassing the women andtheir families to withdraw theircomplaints, by threatening to inves-tigate family members for variouscrimes. Indeed, on April 5, 2004,25-year-old Mr Razvan Laco,brother of Ms Victoria Negrea, oneof the plaintiffs, was taken to the

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM58

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

ity populations. Maintaining sepa-ration in education based on eth-nicity has negative effects forboth Romani and Romania soci-ety in general.”

The Ministry ordered SchoolInspectorates to take all measuresto promote the principles of inte-grated schooling and to undertakean analysis of all schools in whichRomani pupils form a dispropor-tionately high percentage of theschool’s population and initiateplans aimed at ending segregation.A deadline of May 28, 2004, wasset by which County SchoolInspectorates were to submit a re-port to the Ministry regarding theextent of segregation in schoolswithin its territories and outliningits plan of action to eradicate seg-regation. (ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Legal Action inRomanian SchoolSegregation Case

On June 4, 2004, three Romaniparents, represented by theERRC and the Romanian non-governmental organisationsRomani CRISS and FundatiaUmanitara Hochin, filed a com-plaint with the National Councilfor Combating Discrimination(NCCD) against the Ion Creangaprimary school in the northeast-ern Romanian town of TârguFrumos. The complaint was filedfollowing visits to the school by

the ERRC and FundatiaUmanitara Hochin, which re-vealed the existence of a segre-gated class for Romani pupils.

Class 5E is comprised of thirty-three children, only two of whomare non-Roma. On February 6,2004, Ms Niculina Mihei, deputyprincipal of the school, informedthe ERRC that the class had beenformed at Târgu Frumos SchoolNo. 3 in the nearby Romani neigh-bourhood where the students at-tended class until grade 4. MsMihei stated that the purpose ofthe class was to maintain thegroup formed at School No. 3.However, in December 2003, MsDobrita Vladeanu informedERRC consultant Ms MargaretaHochin of the FundatiaUmanitara Hochin that the classexisted because it is hard forRomani children to adjust toclasses with Romanian children.The Romani pupils of Class 5Ewere separated from their Roma-nian counterparts without anyform of testing on which to basethis assessment. A number of theparents with whom the ERRCspoke expressed dissatisfactionwith the level of education theirchildren were receiving and withthe discriminatory manner inwhich teachers treated their chil-dren. In fact, many had reportedlyrequested, unsuccessfully, totransfer their children out of theclass. Ms Hochin stated that dur-ing her visits to the class, teach-

ers called the Romani children“filthy Gypsies” and “handi-capped”. The physical conditionsof the class do not provide an ad-equate learning environment andthe children are not afforded ac-cess to extra-curricular activities.Indeed, a number of children inthe class are illiterate. In Febru-ary 2004, Ms Vladeanu informedMs Hochin that she planned todiscuss the possibility of starting5th to 8th grade classes at SchoolNo. 3 because she did “not wantRomani children to come to herschool anymore.”

The ERRC also documented theexistence of segregated classes atSchool No.31 in the Palas Romanineighbourhood of the eastern Ro-manian city of Constanta, on thecoast of the Black Sea. At theschool, Romani and non-Romanistudents attend classes composedalmost entirely of students of theirown ethnicity. During its visit, theERRC documented the ethnic com-position of several classes. ThreeRomani and fifteen non-Romanipupils attended Class II A, whilesixteen Romani and two Romanianstudents attended Class II B. Thesituation was similar in the fourthclass. One of the teachers at theschool informed the ERRC that theschool’s principal ordered the sepa-ration of students to create a learn-ing environment “in whichRomanian students would not bedisturbed by Romani pupils.”(ERRC)

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM59

Black



RUSSIA

in broad daylight in the central citysquare of Aleksandrov, in front ofthe police station as he was walk-ing out of the court building. Theattacker approached Mr Orlov,produced seven shots from closerange using a handgun with a si-lencer, and ran away. A policeinvestigation against an unknownperpetrator was reportedly open asof June 22, 2004.

Leonid Orlov and other mem-bers of his family have repeatedlyasked the relevant authorities toensure protection of the family.However the family has receivedno help to date. As of June 8, 2004,Leonid Orlov’s children and thoseof his brother had stopped attend-ing school out of fear of abduc-tion. On June 18, 2004, the ERRC,in partnership with local lawyerEugeniy Yuriev, took over legal rep-resentation for Leonid Orlov andthe Orlov family. Further informa-tion on the human rights situationof Roma in Russia is available onthe ERRC’s Internet website at:http://lists.errc.org/publica-tions/indices/russia.shtml.(ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Police Attack Roma inSaint Petersburg

On May 20, 2004, in an actionnamed “Operation Tabor”, policeraids targeting Romani communi-ties commenced in the northwest-ern Russian city of SaintPetersburg, according to ERRCand Northwest Center for theSocial and Legal Defense ofRoma. According to the Centre,on May 21, uniformed officersentered the Obukhovo district.The police officers reportedly or-

wounded, covered in blood. LeonidOrlov was also severely beaten,as was their friend. Believing hisbrother and his friend were dead,lying motionless and covered inblood, Leonid Orlov retrieved hislegally owned gun and shot at theattackers. His bullet hit and killedMr Oleg Bolshakov, one of theracketeers. Leonid Orlov wascharged with murder committed ina state of affect, in accordancewith Article 107 of the CriminalCode of the Russian Federation.Mr Vasiliy Bolshakov, leader ofthe racketeer group and father ofthe victim, was reportedly seenand heard by many people duringhis son’s funeral pledging to kill theentire Orlov family in revenge.

On May 1, 2003, unknown per-sons shot Leonid Orlov in theyard of his home. Police report-edly opened a criminal investiga-tion against unknownperpetrators for attempted mur-der. During a telephone interviewon April 12, 2004, Leonid Orlovinformed the ERRC that on sev-eral occasions early in 2004, un-known persons urged him toretract his testimony against theracketeers, threatening that hischarge would be changed to onecarrying a heavier punishment ifhe did not do so, during severaltelephone conversations. LeonidOrlov refused to retract his testi-mony and as of the end of Janu-ary 2004, the charge against himhad been changed to premedi-tated murder in accordance withArticle 105 of the Russian Crimi-nal Code.

Family members also informedthe ERRC that on March 17, 2004,Mr Nikolay Orlov was shot dead

✦✦✦✦✦ Romani Family MembersSuffer Extreme HarmFollowing Threats byExtortionists in Russia

On April 10, 2004, Mr VladimirSharkozi of the “International Cul-tural Autonomy “Congress”” tes-tified to the ERRC that Mr NikolayOrlov, a 50-year-old Romani man,had been killed and his family mem-bers have suffered extreme harmafter having been repeatedlythreatened by Russian racketeer-ing groups engaging in extortion un-der the pretext of offering securityservices to businesses inAleksandrov, Moscow County.Since September 2002, Mr Orlovand his family, who are involved inparking services and wholesaletimber trading, have repeated beenthreatened by Russian racketeersbecause they have refused to pay.The racketeers have reportedlymade such statements as “all Rus-sian people pay to us and only you,Gypsy people, don’t pay while, infact, you should pay double sinceyou are Gypsies.” During the pe-riod of January 25-January 29,2003, unknown persons set severalfires in the timber store owned byMr Orlov’s firm. A criminal inves-tigation has reportedly been openedbut police had not identified theperpetrators as of June 8, 2004.

According to family members,on February 11, 2003, a group ofabout ten people entered one ofthe parking lots owned by MrOrlov and beat his sons, MrLeonid Orlov and Mr YanoshOrlov, and a friend of theirs withbaseball bats and iron sticks.

Yanosh Orlov sustained a bro-ken nose and was left seriously

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM60

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

dered Romani residents to leavethe area then shot at them whilechasing them out of the district.The officers also burnt to theground two makeshift homes inwhich pregnant Romani womenand Romani children were living.Several days later, on the morn-ing of May 26, the same policeofficers stopped Romani womenand children in the vicinity ofObukhovo district and threatened

to expel them from the district andburn down their homes. Accord-ing to statements by the victims,the officers were from SaintPetersburg’s Militia DepartmentNo. 29. During a broadcast of theevening news on May 20, 2004,the television station NTV Saint-Petersburg reported that “Opera-tion Tabor” targets Roma directlyand aims at “ensuring security oftourists” by protecting them from

possible robberies by “marginalelements”.

On May 27, 2004, the ERRCsent a letter of concern to Gover-nor Valentina Matvienko of SaintPetersburg, urging to end suchabusive operations. As of June 8,2004, there had been no response.(ERRC, Northwest Center forthe Social and Legal Defenseof Roma)

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO

✦✦✦✦✦ Serbian Teacher VerballyAssaults Romani Girl

According to her testimony to theERRC, working in partnershipwith the Belgrade-based non-gov-ernmental organisation MinorityRights Center (MRC), RadmilaDaniloviæ, a 10-year-old Romanigirl from the southern Serbian cityof Niš was verbally assaulted byher teacher in March 2004. MsSne•ana Goluboviæ, Radmila’steacher, reportedly stated, “YouGypsies don’t earn anything anddon’t know anything”, whenRadmila failed to solve a math-ematic equation along with therest of her class. Radmila told theERRC/MRC that she was consid-ering not going to school anymorebecause Ms Goluboviæ has ver-bally assaulted her in similar man-ners on numerous occasions.(ERRC, MRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Anti-DiscriminationLegal Action in Serbia andMontenegro

On March 30, 2004, the ERRC,together with the Belgrade-basedorganisations Humanitarian LawCenter (HLC) and Minority

gether with the Belgrade-basednon-governmental organisationsHumanitarian Law Centre(HLC) and Minorities RightsCentre (MRC) filed a direct jointcivil action against Kurir with acourt in Belgrade. In their lawsuit,the ERRC, HLC, MRC and MrPetar Antic, the Romani head ofthe MRC, requested that the courtfind that the text constitutes hatespeech and issue a ban on the pa-per publishing this or any other textthat incites to discrimination, ha-tred or violence against Roma.They also asked that Kurir be or-dered to print without comment thecourt’s judgment in its entirety andpay financial compensation to MrAntic for the mental distress suf-fered as a consequence of the vio-lation of his personal dignity. Sincethe racist “joke” is currently stillon the paper’s Internet website,the ERRC, HLC, and MRC alsoasked the court to issue a manda-tory injunction for its immediate re-moval. Additional information onthe human rights situation of Romain Serbia and Montenegro is avail-able on the ERRC’s Internetwebsite at: http://lists.errc.org/publications/indices/serbia_and_montenegro.shtml. (ERRC,HLC, MRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Serbian NewspaperPublishes “Joke” aboutKilling Roma

In its December 27–28, 2003 week-end edition, the Serbian daily news-paper Kurir printed in its “Joke ofthe Day” column a text suggestingthat killing Roma is a legitimate rec-reational activity. The use of wordssuch as “Gypsy”, “hunting”, and“killing” clearly constitutes incite-ment to racial hatred and discrimi-nation as well as racially motivatedviolence targeting Roma. The textalso describes Roma as people whoscavenge food from garbage con-tainers, thus holding them up to de-rision and belittling the serious socialand existential problems faced bythis minority in Serbia and through-out Europe.

By publishing the text at issue,Kurir acted in violation the Ser-bian Constitution, the Constitu-tional Charter of Serbia andMontenegro, the country’s Char-ter on Human and Minority Rightsand Civil Liberties and numerousbinding international instrumentscontaining a ban on hate speechand incitement to discriminationand racially motivated violence.On March 22, 2004, the ERRC, to-

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM61

Black



Rights Center (MRC), filed a le-gal case with the Municipal Courtin northern Serbian town of BaèkaPalanka against Mr ZeljkoKaludjeroviæ for racial discrimina-tion on behalf of Ms DanicaJovanoviæ and Ms JelenaJovanoviæ, both Romani women.Following a Romani women’s rightsseminar in the town of Feketic onJune 13, 2003, Ms D. Jovanoviæand Ms J. Jovanoviæ went to a cafeowned by Mr Kaludjeroviæ’s wifewith some of the other participants.The women sat around two freetables where they drank drinksthey paid for. After a short while,Mr Kaljudjeroviæ went to thewomen and demanded that they allleave immediately. When Ms D.Jovanoviæ asked if they could havethe drinks they had already paidfor or have their money returned,Mr Kaludjeroviæ said, “No! Getout! What money? Get out, Gyp-sies!” In their complaint, theERRC, HLC and MRC asked thecourt to order Mr Kaljudjeroviæ toplace a public apology in the dailynewspaper Dnevnik, pay themcompensation for the violation oftheir human dignity and otherrights guaranteed by the SerbianConstitution, the ConstitutionalCharter of Serbia andMontenegro, and ratified interna-tional conventions, and to ceaseall racial or ethnic discriminationagainst guests of his wife’s cafe.(ERRC, HLC, MRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Agreement Reached AfterCourt Confirmed RomaniRefugees Must VacateCamp in Serbia andMontenegro

According to an April 13, 2004press release of the Podgorica of-fice of the non-governmental or-ganisation Humanitarian Law

Center (HLC), on March 10, 2004,the High Court in Bijelo Polje,Montenegro, confirmed an earlierruling of the Berane MunicipalCourt that Mr Rajko Markoviæ bepermitted to evict from his prop-erty approximately two hundredKosovo “Egyptian” refugees. Theterm Egyptian refers to an Alba-nian-speaking minority in Kosovoviewed as “Gypsies” by outsiders,but who claim to have originatedfrom Egypt. The camp, known asthe Riverside-Talum Camp, hasbeen home to the displaced Egyp-tians since 2000, when MrMarkoviæ signed a lease agreementvalid until May 2003. According tothe HLC, in February 2002, MrMarkoviæ signed a second agree-ment which allows the Egyptianrefugees to remain in the camp untilMay 2005 for a monthly rent of 25Euro per household, which the non-governmental organisation Caritasagreed to pay (background infor-mation is available at: http://lists.errc.org/rr_nr3_2003/snap40.shtml). However, in May2003, Mr Markoviæ sought an evic-tion order from the Berane Munici-pal Court. The HLC reported thatboth the Berane Municipal Courtand the High Court based theirdecisions on the first contract.

On April 13, 2004, the HLC senta letter of Mr Milo Ðukanoviæ,Prime Minister of Montenegro,requesting that he stop the evic-tion of the approximately two hun-dred displaced Kosovo Egyptiansfrom the Riverside-Talum camp inBerane until alternative housing isfound, as they will be left home-less otherwise. As of June 21,2004, the HLC informed the ERRCthat following pressure to act bynumerous non-governmental bodyorganisations, the Ministry forRefugees had reached an agree-ment with Mr Markoviæ whereby

the refugees can remain on thesite until May 2005. (HLC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Romani Man Abused inthe Criminal JusticeSystem

On February 20, 2004, Mr SandorVarga, a 28-year-old Romani manfrom the northern Serbian city ofNovi Sad, was released fromprison after having been held forabout three and a half months fora suspected theft, according to histestimony to the ERRC, conductedin partnership with the Belgrade-based non-governmental organisa-tion Minority Rights Center(MRC). Mr Varga stated that onOctober 9, 2003, at around 9:30AM, five police officers enteredhis home and ordered him to ac-company them to the police sta-tion. Mr Varga, who wasrecovering from having beenstabbed earlier in the month, wentwith the police thinking theywanted him to identify his at-tacker. At the police station, hewas placed in a room and hand-cuffed and an officer carrying abaseball bat entered. The officerbegan to hit Mr Varga all over hisbody with the bat, while insultinghis Romani ethnicity, demandingthat he confess to having commit-ted a robbery that had allegedlytaken place the day before. Awoman was reported to have iden-tified Mr Varga as the thief. Even-tually four more officers enteredand each beat Mr Varga with trun-cheons. A judge sentenced MrVarga to one month of pre-trialdetention, followed by anotherone-month term, then a two-month term. During his time inprison, Mr Varga did not receivemedical treatment, despite re-peated requests and the fact thathe was still recovering from his

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM62

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

stab wounds. Mr Varga was helduntil February 20, when the womanwho claimed to have been robbedstated that the police had shownher a photograph of Mr Varga and

instructed her to testify that he wasresponsible for the theft. Thecharges against Mr Varga werethen dropped and he was releasedfrom custody. As of June 2004, Mr

Varga had hired an attorney andfiled a complaint against the police,asking for compensation for thedamages he suffered in detention.(B92, ERRC, MRC)

SLOVAKIA

English-language newspaperSlovak Spectator of May 31,2004. The law transposes the pro-visions of the Council of the Eu-ropean Union’s Directive 2000/43on “implementing the principle ofequal treatment between personsirrespective of racial or ethnic ori-gin”. From July 1, 2004, discrimi-nation on the basis of race,ethnicity, sex, religion, health orsexual orientation, will be illegal.The new bill covers both directand indirect discrimination andharassment, incitement to xeno-phobia and allows positive actionwith regard to disadvantaged ra-cial or ethnic groups. The lawalso grants more power to theSlovak National Centre for Hu-man Rights in implementing theanti-discrimination law. Ms KlaraOrgovánová, the Slovak govern-ment’s plenipotentiary for Romaniissues, reportedly stated that thenew law would improve the situ-ation of Roma in the country.

Shortly after the law waspassed, Slovak Justice MinisterMr Daniel Lipšic announced thathe would bring a motion before theConstitutional Court against thelaw’s “positive discrimination”clause, arguing that such meas-ures “degrade the human dignityand strengthen stereotypes” aboutcertain groups. (ERRC, SlovakSpectator)

the idea, some, such as the infor-mal Slovak Romani Parliament,support the idea as a possiblemeasure to improve access to edu-cation of Romani children. ERIOinitiated an online petition, callingfor the resignation of Mr Van derLinden. However, according to theBBC of May 14, 2004, a spokes-person for the European Commis-sion stated that the “unfortunatechoice of words” by Mr. Van derLinden was regretful, but indicatedthat he would not be removed fromoffice. In June 2004, ERIO sent aletter to Mr Romano Prodi, thepresident of the European Com-mission, expressing concern at thereaction of the Commission andagain calling for Mr Van derLinden’s removal, stating that hiscomments contradict the promotionand respect for Roma rights. Forinformation on the alarming humanrights situation of Roma inSlovakia, visit the ERRC’s Internetwebsite at: http://lists.errc.org/p u b l i c a t i o n s / i n d i c e s /slovakia.shtml. (ERIO, ERRC)

✦✦✦✦✦ Slovak Parliament AdoptsAnti-Discrimination Law

On May 20, 2004, Slovak Parlia-ment adopted the new Law onEqual Treatment and on Protec-tion Against Discrimination, ac-cording to the Slovak

✦✦✦✦✦ Controversial ProposalRegarding RomaniEducation by the EUCommission’s Ambassadorto Slovakia

According to a press release of theBrussels-based European RomaInformation Office (ERIO) datedMay 13, 2004, in a May 1, 2004 in-terview with a Dutch television sta-tion, Mr Eric Van der Linden, theEU Commission’s Ambassador toSlovakia, proposed taking Romanichildren away from their parents andplacing them in boarding schools toensure they are educated. Mr Vander Linden was quoted as havingstated, “I think in the root of thecause we need to strengthen edu-cation and organise the educationalsystem in a way that we may haveto start to, I’ll say it in quotationmarks, “force” Romani children tostay in a kind of boarding schoolfrom Monday morning until Fridayafternoon, where they will continu-ously be subjected to a system ofvalues which are dominant in oursociety.” Mr Van der Linden alsoreportedly suggested financial in-centives to reduce resistance byRoma to his proposal.

Mr Van der Linden’s commentssparked controversy and debateamongst Romani organisationsthroughout Europe. While many or-ganisations come out opposed to

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM63

Black



SLOVENIA

18,000 non-Slovenes who, in 1992,were erased from the registryrolls. Earlier, on January 26,Slovenia’s Constitutional Courtruled that it lacked jurisdiction todecide on whether to restore thelegal status of “erased persons”.Further information on the situa-tion of the “erased” is availableon the ERRC’s Internet websiteat: http://lists.errc.org/publica-tions/indices/slovenia.shtml.(ERRC, RFE/RL)

Slovenia seceded from the FormerYugoslavia in 1992. According toERRC research, many Roma, in-cluding some born in Slovenia andmany who had lived there for yearsbefore succession, were left with-out any legal residence in the coun-try after the erasure. Ninety-fourpercent of voters voted against thegovernment bill to restore the le-gal residency status of affectedpersons. The negative result of thereferendum affects approximately

✦✦✦✦✦ Slovenes RejectGovernment Bill to Re-establish Residency of“The Erased”

According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) of April5, 2004, in a referendum on April4, Slovene citizens voted against abill sponsored by the Slovene gov-ernment to restore residency rightsto individuals (predominantly eth-nic minorities) “erased” when

UNITED KINGDOM

right” and is “just not true”. Anumber of Romani organisations,including the Brussels-based Eu-ropean Roma Information Of-fice protested the racist campaignby the Daily Express. (TheGuardian)

✦✦✦✦✦ Travellers Face ForcedEviction and Protestsagainst their Sites in UK

On June 7, 2004, The Guardianreported that residents of the villageof Cottenham in Cambridgeshirehave threatened to erect a “Gypsycamp” outside Deputy Prime Min-ister John Prescott’s home andlaunch a website against him afterhe warned they faced imprisonmentfor failure to pay council taxes inprotest against a growing nearbysite for Travellers. In March 2004,around one thousand villagersthreatened to stop paying counciltaxes if growth of the nearby SmithyFen site was not stopped. On May6, the BBC reported that as a resultof the protests, the South Cam-bridgeshire District Council sought

✦✦✦✦✦ European MEPs ForceBritish Tabloid to ClarifyAnti-Romani Statements

On April 16, 2004, The Guardianreported that members of the Eu-ropean Parliamentary LabourParty (Labour MEPs) demandedthat the Daily Express, a Britishtabloid newspaper, clarify storiesit ran regarding a “Gypsy Inva-sion” of the UK following the May1, 2004, accession of ten Centraland Eastern European countries.Detailed information about theracist campaign of the Daily Ex-press is available at: http://www.errc .org /c ikk .php?cikk=1891. Labour MEPs ex-pressed outrage over the “ob-scene” coverage of the DailyExpress. At the behest of the La-bour MEPs, the Daily Express re-portedly agreed to publish aclarification of a story it printed inMarch 2004, though it maintainedit had not broken Press Com-plaints Commission rules. LabourMEP Mr Gary Titley stated thatsuch hysterical media coverage“plays into the hands of the far

✦✦✦✦✦ UK Anti-DiscriminationBody Announces CrackDown on Anti-Gypsy Signs

The Commission for Racial Equal-ity (CRE) in Wales announcedplans to eliminate within two yearssigns in shops and pubs stating “NoGypsies or Travellers”, accordingto the BBC of May 2, 2004. Suchdiscriminatory signs have been il-legal since the adoption of the 1965Race Relations Act. Mr ChrisMyant, director of the CRE inWales, was quoted as havingstated, “If you saw a sign banningblack people from a shop therewould be an outcry, yet signs ban-ning travellers and Gypsies are stillbeing used.” The ERRC welcomesthe move, but notes that removingexplicitly racially discriminatorysigns is generally only a first steptowards securing equal access topublic places. For additional infor-mation on the human rights situa-tion of Gypsies, Roma andTravellers in the UK, visit theERRC’s Internet website at: http://lists.errc.org/publications/indi-ces/uk.shtml. (BBC)

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM64

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

a court injunction, which on theevening of May 5 was issued, ban-ning the placement of addition cara-vans at Smithy Fen. Villagersreportedly protested the growth ofthe site, which has been in exist-ence for around 40 years. Mr TerryBrownbill, a spokesperson for localresidents, was quoted as havingstated that they hoped the campwould be limited to twenty sites,which house four families each.Villagers expressed frustration thatdecisions of the local council refus-ing permission are overturned onappeal by higher authorities. Eight-een Travellers reportedly appealedrefusals of permission to live on thesite by the local council, claimingviolations of their human rights. MsEmma Nuttall of the Traveller or-ganisation Friends Families andTravellers stated that the action ofthe Cottenham villagers was indica-tive of the level of discriminationfaced by Travellers in the UK.

The protest has transformed intoa nationwide campaign, with morethan fifty communities expressingan interest in preventing Travellersfrom using human rights instru-ments to establish sites across thecountry, according to The Guard-ian. The Deputy Prime Minister’sOffice is currently conducting aninternal review of the UK’s accom-modation policy for Travellers. Areport is expected this summer.

Earlier, on April 15, the BBC re-ported that the Limavady Councilin Northern Ireland had com-menced legal action to removethree Traveller families who hadstopped with caravans on the tour-ist parking lot over the Easter week-end. The families reportedly refusedto move after being informed thatnearby caravan sites were full.Councillor Leslie Cubitt was quotedby the BBC as having remarked that

Travellers should not be permittedto use the property without paying“like everyone else”. He furtherstated, “No other caravans are al-lowed to park there – but they areand we can’t move them. I wishthey would travel – if they wereTravelling people they wouldn’t beparked here for five or six days.”(BBC, The Guardian)

✦✦✦✦✦ European Court Finds UKViolated Traveller’s Right toRespect for Private Life

On May 27, 2004, the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights issued ajudgement in the case Connors v.The United Kingdom, in which itfound the UK government in viola-tion of Article 8 (right to respect forprivate and family life) of the Euro-pean Convention for the Protectionof Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms, according to a press re-lease of the Court’s Registrar of thesame day. The Court awarded theapplicant 14,000 Euro in non-pecu-niary damages and 21,643 Euro forcosts and expenses.

Mr James Connors, a 49-year-old Gypsy/Traveller, lodged hiscomplaint with the Court on Janu-ary 21, 2001, after his family brokeup following their eviction by lo-cal authorities from the CottingleySprings site for Gypsy/Travellersin the city of Leeds in England inAugust 2000. From about 1985,Mr Connors and his family hadlived in a caravan at the CottingleySprings site. In February 1997, thefamily moved from the site to arented house due to frequent dis-turbances at Cottingley Springs.Unable to adapt to living in ahouse, in October 1998, MrConnors and his wife and fouryoung children returned toCottingley Springs after receiving

a licence to occupy a plot providedthat they, their family and guestswere not a “nuisance” to those liv-ing on the site or in its vicinity. OnMarch 29, 1999, Mr Connors’sdaughter Margaret was granted alicence to occupy the adjacentplot, where she lived with MichaelMaloney. On January 31, 2000,local authorities served a notice toquit on Mr Connors’s family, re-quiring them to vacate both plotson the ground that MichaelMaloney and the applicant’s chil-dren, including his adult sons whovisited frequently, caused “consid-erable nuisance” and misbehaved.Mr Connors appealed the decision,but on March 20, 2000, the localcouncil issued proceedings forsummary possession of the sites.

Early on August 1, 2000, the lo-cal council forcibly evicted the fam-ily. Their caravan was held untillate in the afternoon, while theirpossessions were only returned onAugust 3 when they were dumpedon the side of the road near theircaravan. Mr Connors’s wife andson suffered asthma and kidneyproblems, respectively, at the time,and another son was enrolled infull-time studies at a nearby pri-mary school. Mr Connors claimedthat the authorities did not give thefamily any assistance in finding analternative site at which to settleaside from an offer for a locationon the east coast of England,though they had lived in Leeds forseveral decades. Mr Connors putforth that following the eviction, thefamily was forced to move fromplace to place, the stress of whichcontributed to his wife’s decisionto leave him. Mr Connors’s sondid not return to school followingthe eviction.

In its decision, the Court foundthat “[…] there was a positive ob-

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM65

Black



ligation on the United Kingdom tofacilitate the gypsy way of life.[…] The family was, in effect, ren-dered homeless, with the adverseconsequences on security and well-being which that entailed. […] Thepower to evict, without the burdenof giving reasons liable to be ex-

amined as to their merits by an in-dependent tribunal, had not beenconvincingly shown to respond toany specific goal or to provide anyspecific benefit to members of thegypsy community. It would ratherappear that the situation in Englandas it had developed, for which the

authorities had to take some respon-sibility, placed considerable obsta-cles in the way of gypsies pursuingan actively nomadic lifestyle whileat the same time excluding fromprocedural protection those whodecided to take up a more settledlifestyle.” (ERRC)

UKRAINE

Kivertsy, Mr S.G. had been in-formed that two young Romanimen were taken to the police sta-tion and beaten almost to the pointof death before they were released.Members of a Romani communityin another town were also report-edly severely beaten by police,causing three Roma from the com-munity to ask Mr S.G. to intervenewith the police on their behalf.

Mr S.G. informed the ERRCthat at around 2:00 PM on May10, he visited the Lutsk DistrictPolice Department where he metwith several persons, including theDeputy Head. According to MrS.G., once they were alone, theDeputy Head began insulting him,calling him such names as “Gypsybitch” and threatening him with

✦✦✦✦✦ Ukrainian AuthoritiesThreaten Romani ActivistDefending Roma Rights

On May 12, 2004, Mr S.G., aRomani activist from the north-western Ukrainian city of Lutsk,testified to the ERRC that on May10, law enforcement officialsthreatened him while he was at-tempting to negotiate the end ofpolice brutality against Roma in hisarea. Mr S.G. reported that in thedays following the theft of twohorses on May 6, the 30-familyRomani community in the neigh-bouring Prelutsk village was terror-ised by police and several membersof the community, including teen-age Romani boys, were taken tothe police station and severelybeaten. Similarly, in the town of

violence if he did not end his in-volvement in this case and in hu-man rights work generally. MrS.G., who walks with a cane, re-portedly used his cane to ward offblows by the Deputy Head. Afterabout twenty minutes, he was ex-pelled from the Deputy Head’s of-fice and passed from one room tothe next until about midnight.

When asked by the ERRCwhether he would pursue a com-plaint against the officer whothreatened him, Mr S. G. was veryhesitant out of fear of reprisal.Further information about the hu-man rights situation of Roma inUkraine is available on the ERRC’sInternet website at: http://lists.errc.org/publications/indi-ces/ukraine.shtml. (ERRC)

RR 2004 ii body 2.p65 7/16/2004, 3:11 PM66

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

ERRC ACTIONERRC ACTION

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM67

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

UN Committee against Torture Urges the CzechRepublic to Investigate Alleged CoerciveSterilisation of Romani Women

Cristi Mihalache 1

N ITS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM-MENDATIONS on the Czech Republic, re-leased on May 13, 2004, following the reviewof the Czech Republic’s compliance with theUN Convention against Torture and Other

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punish-ment (“the Convention”), the UN Committee againstTorture (CAT) expressed concern about, inter alia,“allegations regarding some incidents of uninformedand involuntary sterilizations of Roma women, as wellas the government’s inability to investigate due tothe insufficient identification of the individual com-plainants”. The Committee recommended that theState party “investigate claims of involuntarysterilizations, using medical and personnel records andurge the complainants, to the degree feasible, to as-sist in substantiating the allegations”. The full text ofthe Committee’s Conclusions and Recommendationson Czech Republic can be found on the Internet at:http://www.ohchr.org/tbru/cat/Czech_Republic.pdf.

The 32nd session of the CAT, held May 3-21, 2004in Geneva provided an opportunity for the EuropeanRoma Rights Center (ERRC) to raise its concernsregarding allegations of coercive sterilisations ofRomani women in the Czech Republic. The ERRCsent written comments and documentation for con-sideration by the Committee during its review ofCzech Republic’s report presented by the govern-mental delegation of the country.

Throughout 2003, the issue of post-1990 coercivesterilisations of Romani women in Slovakia receivedextensive attention.2 In light of similarities and pos-sible continuities in both the Czech and Slovak medi-

cal systems with the Czechoslovak health care sys-tem, as well as the serious and similar problems ofracism in both successor states to the former Czecho-slovakia, the ERRC has believed that the issue mer-its research attention also in the Czech Republic.Thus, during 2003, the ERRC undertook a number offield missions to the Czech Republic to determinewhether practices of coercive sterilisation had con-tinued after 1990, and if they were ongoing to thepresent. The conclusions of that research indicatethat there is very significant cause for concern thatto the present day, Romani women in the CzechRepublic have been subjected to coercive sterilisations,and that Romani women are at high risk in the CzechRepublic of being subjected to sterilisation absent fullyinformed consent.

Based on its research in 2003, which found that anumber of Romani women have been coercivelysterilised in recent years in the Czech Republic, theERRC submission to the UN Committee AgainstTorture noted:

✦ Cases in which consent has reportedly not beenprovided at all, in either oral or written form, priorto the operation;

✦ Cases in which consent was secured during deliv-ery or shortly before delivery, during advancedstages of labour, i.e. in circumstances in whichthe mother is in great pain and/or under intensestress;

✦ Cases in which consent appears to have been pro-vided (i) on a mistaken understanding of terminol-ogy used, (ii) after the provision of apparently

I

1 Cristi Mihalache is ERRC Advocacy Officer.2 See for example the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, “Recommendation of the

Commissioner for Human Rights Concerning Certain Aspects of Law and Practice Relating toSterilization of Women in The Slovak Republic”, 17 October 2003.

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM69

Black


manipulative information and/or (iii) absent expla-nations of consequences and/or possible side ef-fects of sterilisation, or adequate information onalternative methods of contraception;

✦ Cases in which officials put pressure on Romaniwomen to undergo sterilisation, including throughthe use of financial incentives or threats to with-hold social benefits;

✦ Cases in which explicit racial motive appears to haveplayed a role during doctor-patient consultations.

ERRC observed that coercive sterilisation is a veryserious form of human rights abuse. Coercive sterili-sation is a violation of the bodily integrity of the vic-tims and can cause severe psychological and emotionalharm. In addition, coercive sterilisation restricts ornullifies the reproductive ability of a woman, and doesso without her having been able to participate fully ina decision of such evident import, the consequencesof which are in many cases irreversible.

As a result of the foregoing, the ERRC main-tained that instances of coercive sterilisation con-travene Article 1(1) and/or Article 16 provisions ofthe Convention.

The submission features a number of recommen-dations, requesting that the Committee direct theCzech authorities to undertake the following:

✦ Establish an independent commission of inquiry in-vestigating the allegations and complaints of coer-cive sterilisations. Thoroughly investigate reportedcases of coercive sterilisations, and make available– and widely publicised – procedures for womenwho believe they may have been abusively steri-

lised to report the issue. These procedures shouldensure privacy rights, as well as rights related toeffective remedy. Provide justice to all victims ofcoercive sterilisations, including those coercivelysterilised under communism. Conduct ex-officio in-vestigations to ascertain the full extent of coercivesterilisations in the post-communist period.

✦ Review the domestic legal order in the Czech Re-public to ensure that it is in harmony with interna-tional standards in the field of reproductive rightsand provides all necessary guarantees that the rightof the patient to full and informed consent to pro-cedures undertaken by medical practitioners is re-spected in all cases.

✦ Promote a culture of seeking full and informedconsent for all relevant medical procedures by pro-viding extensive training to medical professionalsand other relevant stakeholders, as well as by con-ducting information campaigns in relevant media.

✦ Undertake regular monitoring to ensure that allmedical practitioners seek to attain the highestpossible standards of consent when undertakingsterilisations and other invasive procedures.

In addition to action before the UN CommitteeAgainst Torture, the ERRC took the occasion of thereview to hold consultative meetings with Czech civilsociety organisations to discuss this very sensitiveissue and to try to identify modes of follow-up whichwill ensure that victims may seek legal (and possiblymedical) remedy, while preserving the privacy andsecurity of the victims. In the coming period, theERRC will continue actions to ensure that victims ofcoercive sterilisation in the Czech Republic haveaccess to justice.

advocacy

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM70

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

Romani Women Discuss Women’s Rights Action

Larry Olomoofe1

N MARCH 2004 the European Roma RightsCenter (ERRC) in co-operation with the Net-work Women’s Program (NWP) of the OpenSociety Institute held a human rights trainingworkshop for Romani women activists.

Twelve participants from six countries –Bulgaria, theCzech Republic, Macedonia, Hungary, Romania, andSerbia and Montenegro – discussed strategies to ad-vance Romani women’s rights and place rights is-sues of concern to Romani women on the agendasof national governments and international organisa-tions. The primary purpose of the workshop was tobegin to draw more attention to the issues affectingwomen within the Roma rights paradigm, as well asto create a discursive space where these issues couldbe debated by Romani women activists.

The workshop opened with introductions by DimitrinaPetrova, ERRC’s Executive Director, and ViktóriaMohácsi, Commissioner for Integration in the Hungar-ian Ministry of Education. Ms Petrova’s contributionwas a philosophical account of the genesis of Romarights and an attempt at placing women’s rights withinthis discourse. She provided some theoretical ground-ing to the participants in the topics that were to be dis-cussed over the course of the workshop. Ms Mohácsigave a personal account of her experience as a youngRomani woman initially affiliated with Roma rights non-governmental organisations, including the ERRC, andsubsequently working within the national governmentat the Ministry of Education. Her account was one ofpersonal achievement and commitment despite themany obstacles she faced along the way.

Romani Women and the Rights

Movement

At the outset of the training, the participants wereinvited to analyse the situation of women’s rights in

general and specific problems pertaining to Romaniwomen in particular across the Central and East-ern Europe region. Issues discussed included do-mestic violence, sexual discrimination, and racialdiscrimination. Other topics included the lack of hu-man rights knowledge amongst Romani women, un-derage marriages, lack of education, Romatraditions, and police brutality.

“Women and the Romani Movement” was apresentation by Ms Miranda Vuolasranta, SpecialAdvisor on Roma at the Social Cohesion Directo-rate of the Council of Europe and advisor to the Finn-ish government. She provided an historical overviewof the evolution of the Romani question on the inter-national scene. Hers was a searing critique of theamounts of money dedicated to the “Roma issue”and the relatively little return in terms of sustainablesolutions to the problems faced by Romani commu-nities, including women, in Europe. She pointed thefact that there were barely any women involved inthe process and that there were a number of“gadje”(non-Roma) representing Romani interests –academically, politically, and socially – and that thishad to be challenged and changed by Roma gener-ally and women specifically.

On the issue of representation of Roma at inter-national level, she stressed:

There is no high level Roma representation. At thismoment, it is dangerous for others to forget aboutRoma. The Roma voice should be heard. A highRoma Forum should be created at a European level.This was proposed by Mrs. Halonen – Presidentof Finland in the year 2001 before the EU GeneralAssembly. […] The member states agreed that weneeded such a forum. If we depend on govern-ments only, we are not going to be able to createRoma policy and express our own opinion. Now

I

1 Larry Olomoofe is Human Rights Trainer at the ERRC.

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM71

Black


in the early April an agreement should be signed.Each country would be able to elect three personsindependent from the government and one of themshould be a woman. What will be the criteria toelect a woman activist for the Roma Forum? Is itenough to be a woman? We must be trained howto advocate and what to advocate about. To knowthe issues we are trying to solve.

“Roma Rights: Development and Challenges”was the topic of the exposition by Dr DimitrinaPetrova, the ERRC’s Executive Director, who at-tempted to provide the conceptual framework forthe development of a women’s rights agenda withinthe current Roma rights discourse. The questionDr Petrova posed for the participants was whetherthe Romani women’s rights initiative should adopta similar pattern of development, i.e., establish aseparate discursive paradigm dedicated solely toRomani women’s issues within the broader wom-en’s rights discourse, or whether it would be morelogical and practical to utilise the processes andterms of reference that currently exist within thevarious rights paradigms.

The 2003 Romani Women’s Forum and the Dec-ade of Roma Inclusion was an overview by Ms AzbijaMemedova of the Romani Women’s Forum held inconjunction with the World Bank/OSI conference“Roma in Enlarged Europe” in June 2003. MsMemedova outlined the processes that could be ben-eficial for the pursuit of Romani women’s issues withinthe Decade of Roma Inclusion as well as the areasof concern that Romani women activists should fo-cus their attention upon. She stressed that Romaniwomen should consider:

✦ Data collection and dissemination;✦ Communication and outreach to local Romani com-

munities in general, and women in particular;✦ Fundraising for initiatives under the aegis of the

Decade;✦ Roma participation.

Rights-Based Approach to Romani

Women’s Issues

In a series of sessions, the participants were in-troduced to the major international mechanisms for

the protection of human rights and their pertinenceto Romani women’s issues.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsto the Beijing Process was a group work sessionwhich began with a presentation by Ms MonaNicoara, Consultant to the ERRC/NWP, on the his-torical development of women’s rights within the in-ternational human rights movement since the inceptionof the Universal Declaration on Human Rights(UDHR). The participants were introduced to themany policy developments and shifts revolving aroundwomen’s rights, the adoption of the UN Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of DiscriminationAgainst Women (CEDAW), the 1993 Vienna con-ference and culminating in the 1995 Beijing Confer-ence and ensuing Process.

The participants were tasked with discussing pro-visions from the UDHR. Some specific questions thegroups had to ponder were:

✦ Do the UDHR provisions really cover everyone?✦ How have different governments and societies

implemented the UDHR?✦ What are the potential or real obstacles to the full

implementation of the rights proclaimed by theUDHR?

How to use the UN CEDAW was the subject ofa series of presentations by Ms Nicoleta Biþu(Romani CRISS, Romania), Ms Slavica Vasiæ(BIBIJA Roma Women’s Center, Serbia), and MsAlphia Abdikeeva (EU Monitoring and AdvocacyProgram, Open Society Institute, Hungary) on thepractical steps involved in applying the Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of Discriminationagainst Women (CEDAW) to local scenarios. Thesession was an attempt at drawing the sometimeshidden linkages between local issues with the oftendistant-seeming international [legal] process. Thepresenters highlighted different women’s issues con-cerning them and showed how their pursuit of jus-tice has been assisted by using the internationalprocedures available to them through the CEDAW.

Advocacy in the UN system was the subject of ajoint presentation by Ms Nicoleta Biþu and Ms MonaNicoara. The aim of the session was to provide par-ticipants with an overview of UN mechanisms such

human rights education

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM72

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

as the Human Rights Committee (HRC) and theCommittee for the Elimination of All Forms of Ra-cial Discrimination (CERD) and how they can beapplied in cases of human rights violations againstRomani women. The hope was to provide partici-pants with a sense of the types of NGO interven-tions at the UN level as well as to offer practicalinformation and examples of the procedures avail-able to NGOs for advocacy work.

The OSCE and Roma Women’s Rights: The Caseof Trafficking was a presentation by Ms JyothiKanics from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), who provided informa-tion on how women from vulnerable groups such asthe Roma are victims of trafficking. Ms Kanics madean outline of the factors involved in trafficking andattempted to provide answers to questions such aswhat human rights are violated through trafficking.Legal questions, such as the “consent” of the victim,were addressed also by Ms Kanics. She argued thatconsent would be a moot point, since the victim wouldbe coerced through various methods to comply withthe wishes of the traffickers.

Roma Women’s Advocacy in an Enlarged Euro-pean Union was the topic of the open forum at theCentral European University held as part of the work-shop. This was a debate about the need to main-stream women/gender issues in the human rightsdiscourse and work. The presenters provided spe-cific insights into their strategies for including Romaniwomen’s issues in rights-based advocacy initiatives.

Advocacy Strategies

Several training sessions dealt with practical ex-amples of effective advocacy work. During thecourse of these sessions, the participants had to grap-ple with the concept of effective advocacy and howto ensure that their actions would have a longer last-ing impact for the peoples and interests that they weresupposed to be representing.

The ERRC’s Executive Director made an over-view of the ERRC’s advocacy of Roma rights at theinternational level. She talked about the origins ofthe ERRC as well as the situation regarding Romanicommunities prior to the ERRC’s establishment in

order to illustrate the impact of the organisation interms of achieving its advocacy goals. In doing this,she also indicated the nature of the problems facedby an “international” NGO acting in defense of thehuman rights of a single ethnic group. Among oth-ers, she also confronted the main criticism of theERRC, since its inception, that it was not representa-tive of the Romani communities whose rights it pur-ported to defend. She provided the followingexplanation for this: “In the beginning we neededdetachment. We wanted the researchers to begadje. We were afraid that the people would be bi-ased against Roma….”

National advocacy challenges was subject of asession on the various issues faced by Romaniwomen in the countries from which the participantswere drawn. The workshop was facilitated by MsNicoleta Biþu and Ms Isabella Banica of the OSI’sRoma Participation Program. The purpose of thesession was to assist participants in focussing onwhat they thought the main problems were in theircountries, and in devising advocacy strategies to dealwith them accordingly. Some of the problems dis-cussed were domestic violence against women andchildren, and arranged marriages in the community.Ms Enisa Eminova, participant from Macedonia, for-mulated the goal of the Romani women’s actionsas follows:

We live between two worlds. We live between twofires. Can we be the creators of our own life?Who do I marry, who do I love? These are all notmy choices! These are choices others take for me.What should we respect? The tradition or our ownright to choose? We must educate our mothers,not the opposite.

Fact-finding as a basis for human rights advo-cacy was the focus of a session led by Ms SavelinaDanova, ERRC Research and Policy Co-ordinator.The veracity of any advocacy campaign is basedupon solid, honest fact-finding and monitoring. Thiswas the basis of much of the ERRC’s advocacystrategies and initiatives. Therefore, it was incum-bent upon advocates and activists to conduct rig-orous research in order to craft a water-tightadvocacy initiative. Proper research is the corner-stone of any serious human rights NGO and shouldbe placed at a premium. The issue of ethical pro-

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM73

Black


cedures was discussed also, since monitoring and/or reporting organisations are bound by a range ofethical strictures.

Follow-up projects: Towards the end of the train-ing, the participants explored possibilities for various“follow-up” initiatives that could be pursued on theirreturn home. Schooling of Romani children and girlsin particular emerged as the main theme for the vari-ous programmes contemplated by the participants.Motivation of parents and children to study and ad-vocating school support for Romani children and guar-antees for access to quality education, have beenidentified as priorities for the future work of theRomani women’s advocates.

Evaluation

The workshop was concluded with an extendedperiod for evaluations led by Larry Olomoofe (ERRC).The first part was devoted to personal evaluationswhere the participants completed a questionnaire thatcovered a range of questions about the workshop. Thesecond stage of the evaluation process was a broadergroup discussion where participants were encouragedto provide on-the-spot assessments of the programmeand participate in a general discussion about the mer-its and demerits of the project. Some of the issuesdiscussed included programme content, length, follow-up initiatives and support from the organisers for otherwomen’s rights workshops in the future.

human rights education

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM74

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

Litigating Discrimination in Access to Health Care

Alan Anstead 1

ESPITE A GENERAL INCREASEin life expectancy and decrease in in-fant mortality across the recently en-larged Europe, evidence shows thatsocial inequalities have increased eve-

rywhere and the gap in health between the top and thebottom of the social scale has widened. Also despitethe huge amount of money invested in each country’shealth sector, studies carried out since the beginning ofthe 1990s have revealed that a significant number ofpeople in economically vulnerable situations find it dif-ficult to access health care and are being left out of theformal channels of health care provision.

The Roma, particularly in Central and EasternEurope, suffer the worst health conditions. Accord-ing to the World Bank, the proportion of Roma livingin poverty exceeds 75% in these countries.2 Unem-ployment is high. Access to preventive and curativehealthcare services is low. According to the WorldBank, the health status of Roma is considerably worsethan that of populations as a whole.3 Discriminationagainst Roma in access to health care is an area inwhich ERRC, together with national partner organi-sations, have brought litigation. A number of strate-gic issues concerning access to health care have beenidentified, that have a human rights importance toRoma as a group.

Challenging Segregation on Racial

Grounds in Health Care Establishments

Nadka Slavcheva

This is a case involving the segregation of Romanipatients in the Tina Kirkova hospital in Sofia, Bulgaria.

In 2001, Mrs Nadka Slavcheva, after giving birth toher child, was placed in the corridor of the hospital.She was told that the hospital wing was closed forrepairs and that therefore there were no rooms avail-able. However, although all of the Romani patientswere placed in the corridor, the non-Roma patientswere placed in proper wards. Mrs Slavcheva filed acivil action requesting moral damages. Her claim wasrejected and the case is pending on appeal.

Mrs Rositza Anguelova

Segregation on discriminatory grounds was the sub-ject of a civil action by Mrs Rositza Anguelova andothers in 2002. In this case, all of the Romani patientsat a hospital in Sofia were placed in specified “Romawards” rather than regular wards where non-Romawere placed. Hygienic conditions in the Roma wardswere worse than normal ones and the rooms werenot heated during winter. A civil claim for damageswas rejected by the Sofia District Court and also re-jected on appeal before the County Court. The case isnow pending before the Bulgarian Supreme Court.

Challenging Discrimination in the

Provision of Health Care Benefits

Csaba Balazs case (husband of victim)

In 2000, a Romani woman in Hungary was refused anursing allowance by the local authority in Nograd onthe grounds that nursing allowances were not regulatedby local laws and regulations, even though she wasentitled by Hungarian national law to an allowancefor staying at home to care for a disabled relative.

D

1 Alan Anstead is ERRC Legal Adviser/Project Manager.2 World Bank study “Roma in an expanding Europe – breaking the poverty cycle” Ringold, Orenstein and

Wilkens 2003.3 Ibid.

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM75

Black


An unsuccessful administrative action was filed in2001, following which a criminal complaint was filedin 2002 claiming abuse of official powers. The caseis pending before the Nograd Prosecutor’s Office.

Adriana Boros and Others

This case is on behalf of 10 Romani women from thevillage of Frata in Romania, who were entitled to re-ceive birth allowances in accordance with Romanianlaw. This provides that every mother who gives birthis entitled to receive a birth allowance of 1,400,000Lei (approx. 35 euros) if she files a request with thelocal Town Hall within 6 months of the birth. In 2003,the Romani women tried to apply and had collected allof the documents required by the law. However, thesecretary of the Mayor in Frata refused to registertheir requests. She told the women to get married orsue the fathers for child allowance, or even take outthe name of the father from the birth certificate inorder to receive the birth allowance. None of her ob-jections to registering the requests for birth allowanceswere legal. While the women (who thought the objec-tions were required by law) were trying to follow them,the deadline for applying passed and they lost the rightto birth allowance. Since filing a complaint against theMayor’s secretary, police in Frata and the prosecutorhave been victimising the women and their families towithdraw their complaint. The Mayor’s secretary isreportedly related to a policeman in Frata. The locallawyer in this case filed a criminal complaint againstthe Mayor’s secretary (which was turned down andis being appealed before the Prosecutors Office), andhas filed a complaint with the National Council forCombating Discrimination under the Romanian anti-discrimination law (which is still pending a year afterfiling the complaint).

Contesting the Barriers for Roma

Access to Health Care and Treatment,

Including the Emergency Services

Croatian Ambulance case

On 9 February 2001, in a Romani settlement in north-western Croatia, the baby of a Romani couple, Mirkoand Verica Oršuš, was stillborn after the local emer-gency medical team refused their calls for help. A neigh-

bour had called the emergency services when Ms Oršušwent into labour, but was told that the team would notcome, and that Ms Oršuš should be driven to the localmedical centre, after which the person on the otherend of the line hung up. Mr Oršuš called the samemedical centre, and after he told them he did not havea car, the staff told him to put his wife into a wheel-barrow and bring her to the medical centre. Eventuallythe local police were called and they told the ambu-lance to go to the settlement. By the time an ambu-lance finally arrived, Ms Oršuš had given birth on thefloor of their house and the child was dead. After asuccessful civil action, the Oršuš family were awardeddamages against the Croatian health authorities.

János Horváth (husband)

This is a sad case from Hungary in which, in 2002, thetwo hour delay in sending an ambulance in response toa Romani family’s call for help led to the death uponarrival at the hospital of a Romani woman. A com-plaint was filed with the Ombudsman for National Mi-norities and he requested the Police to start a criminalinvestigation into the incident. The Police found thatneither the doctors, ambulance service nor hospitalcould be found responsible for the death of the Romaniwoman. An appeal was filed and this is still pending.

Miklós Kolompár

Another discrimination case, this time on the allegedgrounds of the cost of providing treatment, another bar-rier that many Roma face when trying to access healthcare. In 2003 Mr Miklós Kolompár, a prisoner in Hun-gary, was refused treatment for his kidney disease. MrKolompar’s condition deteriorated and the kidney even-tually had to be removed. A criminal complaint has beenfiled with the Hungarian Prosecutor in this case.

Combating the Informal and Illegal

Payments for Services, Most Prevalent

at Public Hospitals

Stefka Dimitrova

In 2002, Ms Stefka Dimitrova had a sudden miscar-riage and needed emergency medical assistance. The

legal defence

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM76

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

doctors at the hospital in Sofia, Bulgaria, refused toprovide her with the necessary treatment unless shefirst gave them a bribe. Ms Dimitrova did not have thismoney. The hospital refused to admit her as a patient.A civil action is pending before the Bulgarian courts.

Challenging Barriers for Roma Access

to Health Insurance

This is an area in which the ERRC will look tosupport a suitable case to challenge the widespreadproblems around health insurance systems. The prob-lems are that:

✦ Not all of the population is aware of the proce-dures and the need to have health insurance, es-pecially among the unemployed or those workingin informal labour.

✦ The financial contributions required by patients,although small, are often too high for the poorestpeople.

✦ Many Roma lack the new identity cards neces-sary for inclusion in the system (a recent UNDP/

ILO survey showed that only 54% of Roma inBulgaria had medical insurance).

Litigating Against Discrimination in

Health Care: Some Comments

✦ Countries in the region are required to implementcomprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, un-der the EU Race Equality Directive 2000/43/EC(which includes health in the scope of the Direc-tive), and to ensure that there are effective rem-edies for victims of discrimination, and specialmeasures (where necessary) to create the con-ditions of equal enjoyment for Roma of accessto health care. With effective national legislationin place it will be easier for lawyers to bring stra-tegic litigation to challenge the widespread prac-tice of discrimination and break-down theindirect (and often direct) barriers to their ac-cess to health care.

✦ Changes in the law need to be accompanied bytraining of medical and healthcare workers to rec-ognise and combat direct and indirect discrimina-tion on the basis of race or ethnicity.

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM77

Black


The Culture of Giving and Roma Charity

Leonid Raihman1

HEN DISCUSSING the com-plex problem of how to improve

Romani life, we often think thatRomani leaders themselves are

not in the habit of helping financiallyother members of the Romani community, in par-ticular, poor Romani people, nor do they work for thepromotion of Roma rights by funding various relatedactivities. This is not the case, for example, of Jew-ish communities where we can find traditions estab-lished long ago for prosperous businessmen to helpJewish pensioners, disabled people, etc., and to sup-port celebrations of Jewish religious holidays.

The perception that Roma are not involved in char-ity must be challenged at least in the case of Russia. InJune 2003, I have met in Moscow Alexander Bariev, amember of the International Roma Union Parliament.At that time it turned out that, among other activities,he was also vice-president of the Moscow-based Cul-tural and Educational Society Romano Kher, first vice-president of Amaro Drom – the recently establishedInternational Union of Roma of the Baltic States andCIS countries, and a member of the editorial board ofthe Moscow-based journal Shumen Romale amongother functions. In December 2003, Alexander Barievwas elected president of the Federal National-CulturalAutonomy of Roma in Russia.

The matter was that until 1996, Alexander haddeveloped his business (sports equipment and then anetwork of restaurants and food stores). He had beenhelping Romani people a lot with his own money.But he had not tried to establish a foundation, beingjust a person who undertakes charitable actions. Bya proposal of Professor Georgiy Demeter, presidentof the Romano Kher, Alexander Bariev, in coopera-tion with his brother Ivan, for the first time officiallyfunded the music festival “Gypsies Under the Sky of

Russia” (Tsigani pod nebom Rossii). Then he or-ganised charity canteens for homeless and poor peo-ple, predominantly Roma. Alexander is one of thefounders of the Foundation for disabled sportsmen;and his next idea was to provide disabled Roma withwheelchairs. From time to time, Alexander simplypaid from his own pocket to lawyers, asking themfor legal assistance for Roma in cases of police abuse.Through these charity activities, he acquired muchrespect from senior Roma who usually are in leader-ship positions in Romani communities. They startedto invite Mr Bariev to participate in finding solutionsfor difficult situations within their communities. ThenAlexander accepted that he was on demand for rep-resentative functions and stood for elections for thepositions mentioned above. He realised that as vice-president of one of the leading Romani NGOs inRussia it is much easier to various authorities, than itis to undertake activities without formal position.

When speaking with the author, Alexander espe-cially emphasised that he makes no difference be-tween Roma and non-Roma in his charitable activities,and if non-Roma ask him for support he gives it onthe same principle as for Roma. Meanwhile, he ad-mitted that Roma prevail among the staff of his busi-nesses, because he employs many relatives.Apparently, he supports Roma also by giving themjob opportunities.

During our discussion, I was trying to persuadehim that it was time to expand his already existingforms of charity with others, for example, to set up afoundation based in Russia uniting prosperous Romain the country for charity purposes. In addition to MrBariev, I have met and heard about other wealthyRomani businessmen who make donations to Romaniorganisations on an ad hoc basis, for example, to payfor lawyers in Roma rights cases or to cover the

1 Leonid Raihman is a consultant to the Open Society Institute on Roma projects in Russia.

W

field research

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM78

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

operational costs of Romani organisations. The ideaof a Romani foundation was quite unique and seemedstrange at first glance to Mr Bariev. Indeed, for Rus-sia where media, police officers and others are dis-posed so negatively towards Roma, and wherefrequently “Gypsy” is synonimous with “drug-deal-ers”, information about establishing a Romani foun-dation with the explicit goal of supporting Roma, maybe shocking for many people. Mr Bariev’s and oth-ers’ charitable activities for Roma in Russia are notadvertised and are not widely known to the public.The way these people offer their help is very differ-

ent from the culture of giving typical in the West,where each small action is carefully registered andwell-documented by the foundations’ staff, and theinformation distributed by public relations officers.This machinery has its own rules designed for, interalia, taxation purposes. Both approaches have ad-vantages and disadvantages. I really hope thoseRomani leaders, not only in big cities, but throughoutrural Russia as well, after some time will find theadequate forms to officialise their charity activities,overcoming the numerous current obstacles on theway of the Roma movement in that country.

Alexandr Bariev, President of the Federal National-Cultural Autonomy of Roma in Russia, with Dr Nadezhda Demeter and singerNikolay Slichenko, celebrating the International Roma Day, April 8, 2004, Moscow.PHOTO:ERRC

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM79

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

ROMANI

LANGUAGE

PUBLICATIONS

ROMANI

LANGUAGE

PUBLICATIONS

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM81

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

“Stigmata: Segreguime Edukacia e Rromengi andeCentralo thaj Easto Europa”

Romani-language translation of the executive summary of the ERRC report“Stigmata: Segregated Schooling of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe”

NDO ÈHON MAJ 2004-to BERŠEuropako Rromano Èaèimasko Centrotrada avri/sikada raporto “Stigmata:Segreguime Edukacia e Rromengiande Centralo thaj Easto Europa”.

O raporto si bazirime pe ERRC-esko terenosko rodipeande Bulgaria, Èehikani Republika, Hungaria,Slovakia thaj Romania pe thana kaj si èaèe kerdinisegregacia e Rromengi ande edukacia. Kava soakana ka ginaven si so o ERRC dikhla.

Kava raporto kamel te dikhel sar si e Rromaneèhavorrenge andar Bulgaria, Èehikani Republika,Hungaria, Romania thaj Slovakia, lindo egalutnodigniteto kade kaj kerel pes segregacia ande edukacia.Rasistikani segregacia mamuj Rroma ande kadalethema si sa maj bari ande maj palutne deš berša somaj dur kerda but pharipa pala but Rromanegeneracie: Rromane èhavorre si barile e kompleksosakaj si maj bilaèhe deso aver èhavorre, lenge si lindošaipe te astaren egalutni edukacia thaj kade vi šaipete avel len laèhi pozicia ando societato/amalipe; lengesi oprime (naj len šaipe) te astaren beneficie sarstudentura sar vi šaipe te train/d•ivdinen andemultikulturalo societato. Pe varesave thanasegregacia save keren pes ande škole si rezultaturasegregaciako savo keren pes ande kodola forura.Rasaki segregacia vazda pes opre sar efekto eoperaciako edukaciake sistemosko ande kadalathema save kerde ekskluzia (èhude len avri) eRromengi vaš odi kaj e Rromen si specialo kulturathaj èhib. Maj palal, rasaki segregacia si rezultato eškolengo thaj avere oficiale manušengo te kerenseparacia Rromane èhavorrengi katar gad•ikaneèhavorre vaš odi kaj e gad•e kerde presia pe lende.D•i akana e governura èi kerde implementaciadesegregaciake politikako. D•i kaj e Hungaria kerdavaresave aktivitetura kasko areslipe sasa te kerel pes

prevencia e segregaciaki ande speciale škole thajphagavipe varesave formengo rasistikanediskriminaciako, ni jekh aver them savo si opresikadino èi kerda varesave èaèe aktivitetura te kerelpes desegregacia ando fremo školake sistemosko.

1. So o ERRC Arakhla?

Bulgaria

Sar phenel o Bulgariako Ministeriumo palaEdukacia thaj D•anglipe, ande Bulgaria si 106 školeande save si 100% Rromane studentura. Kadaleškole These schools (akharen pes vi “Rromane getoškole”), si kerdine pe thana save si paša vaj anderromane gava/komunitetura. Sar phenen e sikavnemanuša/ekspertura trujal 70% Rromane èhavorrengosave d•an ande škole akana si thodine/šuvdine andeRromane geto škole. Gasave Rromane geto školensi standardo sar vi avere školen thaj ketegorišime sisar regulare škole, materialura (pustika) ande gasaveškole sar vi kvaliteto e edukaciako si but bilaèheande relacia e školdenca kaj sitjuven gad•e.Katar evrama kana si kerdine, ande 1950-te berša, Rromanegetoske škole kerde baro dispariteto ande edukaciaRromane èhavorrengi, thaj kade kerde progresivoekskluzia katar mainstream societato. Sar sikavelLumake Bankako (World Bank) rodipe savo sikerdino e èhavorrenca saven si 15 vaj maj but berša13.3% si biedukaciako; 76.4% si numaj fundoedukacia; 10% si maškarutni/sekundaro edukacia,and 0.2% si univerzitetoski vaj post-univerzitetoskiedukacia. Sar komparacia šaj dikhel pes kaj maškarBulgariake èhavre saven si egalutne berša 6.4% (sibi edukaciako), 28.1% (si fundo edukacia), 45.4%(si sekundaro edukacia), thaj 20.1% (si univerzi-tetoski edukacia).1

A

1 Dikh Kabakchieva, Petia thaj Ilia Iliev. Akseso/astaripe e edukaciako ande Bulgaria: Kvantitativo Analiza,napublikuime rodipe. Sofia, 2002-to berš, lil. 6.

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM83

Black


Aver baro problemi pala Rromane èhavorre andare Bulgaria si kaj gasave èhavorren o barederipe tradelande speciale škole pala èhavre saven si mentalohendikepo. Sar phenen varesave na-oficiale estimaciemaj baro procento èhavorrengo save d•an andegasave škole si Rroma, ande procentura kodo simaškar 80 thaj 90% .

Èehikani Republika

Sar phenel o Èehikano govermento, “trujal 75procentura Rromane èhavorengo d•an direkto vajindirekto ande spaciale škole.”2 Ande kadale školeRromane èhavore astaren edukacia savi si lokhi/inferioro thaj kade si lindo lenge šaipe te astaren majbari edukacia. Vi kaj ande teoria si šaipe te gasaveèhavorre d•an ande mainstream škole ande praksagasavi alokacia si but phari thaj našti kade lokhes tekerel pes. Kodo so si interesanto si fakto kaj Èehikaniedukacia vi akana baziril pes po testo e inteligenciakoso si lenge maj vasno fakto po drom te dikhenèhavorrengi inteligencia so d•i akana sikada pes sarbilaèho sistemo savo kerel rasistikane problemura;psihologikano testo bistarel pe lingvistikane thajkulturake averèhandipa/diverzitetura; bari individualodiskrecia ande relacia pala testurenge rezultatura delšaipe te sikaven pes vi rasake thaj aver irelevantefaktora. Governosko èid•anglipe te phagavel kavaproblemo mukel šaipe te kava trendo, pala tradiperromane èhavorrengo ande škole pala mentalohendikipirime, d•al maj dur.

Hungaria

Segregacia Rromane èhavorrengi andeHungariako edukaciako sistemo si pervasivo/segregacia savi kerel pes maškar edukaciako sistemo.Si but mehanizmura save den rezultato ande butforme segregaciake pe diferente levela ande školakosistemo. Sar vi ande but thema ando regiono,Hungariako sistemo školengo pala mentalohendikipirime sasa utilizime ande maj palunepand•vardeš berša sar drom kaj te šuven e rromaneèhavorren save aver škokle èi kamle te len te gothe

sitjuven. Oficialo statistika andar 1993-to berš – majpaluno berš ande savo e Hungaria kida informaciepala etnicitetura sikada kaj 50 procenturaèhavorrengo save d•an ande škole pala mentalohendikipirime sesa Rroma. Maj dur rodipa sikavenkaj gasavi tendencia te traden pes e rromane èhavorreande škole pala mentalo hendikipirime (nasvale) èiciknjarel pes.

Aver Rromane èhavorre si segreguime ando fremoregulare cikne školengo kade kaj traden pes ande sepa-rate/speciale klasura. Bari praksa (praktika) palasegregacia Rromane èhavorrengi ande Hungariakemainstream školde si bazirime po dekretoMinisteriumosko pala Edukacia andar 1997-to berš savovakarel pala nacionale thaj etnikane minoritetura. ODekreto sasa lindo sar baza pala segregacia Rromaneèhavorrengi ande sa Rromane “catch-up” klasurasaven si sajekh bilaèho standardo, save den bilaèhokvaliteto e edukaciako. But Rromane èhavorre savesi edukuime ande “catch-up” klasura našti den majdur ande normalo školako sistemo, thaj von agorin piriškolaki kariera ande separato sistemo, ande maj butkazura èi d•an maj dura katar 5-to klaso. Normale(Mainstream) škole butivar našen katar e Rromaneèhavorre (te na d•an ande lenge škole) kade kaj kerenpresia pe lengi familia (dada thaj deja) te den piro glasote lenge èhavorre astaren “privato studentongostatuso”, savo èaèes maj dur utilizil pes te o èhavorroavel slobodo te na d•al svako djes ande škola so majdur kerel te gasave èhavorre našti astaren laèhiedukacia. But Rromane èhavorre si šuvdine/thodineande geto škole, kaj našti arakhen pes gad•ikanestudentura gasave škole si paša Rromane gava.

Romania

Maj baro numbri Rromane èhavorrengo andar eRomania sitjuvel ande rromane geto/maxalake školevaj pe thana/distriktura kaj bešel maj baro numbri eRromengo. Segreguime geto škole, šaj phenel pes,sajekh den maj teluno standardo e edukaciako kanakerel pes lengi komparacia avere školenca. Fizikaniinfrastruktura thaj kvaliteto e sitjuvimasko si butivarande gasave škole bilaèho.

2 Dikh Komiteto pala pagavipe rasake Diskriminaciako, CERD/C/372/Add.1, 14-to Aprili, 2000-to berš.Raporto dindo katar zainteresuime riga Artiklo 9 e Konvenciako. Štarto periodikano raporto ande 2000-toberš. Addendum Èehikani Republika, 26-to Novembri 1999-to berš, paragrafo. 134.

romani language publications

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM84

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

Rromane èhavorre si segreguime ande separateklasura vi ande mainstream škole, khetane e klasurencapala etnikane minoritetura thaj speciale klasura savesitjuven thaj keren edukacia sar ande škole pala mentalohendikepirime (nasvale ande godji) manuša. Sar najvaresavo legalo pharipe te keren pes klasura anderelacia e etnicitetosa te kerel pes minoritetongiedukacia, kana si puèipe pala e Rroma gasave klasurasi butivar rezultato rasake diskriminaciako. Gad•e(dada thaj deja) keren presia pe škole te ulaven pes/traden pes jekh averebdar Rromane thaj gad•ikaneèhavorre so maj dur tradel e manušen andar e škole tekeren speciale klasura.

Diskriminacia e Rromengi ande Romaniakoedukaciako sistemo kerda disparitetura pala astaripelaèhe edukaciako maškar gad•e thaj Rroma. Majpaluno rodipe savo si kerdino sikavel kaj e Rromaneèhavorre, kana kerel pes komparacia avere na-Rromane èhavorrenca, štarvar/štar droma maj cerra/zala participirin/len than ande anglal-školaki edukacia.Maj dur, Rromane èhavorre save d•an ande cikniškola 25% si ande maj cikno numbri deso na-Rromane èhavore pal ande maškarutni škola 30%.Oxtovardeš procentura e èhavorrengo save èi d•an

ande škole si Rroma.3 Rezultatura save si sikadinemaj palal si but bilaèhe thaj von phenen kaj trujal 40%Rromengo èi d•anen te ramon (lekharen) thaj teginaven thaj kava trendo vazdel pes opre andetranziciako periodo.4

Slovakia

Slovakia buxljarda o sistemo pala segregaciaRromane èhavorrengi savi u•es šaj dikhel pes kadekaj e Rromane èhavoreren šuvel ande škole palamentalo hendikepirime. But informacie phenen kajnumbri rromane èhavorrengo save d•an ande gasaveškole si maškar 80-100%. Ande speciale škole d•alkade baro numbri Rromane èhavorrengo so trada emanušen te gasave škole akharen Rromane škole“Gypsy schools”. Bare mamuj-Rromane rasizmoskekondicie ande Slovakia trada te kerel pes getoizaciae školengi thaj xamime studentura ande gasaveškole. Ande baro numbri e školengo procentoRromane studenturengo si maj baro deso ande averškole save si po kodo lokaliteto/than, sar rezultatosavo si kerdino kaj e na-Rromane èhavorre djeleandar gasave škole.

3 MEC (Romaniko Ministeriumo pala Edukacia thaj Rodipe), ISE (Instituto pala Edukacia), ICCV(Instituto pala Rodipe thaj d•ivdimasko kvaliteto), UNICEF, ‘Participacia pala Edukacia Rromaneèhavorrengi’, Bucharest, 2002, lil. 8.

4 Ibid. lil. 8.

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM85

Black


Romani Politics as a Profession

Rumyan Russinov 1

ECENTLY, I have often heardRomani activists and leaders criticis-ing the so-called “professionalRoma”. The negative implication ofthis phrase is probably conveyed by

the two assumptions: First, that the professional –that is, a person who gets money for the work she/he does, in whatever sphere – joinsthe Romani movement not necessar-ily because of the cause of thismovement but rather for the finan-cial gain. My question to those crit-ics is: Even if we had lots ofprofessionals in the Romani Move-ment who joined it because theywere attracted by the salaries, is itnot more important for the Move-ment to have qualified people whocould contribute with their expertise,eventually to the cause of the Romani Movement,rather than having morally committed persons withlimited professional capabilities?

The other assumption behind the criticism of “pro-fessional Roma” is that some members of the Romaniminority – it is alleged – have chosen to become ac-tivists in the Movement because they are incapableof finding another field. I could think of politicians inmy country who happily explain to the public thatthey can always find another job, outside politics, be-cause they have solid professions. I do not subscribeto this point of view. In my opinion Romani politics,and politics in general, is not an activity that can becarried out among other things. If you want to be astrong politician and an effective one, you have totake politics seriously, as a primary occupation. Thatis, to be a professional politician.

The Romani Movement has started as an ama-teur undertaking but its gradual professionalisation isinevitable and needed.

In 1992, I was twenty-four years old and at acrossroad. I had just graduated from the most pres-tigious economic university in Bulgaria. Like my non-

Romani colleagues, I had ambitionsto start working for a financial firmor a bank. At the same time, theRomani Movement in Bulgaria wasgaining ground – the first Romani or-ganisations and the first Romani lead-ers had just emerged. My father,Serguei Russinov, was among theRomani leaders at the time. In theseearly years there were no donors,there was no websites of non-gov-ernmental organisations, and in prac-

tice there was no professional work in the Romaniorganisations. There were no offices, emails, travelcosts, etc. On our old Russian-made car, my fatherand his friends travelled around the country and metpeople. My father made several attempts to persuademe to join him and his friends, explaining to me thatthe Romani Movement needs young, educated Roma.My thoughts, however, were on my professional ad-vancement as an economist. On the other hand, thefirst public appearances of some of the Romani lead-ers at the time were not very impressive, making methink that my place was not among them. However,one day (sometime in July 1992), my father man-aged to persuade me to attend a conference in Varna.The purpose of the conference was to unite severalRomani organsiations oriented at the time towardsthe two major political parties in the country – on theleft and on the right side of the political spectrum.

1 Rumyan Russinov is Director of the Budapest-based Roma Participation Program of the Open SocietyInstitute. He is also member of the ERRC Board.

RRumyan

photo comeshere

meet the errc

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM86

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

This conference was far from our idea of a Romaniconference nowadays – there was no agenda, nospeakers. There was no reimbursement of travel andaccommodation costs, etc. The rudimentary logis-tics, however, were offset by huge enthusiasm forthe meeting of Romani activists from all over thecountry. I did not have big expectations of the resultsand was unfortunately right – unity was not accom-plished. The people were overwhelmed by their emo-tions, and rational views were stifled by everyone’sdesire to speak in public. For myself, however, thisconference was a turning point. I started askingmyself questions and looking for answers.

After this conference, I became much more in-volved in Romani politics – I started reading the lit-erature on Roma available then, and attended mostof the public events related to Roma at the time. Ayear later, I began my career in the Sofia-basedHuman Rights Project – one of the first Roma rightsadvocacy groups in the region. That is, I began pro-fessional activist work. I have been going along thispath for the past 12 years.

I could hardly describe everything that happenedduring these years and this is not the purpose of myarticle. Rather, I would like to address those youngand educated Roma who are now in my position oftwelve years ago. This writing is addressed to theyoung Roma who are now faced with the dilemmaof whether to join the Romani Movement or to con-tinue their professional carriers as economists, doc-tors, lawyers, etc. Eventually, everyone will make

their own choice, and the lines below are simply onepoint of view on the issue.

At this point, the Romani Movement is still in a tran-sitional phase – from the amateur years to profes-sional politics. The need for Romani professionals isenormous. We still don’t have as many highly quali-fied Roma as I wish we had. Can we afford to “dis-perse” our potential? I think now, more than ever, it isnecessary to mobilise our potential. The past decadeended with a victory for those who fought to giveprominence to Roma rights concerns at internationaland domestic level. The work in the years to comewill build on this increased awareness of Roma rightsproblems. Many programs on Roma have already beendeveloped and many more are underway. Roma spe-cialists and professionals are needed to develop andimplement these programs if they are to achieve bet-ter results than the policies implemented so far.

One day, I believe, when this transitional periodfor the Romani Movement is over, when the RomaniMovement has taken steadily its course in the rightdirection, most of us, the Roma with education, maybe able to afford the luxury to be professionals inmany spheres, not necessarily related to Roma.Then, I hope, the number of Romani professionalswill be much higher too.

Now, twelve years after my first steps in theRomani Movement, if I had to choose again whetherto be an economist or a Romani activist, I would againchoose the latter.

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM87

Black


Chronicle

Publications

May 2004: Published ERRC report, “Stigmata: Segregated Schooling of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe”.

Campaigning, Conferences and Meetings

Processes: Experience of Romania in the OSCEcontext”, organised in the framework of the Sta-bility Pact by Romani CRISS in partnership withthe Chamber of Deputies of the Romanian Par-liament, the Roma Party in Romania, Project onEthnic Relations and European Roma Informa-tion Office, Bucharest, Romania.

April 19-20, 2004: Presented ERRC advocacywork with the Council of Europe at the seminar“Implementation of Human Rights: the Efficiencyof Justice in the Council of Europe and its Mem-ber States”, organised by the Netherlands Min-istry of Foreign Affairs and NJCM, Dutch Sectionof the International Commission of Jurists, TheHague, Netherlands.

April 22-23, 2004: Organised a training for NGOson the effective implementation of anti-discrimi-nation legislation, a roundtable discussion for par-liamentarians and a training for judges and lawyerson the same issue, Riga, Latvia.

April 23-24, 2004: Participated in the conference“Roma in an Enlarged European Union”, organ-ised by the EU, Brussels, Belgium.

April 29, 2004: Presented Roma rights issues atthe seminar “Old Region, New Institutions: Hun-gary, Romania and the Slovak Republic” atSödertörns högskola, Stockholm, Sweden.

May 3-4, 2004: Held open meetings with civilsociety activists in Brno and Prague, Czech

April 2-4, 2004: Organised a training seminar“Monitoring Roma Rights” for Romani activists,followed by a round-table “Roma and the Police”,Samara, Russia.

April 13, 2004: Sent materials regarding the situa-tion of Roma in Kosovo during and after the Marchethnic tensions to the Parliamentary Assembly ofthe Council of Europe discussing the situation inKosovo in the Second Part of its Plenary Session,between April 26-30, 2004, in extraordinary pro-cedure.

April 14, 2004: Submitted materials pertaining tothe obstacles and discrimination facing Roma inGreece in their access to fundamental social andeconomic rights to the Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights, at its 32nd session, April26-May 14, 2004, reviewing Greece’s initial re-port on its compliance to the International Cov-enant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

April 16, 2004: Submitted written comments per-taining to the matter of Coercive Sterilisations ofRomani Women in the Czech Republic to the Com-mittee Against Torture on the Occasion of its Re-view of the Czech Republic’s compliance with theConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, In-human or Degrading Treatment or Punishment atits 32nd Session, 3-21 May 2004.

April 16-17, 2004: Participated in the Conference“Good Practices in Promoting Romani and Mi-nority Women in the Political and Democratic

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM88

Black


ETHNIC STATISTICS

Republic, to discuss common action on the is-sue of coercive sterilizations of Romani womenin the Czech Republic.

May 7-8 2004: Participated in a workshop organ-ised in the framework of the joint project of theERRC, Interights and Minority Policy Group“Implementing anti-discrimination law in Europe”,Istanbul, Turkey.

May 12, 2004: Held, jointly with local partnerRomani Yag, a training for Romani activists onmonitoring the human rights situation of Roma inUkraine, Lviv, Ukraine.

May 13-14, 2004: Held press conferences inSarajevo and Bijeljina, Bosnia and Herzegovina,to promote the ERRC Country Report "The Non-Constituents: Rights Deprivation of Roma in Post-Genocide Bosnia and Herzegovina".

May 14, 2004: Held a workshop on Roma rightswith the youth network of the Helsinki Committeefor Human Rights Republika Srpska, Bijeljina,Bosnia-Herzegovina.

May 14, 2004: Sent materials pertaining to therights deprivation of Roma in Bosnia andHerzegovina to the Advisory Committee of theFramework Convention on the Protection ofNational Minorities.

May 17, 2004: Gave a lecture on “Anti-discrimina-tion law in the new member-states of the EU”,Luxemburg.

May 18, 2004: Spoke on Roma rights at the confer-ence "Strenghtening Jewish Organisations in the NewEuropean Union Member States", organized by Cen-tre Européen Juif d’information and the EuropeanCouncil of Jewish Communities, Budapest, Hungary.

May 22, 2004: Delivered an open lecture at the Is-tanbul Bilgi University (IBU) on strategic litigationin Central and Eastern Europe, Istanbul, Turkey.

May 26, 2004: Hosted a visit to the ERRC officesby Romani Rose, the Chairman of the Documenta-tion and Cultural Centre of German Sinti and Roma.

May 27, 2004: Participated in a discussion on Romain Hungary, organised by the Institute of Interna-tional Education, Budapest, Hungary.

June 2, 2004: Participated in the side-event “Pro-moting Entrepreneurship and Opportunities forEconomic Development amongst Roma andSinti”, organized in co-operation by the OSCEOCEEA, ODIHR Contact Point on Roma andSinti Issues and the Pakiv-European Roma Fund,as part of the Twelfth Meeting of the OSCEEconomic Forum “New Challenges for Buildingup Institutional and Human Capacity for Eco-nomic Development and Co-operation”, Prague,Czech Republic.

June 3, 2004: Provided a presentation on“Romaphobia” within a seminar entitled“Islamophobia and its Consequences on YoungPeople”, co-organised jointly by the EuropeanCommission against Racism and Intolerance(ECRI) and the Directorate General Youth andSport of the Council of Europe, Budapest, Hun-gary.

June 4, 2004: Held, jointly with local partner RomaniYag, an advocacy training for Romani activists onthe human rights situation of Roma in Ukraine,Odessa, Ukraine.

June 7, 2004: Presented ongoing ERRC work to-ward a report on Roma in an Enlarged EuropeanUnion by the European Commission at a meetingof the Social Platform, Brussels, Belgium.

June 7-9, 2004: Co-organised, together with theCouncil of Europe, the 8th study session on theEuropean Convention on Human Rights for law-yers involved in the provision of legal assistanceto Roma, Strasbourg, France.

June 9, 2004: Attended a conference on anti-rac-ism organised by the Irish Presidency of the Eu-ropean Union, Dublin, Ireland.

June 14, 2004: Met with the Czech Ombudsmanto discuss action to provide redress for Romaniwomen coercively sterilised by Czech doctors,Brno, Czech Republic.

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM89

Black


June 15-16, 2004: Participated in a meeting onracist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda onthe Internet and hate crimes, organised by theOSCE, Paris, France.

June 18, 2004: Submitted a collective complaintagainst Italy under the Revised European SocialCharter presenting ERRC documentation of sys-tematic violations of the rights of Roma in Italy toadequate housing.

June 21, 2004: Participated in a workshop on healthcare organised by the World Bank and the OpenSociety Institute, Budapest, Hungary.

June 22, 2004: Lectured on Roma rights at theEuropean Academy of Bozen/Bolzano, Italy.

June 24-26, 2004: Organised a roundtable discus-sion on Roma-police relations and a training semi-nar “Roma Rights Defence: Strategies and Methods”for Romani activists, St.Petersburg, Russia.

chronicle

SUPPORT THE ERRC

The European Roma Rights Center is dependent upon the

generosity of individual donors for its continued existence.

If you believe the ERRC performs a service valuable to the

public, please join in enabling its future with a contribution.

Gifts of all sizes are welcome, bank transfers to the ERRC

account are

preferred. Please

send your

contribution to:

Bank name: Budapest BankBank address: Báthori utca 1, 1054 Budapest

Bank account holder: European Roma Rights CenterUSD bank account number: 99P00-402686

(USD IBAN: HU21-10103173-40268600-00000998)EUR bank account number: 30P00-402686

(EUR IBAN: HU54-10103173-40268600-00000307)SWIFT (or BIC) code: BUDAHUHB

RR 2004 ii body 3.p65 7/16/2004, 3:20 PM90

Black

Contents · Ivanov and Susanne Milcher present the UNDP ex-perience in assessing the development...

Documents

Transcript of Contents · Ivanov and Susanne Milcher present the UNDP ex-perience in assessing the development...