Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF GERMANY
06 August 2008
Share
Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
6 August 2008
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the sixteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Germany, submitted in one document, on how that State party is fulfilling its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Birgitta Siefker-Eberle, Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introducing the report, said that the Government was actively engaged in implementing the European Union's anti-discrimination directives in Germany, and recognized the importance of effective, independent anti-discrimination agencies that were also accessible to those affected for the practical implementation of, as well as theoretical support for, anti-discrimination legislation. On the international level, Germany had constructively contributed to the Durban Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and had participated in a number of working groups towards the achievements of the Conference's goals.
Patrick Thornberry, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Germany, outlined the Committee's main concerns, including the language of law and administration, in particular the reference to right-wing extremism, and if it had appropriately captured the issues the Committee dealt with; and the lack of ethnic statistics. The Committee looked forward to hearing more details with regard to the National Action Plan against Racism once it had been adopted, and the basic institutional design with regard to racism and racial discrimination. Other concerns included the sources and attraction of racist ideologies; the concept of national integration vs. assimilation; hate speech on the Internet; the balance between German language and other languages which involved social conceptions as to who were the citizens of the State; and clarifications on the Criminal Code and the European Union Directives. Questions had been raised on the how the State identified itself (i.e. as not multi-ethnic); and how Germany defined itself and absorbed the lessons of the past.
Committee Experts raised a number of questions and asked for further information on a number of topics, including details pertaining to the National Action Plan against Racism; the protection of Afro-descendant persons; support or promotion of education for minorities in their mother tongue and in German; dialogue between the Muslim community and the Government, and whether headscarves were permitted in schools; statistics on discrimination complaints from the eastern part of Germany, which were missing in the report; monitoring mechanisms for extremist organizations; damages and compensation paid to victims within the framework of the proceedings of the Anti-discrimination Office; and asylum seeking children excluded from attendance to schools.
The Committee reviewed the report of Germany over two meetings and will issue its concluding observations and recommendations at the end of the session on 15 August.
Germany is one of the 173 States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and is obligated to submit periodic reports on implementation of the provisions of the Convention. It is also one of the 53 States parties who have recognized the competence of the Committee under article 14 of the Convention to consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals claiming to be victims of a violation by States parties of any of the rights set forth in the Convention.
Germany's delegation, which presented the report, included representatives from the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of the Interior; the Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth; the Conference of Education Ministers; the Anti-Discrimination Office; and the Foreign Office.
When the Committee reconvenes this afternoon at 4 p.m. it will consider the situation of Belize and Peru under its review procedure for State's parties whose reports are at least five years overdue.
Report of Germany
The protection of all people against racial discrimination is an objective of outstanding importance to German law and German politics says the sixteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Germany, submitted in one document (CERD/C/DEU/18). The declared belief in the free, democratic basic order and a rejection of all conceivable forms of extremism and racism are among the fundamental principles on which the German Government bases its political activity. On account of the manifold factors which contribute to the emergence of right-wing extremist patterns of behaviour, the German federal government is pursuing a multidimensional strategy which combines preventive and repressive elements. The main emphases are on the four pillars of a proactive human rights policy: strengthening civil society; encouraging people to have the courage to stand up for their convictions (civil courage); promoting the integration of foreigners; and measures directed at perpetrators and their environment.
Integrating immigrants is one very particular focus of the German Government's human rights policy. On the invitation of the Federal Chancellor, representatives of the federal administration, the Länder (states), local government, private industry, society and migrants met for an Integration Summit held in the Federal Chancellery on 14 July 2006. The Summit marked the beginning of a process that will lead to the drawing up of a National Integration Plan by the summer of 2007. This National Integration Plan is to contain clear goals, concrete measures and self-imposed commitments on which to base a sustainable integration policy. In addition, the Government's objective in setting up the German Standing Conference on Islam was to improve religious and social integration of the Muslim population in Germany and to prevent violent Islamism. The government agencies entrusted with the tasks pertaining to the Convention are the Federal Administration and Land-level agencies.
Presentation of Report
BIRGITTA SIEFKER-EBERLE, Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introducing the report, said that Germany would not cease to combat all forms of racism at the national, local and international level. The Government was actively engaged in implementing the European Union's anti-discrimination directives in Germany. In that context, one aspect stressed was the importance of effective, independent anti-discrimination agencies that were also accessible to those affected for the practical implementation of, as well as theoretical support for, anti-discrimination legislation. On the international level, Germany had constructively contributed to the Durban Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and in the past had contributed papers, and had participated in a number of working groups towards the achievements of the Conference's goals.
Ms. Siefker-Eberle concluded by stressing that Germany continued to actively implement the provisions of the Convention in the country and worldwide.
Response by the Delegation to Written Questions by Experts Submitted in Advance
Responding to written questions, which had been submitted by Committee Experts in advance of the meeting, the delegation said the protection and respect for human dignity was part of the values that were the foundation of the German Constitution. Extremist and xenophobic attacks were still a reality in Germany, and reminded the German community of the need to continue to work in this area. Law enforcement, investigation and punishment were only one part of the fight against racism. In changing attitudes and thus addressing deep-rooted hatred, the Government had implemented a number of programmes on integration, education seminars, and resources for teachers. Materials for the education of human rights in schools had also been provided by the Government. Further, international events gave visibility to the fundamental values of society, which were the opposite of racist values.
The National Action Plan against Racism was currently in the final stages of the consultation process, the delegation said. The Federal Government planned to submit it to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva before the end of the year. Civil society had been included in the elaboration of the Action Plan, particularly by way of the “Racism Forum”, in which representatives from various fields participated. It was regarded as a living instrument. Furthermore, the Länder (federal states) and other organizations had been involved in the consultation process of the National Action Plan as well.
The delegation noted that the Federation and the Länder were well aware that, by virtue of Article 6 of the Framework Convention of the Council of Europe for the Protection of National Minorities, it was particularly necessary to protect members of autochthonous minorities in Germany from discrimination. The Convention had direct force of law in Germany. In order to implement the Convention, implementation conferences took place at least once a year with the participation of the competent federal and Land authorities, as well as the national associations of the national minorities, to allow current problems to be dealt with. In this manner, some cases of discrimination had come to light that had affected the members of the national minority of the German Sinti and Roma. Furthermore, the Länder and the Federation had developed a general program of anti-discrimination activities, in conjunction with the relevant associations, to protect national minorities from discrimination.
With regard to the protection of ethnic minorities which were not officially recognized, such as the ethnic immigrant groups of Turkish and Southeast European origin, the delegation said that, like all other groups of immigrants, groups of immigrants of Turkish and Southeast European origin were entitled to unlimited protection under the German legal order. The police laws of the Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany provided the police with the authority necessary to protect individuals from concrete dangers. If it was determined that dangers existed for specific groups of individuals, the police had taken necessary measures on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the Federation and the Länder sponsored extensive activities to combat racism and xenophobia, for example in the context of the “Forum against Racism” already mentioned or the within the framework of the “Alliance for Democracy and Tolerance”.
Among various measures to combat racism and racial discrimination were the Federal Government's commitment of 750 million euros for integration measures and programmes, as well as the establishment of the Standing Conference on Islam, on 27 September 2006, to improve religious and social integration of the Muslim population and to prevent violent Islamism. The Standing Conference was intended as a process of negotiation between the German State and Muslims living in Germany and would last several years.
On measures taken to combat racist propaganda on the Internet, the delegation noted that Germany considered the prosecution of criminal offences committed by way of racist propaganda on the Internet to be an extremely important task. Putting racist propaganda on the Internet was a chargeable offence under several sections of the Criminal Code. In order to guarantee uniform minimum penalties throughout Europe, and sanction racist propaganda on the Internet throughout Europe, a political agreement was achieved under the German European Union Presidency, on 19 April 2007, on a framework decision to combat certain forms and manifestations of racism and xenophobia with criminal law.
In connection with dealing with events held by right-wing extremist organizations, the delegation noted that the State of Schleswig-Holstein had issued an executive on 27 June 2000 informing authorities responsible for averting danger of what decisions and possibilities of action were available to them for each individual case. The goal of the executive order was to resolutely implement public order and police measures in strict compliance with existing law. The introduction of the order described the major trends of right-wing extremism and the goals of such events. In terms of content, the focus was on the subsequent portrayal of appropriate police conduct during such gatherings; it described the preconditions necessary for prohibiting of dispersing such assemblies, and it described in detail the preconditions necessary for assuming such a danger, and which person were responsible under police law. To some extent, other Länder also had internal orders and conduct guidelines for local decision-makers, the delegation added.
The German Government had been monitoring the most right-wing extremist parties in the State, and had also continued to monitor the parties' affiliated organizations. Under the Law of Associations, a number of such organizations had been closed. A number of extremist groups in Germany involved in right wing propaganda were music groups, as was the case of the Lanca Group – a group that disseminated racism, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda which had been prosecuted, and the lead singer had been sentenced to a prison term.
An increase of 200 convictions based on racist propaganda had been identified since 2001, and had illustrated the need to continue to combat racism and xenophobia, the delegation underscored. Germany continued to argue for better international cooperation in that context. German criminal law foresaw the possibility for aggravated circumstances in such cases.
The delegation said it was an important priority for the Government that officers were educated on human rights and racism and racial discrimination. Some programmes had been introduced at the domestic and federal level to educate law enforcement officers, but such education was primarily the responsibility of the national Government.
With regard to the provisions of the General Equality Act, which had come into force in August 2006, the delegation said that in order to effectively counter discrimination in Europe, the Council of the European Union had issued four anti-discrimination Directives: on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (Racial Equality Directive); the establishment of a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Framework Directive); the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as with regard to access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (Amending Directive); and implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supple of goods and services. The Directives had been implemented into national German law by means of the “Law transposing the European Directives on the principle of equal treatment” of 14 August 2006. Article 1 of that law contained the General Equal Treatment Act, which, due to its broad area of application (labour, civil and public law), created a comprehensive anti-discrimination right in the State for the first time. The General Equal Treatment Act sought to prevent and eliminate discrimination based upon race, ethnic origin, gender, religion or beliefs, disability, age or sexual identity. Furthermore, the scope of application (working life, social protection, social benefits, education and civil portion), as well as the definition of the terms “direct” and “indirect discrimination”, “harassment” and “sexual harassment”, had been determined in line with the requirements of the European Union Directives.
German law provided that sentencing had taken into account racist and or other motives as aggravating circumstances – depending on the specific case, noted the delegation. According to the Criminal Code, the court had determined punishment by counterbalancing the circumstances which spoke for and against the perpetrator. The law expressly mentioned the motives and aims of the perpetrator as well as his state of mind reflected in the offence. Therefore expressed xenophobic or racist motives of a criminal offence were taken into account by the judge in determining the punishment. Furthermore, as early as 1962, the Federal Court of Justice decided that racial hatred might be considered to be a base motive within the meaning of the elements of murder pursuant to the Criminal Code (section 211).
The role of the Anti-Discrimination Office was to protect individuals against racial discrimination or disadvantages based on ethnic origin, disability, age, religion or beliefs, gender, or sexual identity. The Office, which had been established on 18 August 2006 when the General Equal Treatment Act had entered into force, was conceived as an independent federal office. The Office, which had 21 staff members, was located in Berlin, and there were also various non-governmental organizations that provided support throughout the country. The work of the Anti-Discrimination Office was supported by an Advisory Council, consisting of 16 representatives of civil society groups and organisations, as well as experts. The Advisory Council was intended to promote dialogue with groups of society and organizations with the goal of providing protection against discrimination. It advised the Anti-Discrimination Office on the submission of reports and recommendations to the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag) and would make its own proposals on the Office's submissions, as well as on scientific studies.
The Anti-Discrimination Office also provided counselling free of charge to individuals, the delegation continued. It was guided by the rights afforded to individuals under the General Equality Act. There were also in-house dispute settlement procedures, to avoid appeals in court. Other responsibilities included raising public awareness of the Act, receiving complaints of rights granted to all citizens under the act, and research projects. Every four years, together with the Commissioners of Parliament responsible for discrimination, a report on the elimination and prevention of such discrimination was presented to the Federal Government.
From 2006 to 2008, approximately 3,000 discrimination complaints were received by the Anti-Discrimination Office, of which 7 per cent were based on people's ethnic origin. Some complaints were dismissed, as they were not found to be discriminatory per se. For example, a rejection of a candidate for employment on the basis of their German-language skills was not viewed by the courts as discrimination based on ethnicity.
It was important to note that not all complaints or all cases of discrimination were solely received by the Anti-Discrimination Office, the delegation said. In some cases where individuals were denied bank loans, for example, there was a specific Ombudsman's office for bank lending cases. Sometimes cases or complaints were subtle while others were direct and obvious. The Government was trying to reach out to human resources and placement services to address some discriminatory cases. A Sinus Community Study looked at the public attitude of the German population with regard to racial discrimination, which had been presented in the fall of 2008. Discrimination with regard to women, elderly, and the disabled were also a top priority. One main objective was to improve data collection, and for this close cooperation at both the domestic and national level was necessary.
Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts
PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Germany, thanked the delegation for their replies and the non-governmental organizations for their contribution on the German Sinti and Roma. The contribution from non-governmental organizations was welcomed. With regard to the written report, and the notions of extremism and racism introduced therein, he would like to know whether right-wing extremism was seen as the same as racism, or was there some distinction? On integration of foreigners and the national integration plan to be drawn up in 2007, he wondered if that plan been completed and asked for more information. Also, did the plan include a concept of immigration relaxation, in particular, on dual citizenship?
On statistical data, it had been noted that the State did not collect that type of data on the basis of ethnicity, Mr. Thornberry continued. This was a problem which remained for the Committee, which had been highlighted a number of times, how were measures taken to address discrimination crafted and monitored without such data? The European Union anti-discrimination Directives had been mentioned; were independent surveys mandated in that context and, if so, how did the State address this?
Mr. Thornberry welcomed the National Action Plan against Racism. The Committee had received some criticisms of that plan by non-governmental organizations; however, despite that, it was noted that it was a living instrument, which changed over time.
Concerning protection of Afro-descendant persons, in the written response, this was issue was not clear and Mr. Thornberry asked for further details. He also asked if immigrant groups enjoyed any protections which were not officially recognized and if so, what were they? In relation to the definition of “national minorities”, the use of that term might have adverse effects and therefore the Committee did not use it. Would Germany give consideration to reviewing that term?
Mr. Thornberry observed that, in the section on article 4 (prohibition of propaganda or organizations that spread racial hatred), the German report contained a range of offences that were not specific, such as “the agitation of the people”. He asked for more information on the corresponding training programmes that existed for the police at the Länder (state) level with regard to the measures taken to eradicate, prevent and punish racially motivated acts of violence as well as ill-treatment inflicted by law enforcement officers.
On the measures taken to address the discrepancies between immigrant children representation in special schools – versus such discrepancies in secondary and tertiary education, which often occurred due to insufficient knowledge of the German language – Mr. Thornberry asked whether school authorities received notification when a refugee child was in the area.
Regarding restrictions on asylum-seekers it was asked if these restrictions were in line with the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. On the European Union framework for compensation, it was noted that hardship payments were mentioned for right-wing extremism and he asked whether other violations were included? On media control and stigmatization, it was noted that limitations on hate speech were circumscribed in criminal law. However, was there an appropriate role for the media to play and did the media and the Anti-Discrimination Office work together in combating this element which contributed to root causes of racism and racial discrimination?
Mr. Thornberry observed that new forms of racism had posed new challenges for Germany, such as immigration. There were many positive virtues in the report, and a very serious national effort to change attitudes, which in the end was the only guarantee in the elimination of racial discrimination.
Committee Experts then raised a number of issues and concerns, including the lack of data; the legal status of the 183 ring-wing extremist organizations mentioned in the written report; what happened to the members of organizations that were declared illegal; the results of the 2001 “BQF programme”, established to improve the professional integration of socially disadvantaged youths and young adults, with a particular focus on young immigrants; and whether the National Action Plan against Racism contained an special measures or affirmative action component. Draft legislation currently under review in the cabinet to consider racial motivations for crimes explicitly as an aggravated circumstance, was welcomed. Other questions involved the status of refugees and asylum-seekers, in particular information that asylum-seeking children had been excluded from schools; what were the next steps to be taken in addressing Internet crime; how the content of extremist information could be regulated; the situation of Togolese refugees in Germany; and what Germany was doing on the international level to combat racial discrimination.
A Committee Expert asked if Germany considered itself a multi-ethnic State. He noted that 8.2 per cent of the population was made up of foreigners, and one fifth of the population had an immigrant background. Therefore, how was the composition of the population reflected in public services including the police? A continuing source of concern for the Committee was the increase in racist and xenophobic incidents and the incidents of violent acts in that context, an Expert noted.
An Expert noted with concern that statistics from the eastern part of Germany were missing in the figures provided, and asked if that was an error or if that was by design? That was particularly troublesome as it appeared that racially motivated incidents and extremism groups were growing faster in that region than in any other region of the country. On the question of citizenship, a new law would come into force next month, and was heavily criticised. In that context, why were the Länder (states) involved in determinations of national citizenship, as in the past they had been known to impose more discriminatory measures?
Response by Delegation to Oral Questions
In response to the oral questions raised by the Committee Experts the delegation said that in regard to the term of ring-wing extremism the Government was not of the opinion that racism only existed at the fringes, but also existed in the mainstream of society. The term ring-wing extremist was used to allude to racist acts for the purposes of collecting data, but did not preclude that the person was a ring-wing extremist. Statistics on all racist crimes were gathered, no crime that was racially motivated was left aside.
With regard to the questions regarding the new German Länder (i.e. former East German states) and the statistics on Police violence, the delegation apologized as it was an error in the written report that these statistics not included, and these figures had been sent to the Committee in the following week. With regard to the questions on the missing data for crimes committed against specific ethnic groups, the data collected in the State was solely collected on the basis of whether the crime affected a citizen of Germany or a non-citizen, and thus the data was not that specific.
Concerns were raised on whether there was a general office for complaints or whether the protection came solely from courts, the delegation said that there was no general Ombudsman for such complaints, however, there were other offices in which such complaints were received. The Anti-Discrimination Office, the Commission of Data Protection, and the Commission for the Armed Forces were some examples. The Petition Committee present at the Federal and all Länder levels was available for carrying out measures for complaints received. The position of the Ombudsman was being developed and that work was ongoing.
Starting from the middle of the 1990's the new Länder of Brandenburg was characterized by right-wing extremist ideologies, the delegation said. In many of the acts of violence that had been prosecuted at the time, it had been found that the more foreign someone was the more violent the acts were. The acts of violence perpetrated in the new Länder of Brandenburg were primarily committed by young men and in large groups. It was not possible to solve this problem with prosecution alone; the whole community needed to help in that effort. In 1997, the Alliance against Racial Violence and Xenophobia had been established in an effort to address that ongoing problem.
The German Standing Conference on Islam was not motivated by racism, it was aimed at creating a dialogue with a focus on religion, noted the delegation. The Federal Government was interested in this dialogue with a view to enhancing the cooperation with religious authorities, and in 2006 the Federal Ministry of the Interior institutionalized the Conference. The Conference was viewed as a long-term negotiation process and did not aim to establish a social contract. Furthermore, there were social players and stakeholders that represented the Muslim community were among the participants. It focused on the German social order and values, religious issues, constitutionalism, the media and economic life in Germany, and security and Islamic radicalism, which were addressed by the working groups in the conference.
With regard to the National Action Plan against Racism, the delegation said it was aimed at sketching out a strategy that needed to be further developed. It focused on prevention of discrimination, which created tolerance for the independence and peacefully co-existence of society. The fundamental direction of the plan was structured into various parts which focused on: policies on human rights and fostering civil society and integration; the area of the right with all its norms and standards; violence prevention, immigration, and assessment.
The National Integration Plan dealt with all people living in Germany with a migration background, i.e., people and their parents who were not born in the country. In 2008, an interim report had been presented. The goal was not to assimilate, but rather to integrate these individuals. Germany was not identified as a multi-ethnic society.
With regard to concerns on the use of the term “national minorities”, the delegation said that in Germany that referred specifically to the Danish, Sorba, Sinti and Roma. There was no need to extend the definition as these groups received specific rights.
With regard to Asylum seekers from Togo, the delegation said that each case was heard on an individual basis to determine if persecution took place. According to the figures for 2007 from the Federal Office for Migration, a total of 118 cases had been received and of those the first 105 had been granted asylum.
Integration was the most important requirement for the success at school noted the delegation. It aimed to preserve one's culture and roots. The Government viewed language skills and language integration as an indispensable requirement for the social and economic integration of a person. The promotion of the German language started at the pre-school level in order to ensure that disadvantages were avoided in the future. Further, the Federal States provided language training in the pupils' mother tongue.
With regard to the wearing of veils/headscarves, no final decision had been made. In some cases teachers were allowed to wear a headscarf and in other cases they were not allowed, noted the delegation. With regard to pupils, there were no restrictions to wearing headscarves. However, there was one case in which a pupil was prohibited from wearing a burka.
Insulting a specific group of society was punishable under the Criminal Code. Moreover, sanctions could be set if the case did not fall specifically within the framework of the law, where an action was seen to aggravate or incite hate towards a particular community. Despite this, the delegation said that Germany attached great importance to freedom of the press and upheld the protection of that right as a priority.
The Public Prosecutor's Office had a specific unit which had the authority to prosecute crimes on grounds of racist motives noted the delegation. General penal regulations (on bodily harm and others), and individual penal regulations were available in Criminal Code. Section 130 of the Criminal Code on the agitation of the people aimed to protect the public peace.
Further Oral Questions by Experts
A second round of questions and concerns were raised by the Committee Experts, including the discrepancies in the recognition of national minorities; the content of human rights training for police officers; whether German children were fully informed about their history and the histories of other nations; and what was the perception of German students on the issue of racism and discrimination? An Expert reverted to the question of statistics and information on the Afro-descendants in the country, which had not yet been answered. It was important to have this data, as these people were the first group to be affected by discrimination in most cases.
Replies by the Delegation
In response to the second round of oral questions by Experts, the delegation said that, with regard to the question of visible minorities, in particular individuals of African descent, and other minorities, the Government had been in dialogue, and taken steps to further address these groups' needs with the Integration Summit and the National Integration Plan which aimed to find solutions to their needs. With regard to data on immigration, the fact was that the discussion in Germany was rather new and would take more time. The views of the Committee had provided a new impetus to the discussion and would be taken into account upon the delegation's return to Germany. It was noted that programmes and long-term public discussion (taking into account that the bedrock of racism had to be driven out) was an ongoing process that complemented legislative measures in changing mindsets to combat and eliminate racial discrimination.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Germany, said the delegation had provided very precise answers. The main topics of concern included the language of law and administration, in particular the reference to right-wing extremism, and if it had appropriately captured the issues the Committee dealt with. Similarly, the question of ethnic statistics was a sensitive matter, and the Committee had noted that a dialogue on this issue was under way in Germany. The Committee also looked forward to hearing more details with regard to the National Action Plan against Racism once it had been adopted, and the basic institutional design with regard to racism and racial discrimination. Of particular interest was the degree of racism needed in cases involving structural discrimination and group elements, which were not just a matter of individual cases. Other concerns included the sources and attraction of racist ideologies; questions of integration, differences between the concept of national integration and a programme of assimilation; the concept of Germany on questions of multi-ethnicity; hate speech on the Internet; the distinction of national minorities and group protection measures and the strict view taken in this regard by the State; economic and social rights within the context of the Convention; the balance between German language and other languages which involved social conceptions as to who were the citizens of the State; and clarifications on the Criminal Code and the European Union Directives.
Questions had been raised on the how the State identified itself (i.e. as not multi-ethnic); and how Germany defined itself and absorbed the lessons of the past, Mr. Thornberry added. Challenges continued to be faced by Germany on questions of law, practice and the views of society with regard to racial discrimination. The State had continued to be proactive and reactive in that regard. The shaping of a tolerant and welcoming society and one which was at peace with itself was a long-term project. The Committee expressed the hope that its recommendations played a small part in achieving that end.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
of Racial Discrimination
6 August 2008
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the sixteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Germany, submitted in one document, on how that State party is fulfilling its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Birgitta Siefker-Eberle, Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introducing the report, said that the Government was actively engaged in implementing the European Union's anti-discrimination directives in Germany, and recognized the importance of effective, independent anti-discrimination agencies that were also accessible to those affected for the practical implementation of, as well as theoretical support for, anti-discrimination legislation. On the international level, Germany had constructively contributed to the Durban Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and had participated in a number of working groups towards the achievements of the Conference's goals.
Patrick Thornberry, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Germany, outlined the Committee's main concerns, including the language of law and administration, in particular the reference to right-wing extremism, and if it had appropriately captured the issues the Committee dealt with; and the lack of ethnic statistics. The Committee looked forward to hearing more details with regard to the National Action Plan against Racism once it had been adopted, and the basic institutional design with regard to racism and racial discrimination. Other concerns included the sources and attraction of racist ideologies; the concept of national integration vs. assimilation; hate speech on the Internet; the balance between German language and other languages which involved social conceptions as to who were the citizens of the State; and clarifications on the Criminal Code and the European Union Directives. Questions had been raised on the how the State identified itself (i.e. as not multi-ethnic); and how Germany defined itself and absorbed the lessons of the past.
Committee Experts raised a number of questions and asked for further information on a number of topics, including details pertaining to the National Action Plan against Racism; the protection of Afro-descendant persons; support or promotion of education for minorities in their mother tongue and in German; dialogue between the Muslim community and the Government, and whether headscarves were permitted in schools; statistics on discrimination complaints from the eastern part of Germany, which were missing in the report; monitoring mechanisms for extremist organizations; damages and compensation paid to victims within the framework of the proceedings of the Anti-discrimination Office; and asylum seeking children excluded from attendance to schools.
The Committee reviewed the report of Germany over two meetings and will issue its concluding observations and recommendations at the end of the session on 15 August.
Germany is one of the 173 States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and is obligated to submit periodic reports on implementation of the provisions of the Convention. It is also one of the 53 States parties who have recognized the competence of the Committee under article 14 of the Convention to consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals claiming to be victims of a violation by States parties of any of the rights set forth in the Convention.
Germany's delegation, which presented the report, included representatives from the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of the Interior; the Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth; the Conference of Education Ministers; the Anti-Discrimination Office; and the Foreign Office.
When the Committee reconvenes this afternoon at 4 p.m. it will consider the situation of Belize and Peru under its review procedure for State's parties whose reports are at least five years overdue.
Report of Germany
The protection of all people against racial discrimination is an objective of outstanding importance to German law and German politics says the sixteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Germany, submitted in one document (CERD/C/DEU/18). The declared belief in the free, democratic basic order and a rejection of all conceivable forms of extremism and racism are among the fundamental principles on which the German Government bases its political activity. On account of the manifold factors which contribute to the emergence of right-wing extremist patterns of behaviour, the German federal government is pursuing a multidimensional strategy which combines preventive and repressive elements. The main emphases are on the four pillars of a proactive human rights policy: strengthening civil society; encouraging people to have the courage to stand up for their convictions (civil courage); promoting the integration of foreigners; and measures directed at perpetrators and their environment.
Integrating immigrants is one very particular focus of the German Government's human rights policy. On the invitation of the Federal Chancellor, representatives of the federal administration, the Länder (states), local government, private industry, society and migrants met for an Integration Summit held in the Federal Chancellery on 14 July 2006. The Summit marked the beginning of a process that will lead to the drawing up of a National Integration Plan by the summer of 2007. This National Integration Plan is to contain clear goals, concrete measures and self-imposed commitments on which to base a sustainable integration policy. In addition, the Government's objective in setting up the German Standing Conference on Islam was to improve religious and social integration of the Muslim population in Germany and to prevent violent Islamism. The government agencies entrusted with the tasks pertaining to the Convention are the Federal Administration and Land-level agencies.
Presentation of Report
BIRGITTA SIEFKER-EBERLE, Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introducing the report, said that Germany would not cease to combat all forms of racism at the national, local and international level. The Government was actively engaged in implementing the European Union's anti-discrimination directives in Germany. In that context, one aspect stressed was the importance of effective, independent anti-discrimination agencies that were also accessible to those affected for the practical implementation of, as well as theoretical support for, anti-discrimination legislation. On the international level, Germany had constructively contributed to the Durban Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and in the past had contributed papers, and had participated in a number of working groups towards the achievements of the Conference's goals.
Ms. Siefker-Eberle concluded by stressing that Germany continued to actively implement the provisions of the Convention in the country and worldwide.
Response by the Delegation to Written Questions by Experts Submitted in Advance
Responding to written questions, which had been submitted by Committee Experts in advance of the meeting, the delegation said the protection and respect for human dignity was part of the values that were the foundation of the German Constitution. Extremist and xenophobic attacks were still a reality in Germany, and reminded the German community of the need to continue to work in this area. Law enforcement, investigation and punishment were only one part of the fight against racism. In changing attitudes and thus addressing deep-rooted hatred, the Government had implemented a number of programmes on integration, education seminars, and resources for teachers. Materials for the education of human rights in schools had also been provided by the Government. Further, international events gave visibility to the fundamental values of society, which were the opposite of racist values.
The National Action Plan against Racism was currently in the final stages of the consultation process, the delegation said. The Federal Government planned to submit it to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva before the end of the year. Civil society had been included in the elaboration of the Action Plan, particularly by way of the “Racism Forum”, in which representatives from various fields participated. It was regarded as a living instrument. Furthermore, the Länder (federal states) and other organizations had been involved in the consultation process of the National Action Plan as well.
The delegation noted that the Federation and the Länder were well aware that, by virtue of Article 6 of the Framework Convention of the Council of Europe for the Protection of National Minorities, it was particularly necessary to protect members of autochthonous minorities in Germany from discrimination. The Convention had direct force of law in Germany. In order to implement the Convention, implementation conferences took place at least once a year with the participation of the competent federal and Land authorities, as well as the national associations of the national minorities, to allow current problems to be dealt with. In this manner, some cases of discrimination had come to light that had affected the members of the national minority of the German Sinti and Roma. Furthermore, the Länder and the Federation had developed a general program of anti-discrimination activities, in conjunction with the relevant associations, to protect national minorities from discrimination.
With regard to the protection of ethnic minorities which were not officially recognized, such as the ethnic immigrant groups of Turkish and Southeast European origin, the delegation said that, like all other groups of immigrants, groups of immigrants of Turkish and Southeast European origin were entitled to unlimited protection under the German legal order. The police laws of the Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany provided the police with the authority necessary to protect individuals from concrete dangers. If it was determined that dangers existed for specific groups of individuals, the police had taken necessary measures on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the Federation and the Länder sponsored extensive activities to combat racism and xenophobia, for example in the context of the “Forum against Racism” already mentioned or the within the framework of the “Alliance for Democracy and Tolerance”.
Among various measures to combat racism and racial discrimination were the Federal Government's commitment of 750 million euros for integration measures and programmes, as well as the establishment of the Standing Conference on Islam, on 27 September 2006, to improve religious and social integration of the Muslim population and to prevent violent Islamism. The Standing Conference was intended as a process of negotiation between the German State and Muslims living in Germany and would last several years.
On measures taken to combat racist propaganda on the Internet, the delegation noted that Germany considered the prosecution of criminal offences committed by way of racist propaganda on the Internet to be an extremely important task. Putting racist propaganda on the Internet was a chargeable offence under several sections of the Criminal Code. In order to guarantee uniform minimum penalties throughout Europe, and sanction racist propaganda on the Internet throughout Europe, a political agreement was achieved under the German European Union Presidency, on 19 April 2007, on a framework decision to combat certain forms and manifestations of racism and xenophobia with criminal law.
In connection with dealing with events held by right-wing extremist organizations, the delegation noted that the State of Schleswig-Holstein had issued an executive on 27 June 2000 informing authorities responsible for averting danger of what decisions and possibilities of action were available to them for each individual case. The goal of the executive order was to resolutely implement public order and police measures in strict compliance with existing law. The introduction of the order described the major trends of right-wing extremism and the goals of such events. In terms of content, the focus was on the subsequent portrayal of appropriate police conduct during such gatherings; it described the preconditions necessary for prohibiting of dispersing such assemblies, and it described in detail the preconditions necessary for assuming such a danger, and which person were responsible under police law. To some extent, other Länder also had internal orders and conduct guidelines for local decision-makers, the delegation added.
The German Government had been monitoring the most right-wing extremist parties in the State, and had also continued to monitor the parties' affiliated organizations. Under the Law of Associations, a number of such organizations had been closed. A number of extremist groups in Germany involved in right wing propaganda were music groups, as was the case of the Lanca Group – a group that disseminated racism, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda which had been prosecuted, and the lead singer had been sentenced to a prison term.
An increase of 200 convictions based on racist propaganda had been identified since 2001, and had illustrated the need to continue to combat racism and xenophobia, the delegation underscored. Germany continued to argue for better international cooperation in that context. German criminal law foresaw the possibility for aggravated circumstances in such cases.
The delegation said it was an important priority for the Government that officers were educated on human rights and racism and racial discrimination. Some programmes had been introduced at the domestic and federal level to educate law enforcement officers, but such education was primarily the responsibility of the national Government.
With regard to the provisions of the General Equality Act, which had come into force in August 2006, the delegation said that in order to effectively counter discrimination in Europe, the Council of the European Union had issued four anti-discrimination Directives: on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (Racial Equality Directive); the establishment of a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Framework Directive); the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as with regard to access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (Amending Directive); and implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supple of goods and services. The Directives had been implemented into national German law by means of the “Law transposing the European Directives on the principle of equal treatment” of 14 August 2006. Article 1 of that law contained the General Equal Treatment Act, which, due to its broad area of application (labour, civil and public law), created a comprehensive anti-discrimination right in the State for the first time. The General Equal Treatment Act sought to prevent and eliminate discrimination based upon race, ethnic origin, gender, religion or beliefs, disability, age or sexual identity. Furthermore, the scope of application (working life, social protection, social benefits, education and civil portion), as well as the definition of the terms “direct” and “indirect discrimination”, “harassment” and “sexual harassment”, had been determined in line with the requirements of the European Union Directives.
German law provided that sentencing had taken into account racist and or other motives as aggravating circumstances – depending on the specific case, noted the delegation. According to the Criminal Code, the court had determined punishment by counterbalancing the circumstances which spoke for and against the perpetrator. The law expressly mentioned the motives and aims of the perpetrator as well as his state of mind reflected in the offence. Therefore expressed xenophobic or racist motives of a criminal offence were taken into account by the judge in determining the punishment. Furthermore, as early as 1962, the Federal Court of Justice decided that racial hatred might be considered to be a base motive within the meaning of the elements of murder pursuant to the Criminal Code (section 211).
The role of the Anti-Discrimination Office was to protect individuals against racial discrimination or disadvantages based on ethnic origin, disability, age, religion or beliefs, gender, or sexual identity. The Office, which had been established on 18 August 2006 when the General Equal Treatment Act had entered into force, was conceived as an independent federal office. The Office, which had 21 staff members, was located in Berlin, and there were also various non-governmental organizations that provided support throughout the country. The work of the Anti-Discrimination Office was supported by an Advisory Council, consisting of 16 representatives of civil society groups and organisations, as well as experts. The Advisory Council was intended to promote dialogue with groups of society and organizations with the goal of providing protection against discrimination. It advised the Anti-Discrimination Office on the submission of reports and recommendations to the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag) and would make its own proposals on the Office's submissions, as well as on scientific studies.
The Anti-Discrimination Office also provided counselling free of charge to individuals, the delegation continued. It was guided by the rights afforded to individuals under the General Equality Act. There were also in-house dispute settlement procedures, to avoid appeals in court. Other responsibilities included raising public awareness of the Act, receiving complaints of rights granted to all citizens under the act, and research projects. Every four years, together with the Commissioners of Parliament responsible for discrimination, a report on the elimination and prevention of such discrimination was presented to the Federal Government.
From 2006 to 2008, approximately 3,000 discrimination complaints were received by the Anti-Discrimination Office, of which 7 per cent were based on people's ethnic origin. Some complaints were dismissed, as they were not found to be discriminatory per se. For example, a rejection of a candidate for employment on the basis of their German-language skills was not viewed by the courts as discrimination based on ethnicity.
It was important to note that not all complaints or all cases of discrimination were solely received by the Anti-Discrimination Office, the delegation said. In some cases where individuals were denied bank loans, for example, there was a specific Ombudsman's office for bank lending cases. Sometimes cases or complaints were subtle while others were direct and obvious. The Government was trying to reach out to human resources and placement services to address some discriminatory cases. A Sinus Community Study looked at the public attitude of the German population with regard to racial discrimination, which had been presented in the fall of 2008. Discrimination with regard to women, elderly, and the disabled were also a top priority. One main objective was to improve data collection, and for this close cooperation at both the domestic and national level was necessary.
Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts
PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Germany, thanked the delegation for their replies and the non-governmental organizations for their contribution on the German Sinti and Roma. The contribution from non-governmental organizations was welcomed. With regard to the written report, and the notions of extremism and racism introduced therein, he would like to know whether right-wing extremism was seen as the same as racism, or was there some distinction? On integration of foreigners and the national integration plan to be drawn up in 2007, he wondered if that plan been completed and asked for more information. Also, did the plan include a concept of immigration relaxation, in particular, on dual citizenship?
On statistical data, it had been noted that the State did not collect that type of data on the basis of ethnicity, Mr. Thornberry continued. This was a problem which remained for the Committee, which had been highlighted a number of times, how were measures taken to address discrimination crafted and monitored without such data? The European Union anti-discrimination Directives had been mentioned; were independent surveys mandated in that context and, if so, how did the State address this?
Mr. Thornberry welcomed the National Action Plan against Racism. The Committee had received some criticisms of that plan by non-governmental organizations; however, despite that, it was noted that it was a living instrument, which changed over time.
Concerning protection of Afro-descendant persons, in the written response, this was issue was not clear and Mr. Thornberry asked for further details. He also asked if immigrant groups enjoyed any protections which were not officially recognized and if so, what were they? In relation to the definition of “national minorities”, the use of that term might have adverse effects and therefore the Committee did not use it. Would Germany give consideration to reviewing that term?
Mr. Thornberry observed that, in the section on article 4 (prohibition of propaganda or organizations that spread racial hatred), the German report contained a range of offences that were not specific, such as “the agitation of the people”. He asked for more information on the corresponding training programmes that existed for the police at the Länder (state) level with regard to the measures taken to eradicate, prevent and punish racially motivated acts of violence as well as ill-treatment inflicted by law enforcement officers.
On the measures taken to address the discrepancies between immigrant children representation in special schools – versus such discrepancies in secondary and tertiary education, which often occurred due to insufficient knowledge of the German language – Mr. Thornberry asked whether school authorities received notification when a refugee child was in the area.
Regarding restrictions on asylum-seekers it was asked if these restrictions were in line with the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. On the European Union framework for compensation, it was noted that hardship payments were mentioned for right-wing extremism and he asked whether other violations were included? On media control and stigmatization, it was noted that limitations on hate speech were circumscribed in criminal law. However, was there an appropriate role for the media to play and did the media and the Anti-Discrimination Office work together in combating this element which contributed to root causes of racism and racial discrimination?
Mr. Thornberry observed that new forms of racism had posed new challenges for Germany, such as immigration. There were many positive virtues in the report, and a very serious national effort to change attitudes, which in the end was the only guarantee in the elimination of racial discrimination.
Committee Experts then raised a number of issues and concerns, including the lack of data; the legal status of the 183 ring-wing extremist organizations mentioned in the written report; what happened to the members of organizations that were declared illegal; the results of the 2001 “BQF programme”, established to improve the professional integration of socially disadvantaged youths and young adults, with a particular focus on young immigrants; and whether the National Action Plan against Racism contained an special measures or affirmative action component. Draft legislation currently under review in the cabinet to consider racial motivations for crimes explicitly as an aggravated circumstance, was welcomed. Other questions involved the status of refugees and asylum-seekers, in particular information that asylum-seeking children had been excluded from schools; what were the next steps to be taken in addressing Internet crime; how the content of extremist information could be regulated; the situation of Togolese refugees in Germany; and what Germany was doing on the international level to combat racial discrimination.
A Committee Expert asked if Germany considered itself a multi-ethnic State. He noted that 8.2 per cent of the population was made up of foreigners, and one fifth of the population had an immigrant background. Therefore, how was the composition of the population reflected in public services including the police? A continuing source of concern for the Committee was the increase in racist and xenophobic incidents and the incidents of violent acts in that context, an Expert noted.
An Expert noted with concern that statistics from the eastern part of Germany were missing in the figures provided, and asked if that was an error or if that was by design? That was particularly troublesome as it appeared that racially motivated incidents and extremism groups were growing faster in that region than in any other region of the country. On the question of citizenship, a new law would come into force next month, and was heavily criticised. In that context, why were the Länder (states) involved in determinations of national citizenship, as in the past they had been known to impose more discriminatory measures?
Response by Delegation to Oral Questions
In response to the oral questions raised by the Committee Experts the delegation said that in regard to the term of ring-wing extremism the Government was not of the opinion that racism only existed at the fringes, but also existed in the mainstream of society. The term ring-wing extremist was used to allude to racist acts for the purposes of collecting data, but did not preclude that the person was a ring-wing extremist. Statistics on all racist crimes were gathered, no crime that was racially motivated was left aside.
With regard to the questions regarding the new German Länder (i.e. former East German states) and the statistics on Police violence, the delegation apologized as it was an error in the written report that these statistics not included, and these figures had been sent to the Committee in the following week. With regard to the questions on the missing data for crimes committed against specific ethnic groups, the data collected in the State was solely collected on the basis of whether the crime affected a citizen of Germany or a non-citizen, and thus the data was not that specific.
Concerns were raised on whether there was a general office for complaints or whether the protection came solely from courts, the delegation said that there was no general Ombudsman for such complaints, however, there were other offices in which such complaints were received. The Anti-Discrimination Office, the Commission of Data Protection, and the Commission for the Armed Forces were some examples. The Petition Committee present at the Federal and all Länder levels was available for carrying out measures for complaints received. The position of the Ombudsman was being developed and that work was ongoing.
Starting from the middle of the 1990's the new Länder of Brandenburg was characterized by right-wing extremist ideologies, the delegation said. In many of the acts of violence that had been prosecuted at the time, it had been found that the more foreign someone was the more violent the acts were. The acts of violence perpetrated in the new Länder of Brandenburg were primarily committed by young men and in large groups. It was not possible to solve this problem with prosecution alone; the whole community needed to help in that effort. In 1997, the Alliance against Racial Violence and Xenophobia had been established in an effort to address that ongoing problem.
The German Standing Conference on Islam was not motivated by racism, it was aimed at creating a dialogue with a focus on religion, noted the delegation. The Federal Government was interested in this dialogue with a view to enhancing the cooperation with religious authorities, and in 2006 the Federal Ministry of the Interior institutionalized the Conference. The Conference was viewed as a long-term negotiation process and did not aim to establish a social contract. Furthermore, there were social players and stakeholders that represented the Muslim community were among the participants. It focused on the German social order and values, religious issues, constitutionalism, the media and economic life in Germany, and security and Islamic radicalism, which were addressed by the working groups in the conference.
With regard to the National Action Plan against Racism, the delegation said it was aimed at sketching out a strategy that needed to be further developed. It focused on prevention of discrimination, which created tolerance for the independence and peacefully co-existence of society. The fundamental direction of the plan was structured into various parts which focused on: policies on human rights and fostering civil society and integration; the area of the right with all its norms and standards; violence prevention, immigration, and assessment.
The National Integration Plan dealt with all people living in Germany with a migration background, i.e., people and their parents who were not born in the country. In 2008, an interim report had been presented. The goal was not to assimilate, but rather to integrate these individuals. Germany was not identified as a multi-ethnic society.
With regard to concerns on the use of the term “national minorities”, the delegation said that in Germany that referred specifically to the Danish, Sorba, Sinti and Roma. There was no need to extend the definition as these groups received specific rights.
With regard to Asylum seekers from Togo, the delegation said that each case was heard on an individual basis to determine if persecution took place. According to the figures for 2007 from the Federal Office for Migration, a total of 118 cases had been received and of those the first 105 had been granted asylum.
Integration was the most important requirement for the success at school noted the delegation. It aimed to preserve one's culture and roots. The Government viewed language skills and language integration as an indispensable requirement for the social and economic integration of a person. The promotion of the German language started at the pre-school level in order to ensure that disadvantages were avoided in the future. Further, the Federal States provided language training in the pupils' mother tongue.
With regard to the wearing of veils/headscarves, no final decision had been made. In some cases teachers were allowed to wear a headscarf and in other cases they were not allowed, noted the delegation. With regard to pupils, there were no restrictions to wearing headscarves. However, there was one case in which a pupil was prohibited from wearing a burka.
Insulting a specific group of society was punishable under the Criminal Code. Moreover, sanctions could be set if the case did not fall specifically within the framework of the law, where an action was seen to aggravate or incite hate towards a particular community. Despite this, the delegation said that Germany attached great importance to freedom of the press and upheld the protection of that right as a priority.
The Public Prosecutor's Office had a specific unit which had the authority to prosecute crimes on grounds of racist motives noted the delegation. General penal regulations (on bodily harm and others), and individual penal regulations were available in Criminal Code. Section 130 of the Criminal Code on the agitation of the people aimed to protect the public peace.
Further Oral Questions by Experts
A second round of questions and concerns were raised by the Committee Experts, including the discrepancies in the recognition of national minorities; the content of human rights training for police officers; whether German children were fully informed about their history and the histories of other nations; and what was the perception of German students on the issue of racism and discrimination? An Expert reverted to the question of statistics and information on the Afro-descendants in the country, which had not yet been answered. It was important to have this data, as these people were the first group to be affected by discrimination in most cases.
Replies by the Delegation
In response to the second round of oral questions by Experts, the delegation said that, with regard to the question of visible minorities, in particular individuals of African descent, and other minorities, the Government had been in dialogue, and taken steps to further address these groups' needs with the Integration Summit and the National Integration Plan which aimed to find solutions to their needs. With regard to data on immigration, the fact was that the discussion in Germany was rather new and would take more time. The views of the Committee had provided a new impetus to the discussion and would be taken into account upon the delegation's return to Germany. It was noted that programmes and long-term public discussion (taking into account that the bedrock of racism had to be driven out) was an ongoing process that complemented legislative measures in changing mindsets to combat and eliminate racial discrimination.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Germany, said the delegation had provided very precise answers. The main topics of concern included the language of law and administration, in particular the reference to right-wing extremism, and if it had appropriately captured the issues the Committee dealt with. Similarly, the question of ethnic statistics was a sensitive matter, and the Committee had noted that a dialogue on this issue was under way in Germany. The Committee also looked forward to hearing more details with regard to the National Action Plan against Racism once it had been adopted, and the basic institutional design with regard to racism and racial discrimination. Of particular interest was the degree of racism needed in cases involving structural discrimination and group elements, which were not just a matter of individual cases. Other concerns included the sources and attraction of racist ideologies; questions of integration, differences between the concept of national integration and a programme of assimilation; the concept of Germany on questions of multi-ethnicity; hate speech on the Internet; the distinction of national minorities and group protection measures and the strict view taken in this regard by the State; economic and social rights within the context of the Convention; the balance between German language and other languages which involved social conceptions as to who were the citizens of the State; and clarifications on the Criminal Code and the European Union Directives.
Questions had been raised on the how the State identified itself (i.e. as not multi-ethnic); and how Germany defined itself and absorbed the lessons of the past, Mr. Thornberry added. Challenges continued to be faced by Germany on questions of law, practice and the views of society with regard to racial discrimination. The State had continued to be proactive and reactive in that regard. The shaping of a tolerant and welcoming society and one which was at peace with itself was a long-term project. The Committee expressed the hope that its recommendations played a small part in achieving that end.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: