Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
17 August 2000
Share
CERD
57th session
17 August 2000
Afternoon
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination started this afternoon its consideration of a fifteenth periodic report by Norway on how that country was abiding by the terms of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing his country's report, Petter Wille, Deputy Director General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, assured the Committee that combatting racial discrimination and promotion of integration and equal rights and opportunities for everyone, irrespective of their ethnic and cultural background, was a priority for his Government.
Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the report of Norway, said the Committee applauded Norway's gesture to apologize to the Roma for abuses they had suffered over the decades. Acknowledging those injustices towards them and their children had taken courage. It was a positive signal to other countries which were guilty of similar acts of injustice.
The following Committee members also spoke: Régis de Gouttes, Deci Zou, Peter Nobel, Michael Parker Banton, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Yuri A. Rechetov, Luis Valencia Rodriguez, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr and Ion Diaconu.
The Norwegian delegation was also made up of Barbro Bakken, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development; Margit Tveiten, Assistant Director General, and Roger Ostbol, Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Anita Vardoy, Executive Officer, Ministry of Justice; and Roald Naess, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Norway at Geneva.
As one of the 156 States parties to the Convention, Norway is obligated to submit periodic summaries to the Committee on its performance to implement the provisions of the treaty.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 18 August, it will conclude its consideration of the report of Norway.
Report of Norway
The fifteenth periodic report of Norway (document CERD/C/363/Add.3) enumerates recent measures taken by the Government to combat racial bias. It also provides replies and information to the concluding observations on the last Norwegian report. The report says that in January 1999, a new department was established at the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development called the Department of Indigenous, Minority and Immigrant Affairs. As a result, efforts to combat racism and racial discrimination were better coordinated and were given a wider perspective.
The report says that the registration of incidents of racism and discrimination is not yet satisfactory. Existing registration shows a trend towards fewer acute, serious incidents of racially motivated violence in 1998 compared with previous years. Meanwhile, the Directorate of Immigration states in its annual report of 1998 that though serious incidents of racist violence and extreme right-wing activity seem to have declined in the last few years, racist harassment and threats continue to be a problem.
Presentation of Norwegian Report
PETTER WILLE, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that since the submission of the last periodic report, Norway had presented a national plan of action on human rights; and half of the measures in the plan dealt with domestic human rights issues.
Mr. Wille recalled that his Government on 3 March this year had appointed a law commission with the mandate to present one or more proposals for an act against ethnic discrimination, with the purpose of strengthening the legal protection against ethnic discrimination. In addition, one of the important tasks of the commission was to find ways of ensuring a better implementation and reflection of the Convention in Norwegian law. The mandate also included a focus on improving the protection against discrimination in the fields of labour and housing.
In conclusion, Mr. Wille assured the Committee that combatting racial discrimination and promotion of integration and equal rights and opportunities for everyone, irrespective of their ethnic and cultural background, was a priority for his Government.
Discussion
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur on the report of Norway, said that Norway had been urged in the past to strengthen its efforts to promote understanding and tolerance with regards to immigrants in the country. The creation of the centre for the prevention of ethnic discrimination was an applaudable gesture.
She said that it did appear, however, from reports of the Directorate of Immigration, that racist harassment and threats continued to be a problem. Was it also true that in recent years, political parties had broadened the limit concerning what could be said about immigrants, their culture and their religion. That situation had led immigrants to feel that they were a burden, a strain and a problem to the rest of the society. Was that true that immigration laws and related policies had been tightened?
While the Committee welcomed Norway's policy on unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, Ms. January-Bardill said she was a little concerned about its reliance on the so-called "independent experience" of an individual to decide whether to remand those who evaded rejection orders; it appeared to be arbitrary; in addition, some recent reports claimed that asylum seekers had a difficult time in Norwegian reception centres with law standards of services. Further elaboration was demanded from the delegation.
Ms. January-Bardill said that the equivalent of stop and search rules were being used by police to conduct spot checks on "suspicious looking immigrants". The delegation was asked to clarify why that particular mechanism was considered to be so effective. Why were Travellers the only ones subjected to body searches?
What had happened to the proposal to expel "aliens" who suffered from serious psychological disturbances? Did the sources and cause of those disturbances matter, asked Ms. January-Bardill.
Unlawful dismissal of minorities from their employment had been reported despite efforts by trade unions and other associations, Ms. January-Bardill said. The problem of employment mainly affected immigrants, particularly those from Africa. The reason given to the problem was language proficiency and lack of work experience. But much still needed to be done to facilitate employment of minorities in the public sector. What steps were taken to encourage better employment practices of immigrants in public and private institutions by way of affirmative action?
Ms. January-Bardill said that the Committee commended the steps taken by the Government to train doormen and other gatekeepers in Oslo in 1998 to avert discrimination at restaurants and pubs. However, accounts from individuals had suggested that area required further measures to find effective sanctions to change practices in restaurants, discos and other social recreational facilities.
The initiative to involve the Sami so that they had greater influence in the administration of land was a positive step forward, Ms. January-Bardill said. However, the Kren minority was not protected by international conventions governing rights for indigenous population groups. In addition, non-governmental organizations felt that the Kren minority had been subjected to an assimilation process of "Norvegianization" in the past as the Sami minority had.
In conclusion, Ms. January-Bardill said that the Committee applauded Norway's gesture to apologize to the Roma for abuses they had suffered over the decades. Acknowledging those injustices towards them and their children had taken courage and it would be a positive signal to other countries which were guilty of similar acts of injustice.
Other Committee experts also made remarks on the Norwegian report, invoking cases in which racial discrimination was manifested. An expert said that a real estate agent had put an advertisement for house rent using discriminatory words. Because the agent was said to be instructed to do so, no legal consequence was retained against her. Another expert said that a foreigner residing in Norway who had the intention to buy a house was asked to pay higher price than the next buyer.
The report did not include racist incidents that took place during the reporting period, an expert said. Another expert noted that racial discrimination existed in Norwegian prisons and asked the number of prisoners of immigrant origin. The same expert said that 12.7 of the unemployed persons were immigrants from Africa. The State party had said that the major obstacle in employment was the language handicap, but why was it that the number of unemployed Africans was double that of immigrants from other regions? Was that because of the colour of their skin?
The apology extended by the Norwegian Government to Roma people for the abuses they had suffered in the past was welcomed by many experts.
* *** *
57th session
17 August 2000
Afternoon
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination started this afternoon its consideration of a fifteenth periodic report by Norway on how that country was abiding by the terms of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing his country's report, Petter Wille, Deputy Director General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, assured the Committee that combatting racial discrimination and promotion of integration and equal rights and opportunities for everyone, irrespective of their ethnic and cultural background, was a priority for his Government.
Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the report of Norway, said the Committee applauded Norway's gesture to apologize to the Roma for abuses they had suffered over the decades. Acknowledging those injustices towards them and their children had taken courage. It was a positive signal to other countries which were guilty of similar acts of injustice.
The following Committee members also spoke: Régis de Gouttes, Deci Zou, Peter Nobel, Michael Parker Banton, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Yuri A. Rechetov, Luis Valencia Rodriguez, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr and Ion Diaconu.
The Norwegian delegation was also made up of Barbro Bakken, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development; Margit Tveiten, Assistant Director General, and Roger Ostbol, Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Anita Vardoy, Executive Officer, Ministry of Justice; and Roald Naess, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Norway at Geneva.
As one of the 156 States parties to the Convention, Norway is obligated to submit periodic summaries to the Committee on its performance to implement the provisions of the treaty.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 18 August, it will conclude its consideration of the report of Norway.
Report of Norway
The fifteenth periodic report of Norway (document CERD/C/363/Add.3) enumerates recent measures taken by the Government to combat racial bias. It also provides replies and information to the concluding observations on the last Norwegian report. The report says that in January 1999, a new department was established at the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development called the Department of Indigenous, Minority and Immigrant Affairs. As a result, efforts to combat racism and racial discrimination were better coordinated and were given a wider perspective.
The report says that the registration of incidents of racism and discrimination is not yet satisfactory. Existing registration shows a trend towards fewer acute, serious incidents of racially motivated violence in 1998 compared with previous years. Meanwhile, the Directorate of Immigration states in its annual report of 1998 that though serious incidents of racist violence and extreme right-wing activity seem to have declined in the last few years, racist harassment and threats continue to be a problem.
Presentation of Norwegian Report
PETTER WILLE, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that since the submission of the last periodic report, Norway had presented a national plan of action on human rights; and half of the measures in the plan dealt with domestic human rights issues.
Mr. Wille recalled that his Government on 3 March this year had appointed a law commission with the mandate to present one or more proposals for an act against ethnic discrimination, with the purpose of strengthening the legal protection against ethnic discrimination. In addition, one of the important tasks of the commission was to find ways of ensuring a better implementation and reflection of the Convention in Norwegian law. The mandate also included a focus on improving the protection against discrimination in the fields of labour and housing.
In conclusion, Mr. Wille assured the Committee that combatting racial discrimination and promotion of integration and equal rights and opportunities for everyone, irrespective of their ethnic and cultural background, was a priority for his Government.
Discussion
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur on the report of Norway, said that Norway had been urged in the past to strengthen its efforts to promote understanding and tolerance with regards to immigrants in the country. The creation of the centre for the prevention of ethnic discrimination was an applaudable gesture.
She said that it did appear, however, from reports of the Directorate of Immigration, that racist harassment and threats continued to be a problem. Was it also true that in recent years, political parties had broadened the limit concerning what could be said about immigrants, their culture and their religion. That situation had led immigrants to feel that they were a burden, a strain and a problem to the rest of the society. Was that true that immigration laws and related policies had been tightened?
While the Committee welcomed Norway's policy on unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, Ms. January-Bardill said she was a little concerned about its reliance on the so-called "independent experience" of an individual to decide whether to remand those who evaded rejection orders; it appeared to be arbitrary; in addition, some recent reports claimed that asylum seekers had a difficult time in Norwegian reception centres with law standards of services. Further elaboration was demanded from the delegation.
Ms. January-Bardill said that the equivalent of stop and search rules were being used by police to conduct spot checks on "suspicious looking immigrants". The delegation was asked to clarify why that particular mechanism was considered to be so effective. Why were Travellers the only ones subjected to body searches?
What had happened to the proposal to expel "aliens" who suffered from serious psychological disturbances? Did the sources and cause of those disturbances matter, asked Ms. January-Bardill.
Unlawful dismissal of minorities from their employment had been reported despite efforts by trade unions and other associations, Ms. January-Bardill said. The problem of employment mainly affected immigrants, particularly those from Africa. The reason given to the problem was language proficiency and lack of work experience. But much still needed to be done to facilitate employment of minorities in the public sector. What steps were taken to encourage better employment practices of immigrants in public and private institutions by way of affirmative action?
Ms. January-Bardill said that the Committee commended the steps taken by the Government to train doormen and other gatekeepers in Oslo in 1998 to avert discrimination at restaurants and pubs. However, accounts from individuals had suggested that area required further measures to find effective sanctions to change practices in restaurants, discos and other social recreational facilities.
The initiative to involve the Sami so that they had greater influence in the administration of land was a positive step forward, Ms. January-Bardill said. However, the Kren minority was not protected by international conventions governing rights for indigenous population groups. In addition, non-governmental organizations felt that the Kren minority had been subjected to an assimilation process of "Norvegianization" in the past as the Sami minority had.
In conclusion, Ms. January-Bardill said that the Committee applauded Norway's gesture to apologize to the Roma for abuses they had suffered over the decades. Acknowledging those injustices towards them and their children had taken courage and it would be a positive signal to other countries which were guilty of similar acts of injustice.
Other Committee experts also made remarks on the Norwegian report, invoking cases in which racial discrimination was manifested. An expert said that a real estate agent had put an advertisement for house rent using discriminatory words. Because the agent was said to be instructed to do so, no legal consequence was retained against her. Another expert said that a foreigner residing in Norway who had the intention to buy a house was asked to pay higher price than the next buyer.
The report did not include racist incidents that took place during the reporting period, an expert said. Another expert noted that racial discrimination existed in Norwegian prisons and asked the number of prisoners of immigrant origin. The same expert said that 12.7 of the unemployed persons were immigrants from Africa. The State party had said that the major obstacle in employment was the language handicap, but why was it that the number of unemployed Africans was double that of immigrants from other regions? Was that because of the colour of their skin?
The apology extended by the Norwegian Government to Roma people for the abuses they had suffered in the past was welcomed by many experts.
* *** *