Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers report of Iceland

The Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the consolidated nineteenth and twentieth periodic reports of Iceland on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Gudlaug Jonasdottir, a Legal Expert with the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Division of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of Iceland, presenting the report, said the Icelandic Government had adopted for the first time a policy on the integration of immigrants in January 2007, with the overall aim to ensure, as far as possible, that all persons resident in Iceland had access to the same opportunities and could play an active part in all segments of society. An Immigration Council had been established in 2005, to discuss the principal issues relating to immigrants' integration into Icelandic society. The Council's main objectives for 2010 were to advise on a bill on integration of immigrants, with priority given to addressing matters that had a bearing on immigrants’ integration which were not covered in other legislation. She also drew attention to the Temporary-Work Agency Act of 2005, one of the aims of which was to guarantee that foreign workers enjoyed social rights on the same basis as Icelanders

Anwar Kemal, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, in preliminary concluding observations, observed that Iceland was a small country, with a small population, and yet it was striving hard to ensure that not only its own citizens, but also those citizens of other countries who had come to Iceland, and whose number was growing, enjoyed basic human rights and were not discriminated against. The areas where the Committee required further effort included the establishment of a national human rights institution, and to make changes in legislation to incorporate the provisions of the Convention. However, the Committee recognized that the situation on the ground indicated that the concerns and objectives of the Convention were being met.
Among questions and issues raised by Committee Experts over the course of the two meetings with the delegation were what was meant in the report by stating that Iceland was a "white society"; the situation with regard to access by non-Icelandic speaking populations to services and public places, in particular places of worship and cemeteries; whether there were any plans to change the curriculum of the required course on other cultures in schools to extend it to religion or belief so that children gained knowledge of those who had different religions; and what were the conditions that the authorities considered when an individual had applied for citizenship.

The delegation of Iceland also contained representatives of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, and the Permanent Mission of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. on Friday 26 February, when it will take up the fourth and fifth periodic reports of Kazakhstan (CERD/C/KAZ/4-5).

Report of Iceland

The combined nineteenth and twentieth periodic report of Iceland (CERD/C/ISL/20) says the Icelandic Government has considered it necessary to take special measures to secure the position of foreign immigrants in Iceland and enable them to adapt to a new society, adopting a policy on the integration of immigrants in January 2007. The overall aim is to ensure, as far as possible, that all persons resident in Iceland have access to the same opportunities and can play an active part in all segments of society. This is the first time that such a policy has been adopted in Iceland. One of the specific aims of the policy is to upgrade teaching in the Icelandic language and on the Icelandic society for adult immigrants, and to ensure that they have access to information about the local society and the rights and obligations of the individual in the country. It also aims to ensure that foreign nationals living and working in Iceland are in possession of the requisite residence and employment permits and receive the same wages and rights as other people. The Icelandic Government’s policy declaration of 23 May 2007 also states that it is important that the Government, industry and the community as a whole unite in combating prejudices against minority groups based on their origin or other considerations.

No legal or administrative provisions in Iceland condone racial discrimination. Such provisions would obviously be in violation of the constitutional principle of equality. Consequently, the courts would ignore such provisions in their judgements. Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities have not instigated or supported measures involving racial discrimination. Increasing public discussion is taking place in the Icelandic media on prejudice towards immigrants. It should be mentioned that it is very difficult to take measures against offensive or derogatory comments against foreigners on the Internet when the homepages in question are hosted on foreign Internet servers. Individuals who consider that they have been discriminated against in Iceland on grounds of their, ethnic origin, race or colour are able to refer their cases to the courts, the executive authorities and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Due to increased immigration to the country, the Government continues to place emphasis on education as a tool to prevent problems involving racial discrimination. The Government believes that education and enlightenment will provide the best solutions to problems involving racial discrimination.

Presentation of Report

GUDLAUG JONASDOTTIR, a Legal Expert with the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Division of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of Iceland, presenting the report, said the Icelandic Government had adopted for the first time a policy on the integration of immigrants in January 2007, with the overall aim to ensure, as far as possible, that all persons resident in Iceland had access to the same opportunities and could play an active part in all segments of society. An Immigration Council had been established in 2005, to discuss the principal issues relating to immigrants' integration into Icelandic society. The Council's main objectives for 2010 were to advise on a bill on integration of immigrants, with priority given to addressing matters that had a bearing on immigrants’ integration which were not covered in other legislation.

A new Refugee Committee had also been established in 2005 to deal with the same issues as those formerly handled by the Refugee Council. The Minister of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs (now the Minister of Justice and Human Rights) had presented a Bill to Parliament in January 2008 to amend the Act on Foreigners, which had entered into force on 1 August 2008. The main aim of the bill was to clarify the Act on Foreigners, make its application more effective, and ensure active monitoring on compliance, Ms. Jonasdottir said.

Ms. Jonasdottir drew attention to other relevant new legislation, including a Temporary-Work Agency Act, enacted in December 2005, one of the aims of which was to guarantee that foreign workers enjoyed social rights on the same basis as Icelanders and to protect the rights of those employed by temporary-work agencies. In addition, the Icelandic Nationality Act had been amended in 2007, bringing requirements foreign nationals had to meet to be granted permanent residence permits into line with the conditions that they had to meet in order to be granted citizenship. Furthermore, new conditions were set for the granting of citizenship, including a requirement that the applicant be solvent, and had passed a test in Icelandic.

The Minister of Social Affairs in January 2008 appointed a working group to examine methods of producing and applying a comprehensive plan of action against trafficking in human beings, and applying a comprehensive plan of action against this, and there had been some developments since. In March 2009 the Government approved the first Governmental Action Plan against trafficking in human beings, with twenty-five actions aimed at combating this, in effect until the end of 2012.

In November 2007, the Minister of Education, Culture and Science had presented three bills to the Althingi (Parliament) addressing children's education from the pre-school level to the end of secondary school, taking account of changes in society and employment, family structures, and the growing numbers of people whose language was not Icelandic, as well as the multicultural diversity of school pupils. That Bill had entered into force on 1 July 2008, Ms. Jonasdottir noted.

On the issue of compliance with the Committee's main recommendations issuing from the seventeenth and eighteenth reports of Iceland, Ms. Jonasdottir said that there should be no doubt that even though the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had not been incorporated into Icelandic legislation, the legal protection resulting from its provisions were guaranteed in practice and through jurisprudence in Iceland. Instead of adopting comprehensive legislation against racial discrimination, Iceland had sought to tackle the problem by enacting legal provisions banning discrimination and by general and specific measures in various fields so as to guarantee and improve the position of foreign nationals in Iceland.

The situation with regard to temporary work permits was designed to enable the Government and the trade unions to better monitor and ensure that foreign workers were not treated unfairly in the domestic labour market. The Directorate of Labour had taken special measures to exercise supervision of workplaces where foreign workers were employed.

In 2009 a situation testing was carried out, and results indicated that even though the national penal code prohibited discrimination in access to public places, staff and business owners in the hospitality industry seemed not to be fully aware of it. More importantly, it appeared that those cases were not being reported to the Police authorities. Accordingly, training for employers and staff in the hospitality industry was one of the projects on the agenda for 2010 to combat discrimination. Anti-discrimination training was to be carried out in the approximately 250 establishments with a liquor license in Reykjavik. That project would serve as a model for other establishments.

Regarding recommendations on a national human rights institution, Ms. Jonasdottir highlighted that the report referred to many institutions and organizations that were directly charged with human rights protection, and there was a special division in the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, called Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which now dealt with those issues.

Questions by Experts

ANWAR KEMAL, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, said Iceland was a democratic State, following the rule of law, and on the whole it tried to protect human rights of its citizens as well as immigrants from overseas. There had been some positive developments since the last consideration of reports in 2005, since when the State Party had signed a number of human rights treaties, as well as regional instruments relevant to the Committee's mandate. Iceland had also adopted in January 2007 a policy on the integration of immigrants. The Government's policy declaration of May 2007 gave priority to immigrant issues, and it was planning to draw up a comprehensive programme of action on those issues. Iceland had also declared its intention of drawing up a programme of action to implement the Durban Declaration.

However, some problem areas remained, Mr. Kemal said. The Convention had still not been incorporated into Iceland's domestic legal order. Iceland had also suffered grievously from the 2008-20099 financial crisis, which had added considerably to unemployment and foreign debt, giving rise to anti-immigrant sentiment. Iceland lacked a comprehensive and exhaustive anti-discrimination legislation, and the law lacked a definition of racial discrimination. Iceland had also not established a national human rights institution with a broad mandate to act on human rights in accordance with the Paris Principles.

The Directorate of Labour had reported that 15 per cent of the unemployed in Iceland were foreign workers, and Mr. Kemal asked how the Government was handling that problem. He also asked whether access to public places denied on racist grounds was a common practice, and if so what the Government intended to do about it.

The rights of asylum-seekers during the asylum process were not clear in the Act on Foreign Nationals, Mr. Kemal observed, and asylum-seekers were therefore sometimes placed in limbo for indefinite periods. The 2008 amendment to the Act on Foreign Nationals could also have adverse implications, requiring as it did the financial requirement of solvency.

Having said this, and bearing in mind the financial crisis which Iceland had been subjected to, which had been far more severe than in other countries, and the fact that Iceland had such a small population, one should avoid being overly critical of the State party, Mr. Kemal believed.

Among questions and issues raised by other Committee Experts were why certain international instruments, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, were not transposed into Icelandic law and what were the criteria allowing for that different treatment; what was meant in the report by stating that Iceland was a "white society"; whether immigrants to the country were mostly non-Icelandic in appearance; the situation with regard to access by non-Icelandic speaking populations to services and public places, in particular places of worship and cemeteries; whether there were any plans to change the curriculum of the required course on other cultures in schools to extend it to religion or belief so that children gained knowledge of those who had different religions; and what were the conditions that the authorities considered when an individual had applied to become a citizen of Iceland.

With regard to an assertion that there had been no cases of discrimination prosecuted in Iceland, Experts recalled that the absence of judicial prosecutions was not generally a good thing in the view of the Committee; the absence of suits and prosecutions was not considered a reliable indicator that there was, in fact, no racial discrimination occurring. An Expert also commended Iceland for allowing human rights groups to operate freely in the country.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to these issues and other questions, the delegation said that at the time when Iceland had ratified the Convention, the Icelandic people had not believed that their legislation needed to be amended to incorporate its provisions. All international human rights Conventions that had been ratified should, however, eventually be incorporated into legislation. The first to be incorporated would be the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Government would then move forward on others.

On budget cuts and allocations, the delegation noted that there were still many non-governmental organizations receiving direct allocations from the State budget, such as the Human Rights Centre and the women's shelter dealing with women victims of sexual abuses, as well as many others, although there had been cuts for some. The University of Iceland also had a human rights institution that dealt with all human rights issues within the University, as well as for the Government on special occasions when it was needed, and it received funding from the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.

Regarding discrimination in access to public places, the Government was also concerned that those cases were not being reported to the authorities. It had carried out a situation testing in 2009, showing that the staff and business owners in the hospitality industry appeared to not be aware of the provisions in the Criminal Code in that regard. A training programme was planned for 2010, and a publicity campaign would be carried out, with posters, handouts, and postcards. That would be a joint effort between the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Human Rights Centre.

Concerning police raids on asylum-seekers, there had only been one case where that had happened. The police had been tipped off that the persons concerned were involved in illegal employment. After the raid, a substantial amount of money was found. Such raids were not something that was undertaken without much consideration, and was not something that took place often, the delegation affirmed.

The trafficking in women issue had seen some substantial developments in Iceland, and a Plan of Action against Trafficking had been approved by the Government in March 2009. The Action Plan, which ran until 2012, outlined 25 actions to combat trafficking. A specialist coordination team had been established to supervise matters, composed of representatives of relevant Ministries and State bodies including the Police, as well as non-governmental organizations.

People who had been denied asylum and had not been deported were given temporary permits, the delegation said, and there had been some criticism that those permits had a short validation period, creating uncertainty. The handling of some asylum applications had been criticized and last summer the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights had appointed a Committee to consider how to improve those practices. A report had been submitted and published, and all non-governmental organizations had been invited to contribute. All the suggestions were being formulated into a draft Bill, which had been published on the Ministry's homepage, and would be submitted in about two weeks. In the Bill, flaws raised by the Experts would be covered.

The Icelandic National Registry and passports did not mention race – everybody with an Icelandic passport was an Icelander. In recent years, the population of foreigners had been growing, although it had now decreased, and applications to be naturalized had increased. Last year there had been 479 applications, a number the State found almost overwhelming, and very few of those had been refused. There was a requirement that applicants passed a test in Icelandic, but if someone had lived in the country for seven years, at which point they were entitled to apply for naturalization, then it would have been very difficult for them to get along without a minimum knowledge of the language. The language test took place twice a year, and less than 10 per cent failed. In 2009, 476 people had taken the test, and 35 had not met the requirements. If a person failed, they could re-sit the test.

In addition, in 2006 the National Registry had undertaken a clean-up procedure to determine the origin of all those persons whose nationality remained undetermined until that date. As of that date, the nationality of all foreign inhabitants of the country was recorded.

Efforts were made to determine that all foreigners coming to the country for family reunification had entered into the marriage voluntarily, the delegation said. The University of Iceland had also opened a public place of worship, open to all religions. Cemeteries were open to all, by law, and all persons could be buried there. Muslim graves were oriented as per their religious needs.

With regard to discrimination in employment, immigrant workers in Iceland were highly praised, and many of them did good jobs. Therefore, in some cases, Icelandic workers might be dismissed from employment before the foreign workers were, the delegation said.

With regard to the opinion that Icelandic legislation lacked comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, the delegation said that the Government had sought instead to enact legal provisions banning discrimination, and to implement measures in various areas to guarantee the rights of foreigners. The reasoning behind that was set forth in the report. Following the recommendation of a Special Committee established under the Ministry of Social Affairs, a Bill was under preparation to bring Icelandic legislation into line with two European Union directives on discrimination. That might make the national legislation more comprehensive.

According to the Ministry of Education and Culture, the school dropout rate was no higher among immigrant youth than among youth of Icelandic origin. The trick was to ensure that they did not stop schooling after primary school, and that they attended secondary school, and the Ministry was finding that to be a challenge. New legislation from 2007 had stipulated that schools implement action plans for each student of foreign origin, aiming at integrating them into secondary school, focusing on the specific needs of the student. Special grants from the State were paid to secondary schools depending on how many young immigrant students were attending the school. The Ministry had also published a comprehensive handbook in seven languages explaining the situation with regard to secondary schools.

The Inter-Cultural Centre in Reykjavik was a non-profit organization funded by the city of Reykjavik and the State, and had not been closed. It still existed, but its business had been reduced due to a lack of funds. Discussions were going on with the city of Reykjavik and local authorities, as well as with the Multicultural Centre, which was outside the city, on how to best serve immigrants and their needs. These two Centres had the best view on how to ensure multicultural harmony in Iceland in the future.

Immigrants from the European Union area were entitled to unemployment benefit if they lost their jobs in Iceland. Immigrants from other areas were provided with funding and services from their local authorities if they could not provide for their families, the delegation said.

Further Questions by Experts

In a further round of questions, Experts raised, among other issues, whether the Government was adopting any measures to protect Icelanders and non-nationals from violence against women; a need for more details on the Law on Immigration; more information on how Icelandic citizens who were not born in the country could integrate into society and what was done to help them to move forward; and the situation of non-accompanied minors and children accompanying their parents who were refugees with no papers and what the Government was doing in their regard.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to questions and issues just raised, the delegation said no asylum-seekers were kept locked up or in closed camps, and all could travel freely within the borders of the country. Most of them lived in guesthouses. In cases of families, they were provided with apartments and the children were always provided with education. Families were given special treatment, as were unaccompanied minors. A procedure had been drafted as to how to look after such children in their best interests.

The State supported women who had experienced violence in Iceland. The proportion of women in the shelter for that purpose was high, but at least it showed that women were using the services, and the Government supported the non-governmental organization working on this. The Government provided counselling centres and support centres for women who had experienced sexual abuse, and local authorities assisted women victims of abuse. The Government also recognized that men could be the victims of such abuse. Handbooks had been issued on how to deal with violence in close relationships, and the Government had implemented an Action Plan, most of which targets had been fulfilled.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

ANWAR KEMAL, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, in preliminary concluding observations, said full and frank replies had been received. Iceland was a small country, with a small population, and yet it was striving hard to ensure that not only its own citizens, but also those citizens of other countries who had come to Iceland, and whose number was growing, enjoyed basic human rights and were not discriminated against. Of course that was a process, and there was always room for improvement. Iceland was no exception to that rule.

The positive developments would be reflected in the report, as would the areas of concern, and the responses made. The areas where the Committee required further effort included the establishment of a national human rights institution, and to make changes in legislation to incorporate the provisions of the Convention. However, the Committee recognized that the situation on the ground indicated that the concerns and objectives of the Convention were being met.
Some of the responses given were indeed encouraging, Mr. Kemal said, and his understanding of the statements was that Iceland would be continuously reviewing the situation, and would move step by step in making progress. In many respects, Iceland was a model for other countries, including in matters such as energy, climate change, and sustainable exploitation of resources.

The Government of Iceland and its people were observing human rights and were trying to provide for and look after all, including those who were not Icelanders and could face difficulties, and were doing better than many other countries in that respect, Mr. Kemal concluded.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record