Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers report of France

12 August 2010

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined seventeenth through nineteenth periodic reports of France on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Jacques Pellet, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the debate on national identity was launched in 2009 and a major issue it revealed was the importance of strengthening the integration of newly arrived people in France. A number of initiatives had been undertaken to accomplish this, including language training for immigrants. There was also training for immigrant parents of school age children to help them overcome their fear of school institutions. This included improving their knowledge of the French language, presenting principles and values of the Republic and helping them understand what it meant to be a parent in France.

Regarding the issue of Roma persons and travellers, Mr. Pellet said that these groups in France did encounter significant economic and social difficulties. Travellers, who were French citizens, had to be distinguished from the Roma, who were often Romanian or Bulgarian. The socio-economic situation of the Roma was extremely precarious which made integration difficult and it was indispensible to deal with the causes of these problems in order to combat them. It was a challenge that had to be tackled on the country level, the regional level and the European Union level. There was a joint French and Romanian task force to deal with the conditions facing the Roma in their home country which forced them to leave. Travellers faced other challenges because of their itinerant lifestyle. More particularly, Mr. Pellet said that reception areas reserved for travellers would be continued and access to voting was also an issue they were addressing.

In preliminary concluding observations, Pierre-Richard Prosper, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of France, said there were many positives they heard about in France, including the numerous tools at its disposal to address these problems and a forward looking vision for the future. However, the Committee would ask that the State reconsider its position on statistics, which were not designed to further discrimination, but rather to identify problems and groups that suffered from discrimination and the reasons why in order to devise solutions. Mr. Prosper applauded the national action plan to combat racism, but said it would be a challenge to identify the problems and then tackle the attitudes of people. Hopefully the national plan would look at the issues of statistics, the Roma and travellers and the overseas territories.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, the draft legislation that proposed to strip naturalized citizens of citizenship for committing certain crimes, the status of Roma and traveller communities in France and their rights as European Union citizens, the lack of recognition of indigenous peoples in France and its departments, the lack of statistics on racial and ethnic minorities, racism in sports, and measures taken to ban ostensible religious symbols in school.

The delegation of France also included representatives from the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Immigration, National Identity, Integration and Solidarity Development, the Ministry of the Environment, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea, and the Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the report of France at the end of its session, which concludes on 27 August.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of Slovenia (CRD/C/SVN/7).

Report of France

The combined seventeenth through nineteenth periodic reports of France, submitted in one document (CERD/C/FRA/17-19), states that France does not recognize the existence within its territory of minorities with a legal status as such, and takes the view that the application of human rights to all of a State’s citizens, on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, normally provides them with the full and complete protection to which they are entitled, whatever their situation. France’s traditional view of minorities flows from principles rooted in its history and fixed by the Constitution. This view is founded on two basic concepts: citizens have equal rights, which imply non-discrimination, and the nation is united and indivisible, in terms of both territory and the population.

The urban violence of autumn 2005 placed equality of opportunity at the core of government action and, on 22 December 2005 (Decree No. 2005-1621), the Government appointed six prefects for equal opportunities in the départements worst affected (Val d’Oise, Essonne, Nord, Seine Saint-Denis, Rhône and Bouches du Rhône). The Equal Opportunities Act of 31 March 2006 set up the National Agency for Social Cohesion and Equality of Opportunity (ACSé), which replaced the Action and Support Fund for Integration and Combating Discrimination. The Agency’s role is to improve the effectiveness of the State’s urban-policy measures to help the inhabitants of designated “priority” districts, to improve the integration of immigrants and persons of immigrant origin, as well as to combat discrimination. Meantime, responsibility for the reception of immigrant population groups has been transferred to the National Agency for the Reception of Foreigners and Migration (ANAEM).
The French Government is deeply committed to the principles of the universality, indivisibility and effectiveness of human rights, which it is responsible for promoting in all of the French overseas collectives. France does not recognize the concept of “ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities”. The principles of the equality of citizens and the unity of the “French nation”, set out in the Constitution, preclude the recognition of collective rights that are conferred on a group by reason of the community they form. Although French law does not recognize the concept of specific rights accorded to indigenous and local communities, the State has nonetheless long been able to integrate the practices, customs and local knowledge of the overseas communities in its policies for the recognition and integration of indigenous peoples. The French approach does not preclude the right of the indigenous peoples of overseas France to enjoy their own cultural life, in common with the other members of their group, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language.
Presentation of Report

JACQUES PELLET, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introducing the report, said that the miracle of the Republic was that it had forged a unity in France made up of many different cultures. Still, there was work that needed to be done. It was not enough to proclaim equality, it had to be implemented. These words were from a quote given in 2008 on the equality of opportunity.

The debate about national identity, begun in 2009, revealed concern among French authorities about the need to recall and strengthen Republican values. The struggle against discrimination was based on a policy of integration, not just on a legal basis. This will for integration could be seen in all fields of public life, and in school, in the workplace and in the search for housing and a series of initiatives had been launched to give everyone an equal chance no matter what their ethnic origin may be.

Mr. Pellet noted that integration was not assimilation and that belonging to an indivisible Republic did not negate cultural diversity. The richness of the culture was owed to those who had come to the country over the centuries and this shared history was something to bring to the whole of the society. Dealing with certain aspects of racism and xenophobia required the adoption of measures that went beyond the simple French framework, including dealing with racism on the Internet.

This debate on national identity was launched in 2009 and a major issue it revealed was the importance of strengthening the integration of newly arrived people in France. A number of initiatives had been undertaken to accomplish this, including language training for immigrants. There was also training for immigrant parents of school age children to help them overcome their fear of school institutions. This included improving their knowledge of the French language, presenting principles and values of the Republic and helping them understand what it meant to be a parent in France.

The integration policy also covered other aspects of public life, including education and employment. In terms of ending discrimination in schools, it was mandatory that all forms of discrimination were rejected in schools and a prohibition was placed on all discriminatory harassment that undermined the dignity of a person, including harassing language. “Hope in the Suburbs” was a programme that sought to reduce the gaps in education in underprivileged neighbourhoods versus other communities. There was also a programme for personalized support for school children during the school year and during school breaks. There were measures to combat school exclusion, including university preparatory classes for children from underprivileged backgrounds.

Mr. Pellet said that complaints of employment discrimination were numerous among those addressed to the authority combating discrimination and inequality. The anonymous CV was a programme that would be implemented to cut down on employment discrimination.

Regarding the right to housing, Mr. Pellet informed the Committee that a 2007 equal right to housing law was a considerable step forward for the country. It was already a basic right, but this law created a legal remedy and set up an authority responsible for the results. Since 2008 commissions of mediation were established that dealt with amicable complaints for the provision of housing. The law also created a committee to follow up on the implementation to the forcible right to housing. There were also measures taken to protect tenants’ rights by strengthening actions to prevent expulsion of tenants.

Moving on to the issue of Roma persons and travellers, Mr. Pellet said that these groups in France did encounter significant economic and social difficulties. Travellers, who were French citizens, had to be distinguished from the Roma, who were often Romanian or Bulgarian. The socio-economic situation of the Roma was extremely precarious which made integration difficult and it was indispensible to deal with the causes of these problems in order to combat them. It was a challenge that had to be tackled on the country level, the regional level and the European Union level. There was a joint French and Romanian task force to deal with the conditions facing the Roma in their home country which forced them to leave.

Travellers faced other challenges because of their itinerant lifestyle. More particularly, Mr. Pellet said that reception areas reserved for travellers would be continued and access to voting was also an issue they were addressing.

Mr. Pellet said it was important to study the past in order to acknowledge the contributions of immigrants in building France, but also to remember the intolerable discriminations perpetrated throughout the centuries in the country. There was a museum that organized seminars, exhibitions, cultural seminars and other activities to shed light on these issues. France had taken an active part in a series of initiatives aimed at making better known the dark pages in the book of history of World War II. The Shoa needed to be remembered to combat anti-Semitism and the Government supported the Aladdin project, which was very involved in making the Holocaust better known, especially in the Arab world. The Holocaust task force worked on questions of memory, but also helped to combat anti-Semitism. Slavery was part and parcel of the history of the country, and France acknowledged this part of its history and also helped to combat modern day slavery and trafficking.

In 2009 the Ministry of Justice and Liberties instituted measures to combat racism and anti-Semitism with a criminal response that was quick and firm and implemented by judges. The competence of these measures was extended to include all acts committed on the grounds of religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Anti-discrimination activities also involved sensitization activities, training days for the judicial police, and dissemination of a guide on how to carry out inquiries into hate crimes to judicial police. Combating discrimination meant that judicial institutions had to work with other institutions, associations and cultural groups. Courts continued to underscore the low number of complaints launched on discrimination grounds.

Combating racial discrimination on the Internet was also a priority of France. The Government strategy included bringing together stakeholders to evaluate the problem, encourage its prevention, provide sanctions and increase international cooperation. France has been a leader in this realm. However, they were fully aware that the fight against discrimination on the Internet should not give rise to an assault on freedom of expression.

Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

PIERRE-RICHARD PROSPER, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of France, said he would keep his opening remarks brief and save the bulk of his comments for a later intervention. Mr. Prosper said the opening remarks made by Mr. Pellet were reassuring from a legal and technical perspective. There were abundant tools and mechanisms available in France to combat discrimination, but the issues were more than technical, there were issues that affected the hearts and minds of people and their vision for the future. Mr. Prosper said he hoped the recommendations of the Committee could help France develop a way forward in combating this problem.

Mr. Prosper said 47 years ago this month Martin Luther King, Jr. stood in Washington, DC to bring attention to the plight of a people and the sentiments he expressed then were shared by members of certain communities in France. France was a great country, rich in history and full of material and intellectual wealth, and the influence and reach of France was profound. Millions of people had accepted France’s invitation to take advantage of all the country had to offer, and they had packed their bags and moved to take part in liberté, egalité and fraternité. But when they arrived, they experienced frustration, their hopes and dreams denied with no possibility of upward mobility because of the colour of their skin, religion, surname or even address. They were crippled by the manacles of de facto segregation. While many immigrants integrated and found success, there was still a feeling that the upper crust of society, in the political and economic realms for example, remained remarkably un-diverse, resulting in a two or three tier society. This reality on the ground was confusing with the image France exported throughout the world. Who was French? What did it mean to be French? There seemed to be a lack of political will to change this and allow people the possibility of reaching their full potential.

Mr. Prosper said France was not alone in facing these challenges as these were problems faced by numerous countries. But people looked to France to lead, to have a vision that was based not just on technical measures, but also on a philosophical and concrete vision of the future. Mr. Prosper said his words were not meant to be harsh, but were said in a spirit of friendship because he believed France could be a leader and show the way forward in the battle against racial discrimination.

A Committee member thanked the delegation for following the reporting guidelines, as well its inclusion in the report of how it had addressed concluding observations and recommendations given by the Committee after its last periodic report. The member then went on to ask about the composition of the population in light of the ethnic tensions reported throughout the country since 2005, and in order to address socio-economic issues that may affect these communities. This data gathering could be done in such a way so as not to stigmatize a community or racially profile them. There were some 300,000 travellers in the country. How did they refer to themselves and were there different groups within the travellers? In terms of the Roma population, where did they originate? Were they all from southeast Europe?

Another Committee Expert asked whether there were overlapping institutions that dealt with discrimination issues and whether the inter-ministerial committee dealing with racism was operational now. The Expert noted that freedom of movement in France was guaranteed, so why were French of minority origin required to carry around a freedom of movement card to move freely about the country? Were the rights of people living in overseas territories the same as those living in France?

The next Committee member to speak said that an important question to ask concerned the constitution of the Fifth Republic. It had had a long life since 1958 and the contents were highly significant. Racial discrimination was considered a crime by this Committee, and in light of the historical background of racial discrimination in France, were the measures taken to combat racial discrimination constitutional or could they be amended or abrogated at some point in the future? Were these rights constitutionally protected? In terms of the criminal code and criminal law, how could the delegation explain how the Roma could be extradited from a place that was part of the European Union? If they came from Hungary or Bulgaria or Romania, what were their rights as European Union citizens in France? The Expert wanted to know the relationship between the judiciary, legislature and the executive office and whether the judiciary was listened to in terms of racial discrimination and human rights. The Expert said he did not realize that there was a difference between first class and second French citizens. Did the Roma have to go through the courts before administrative decisions about them had been carried out? The Expert thanked the delegation for bringing up the atrocities of the past and noted in particular that over a million Algerians were killed during the war with France because they had fought with France during the Second World War and after the war they wanted their freedom as well. Was it not time for the French Government to apologize to the Algerians, the same way it had apologized for slavery and actions under the Vichy Government during the Second World War?

Another Committee member noted that the delegation spent more time in this report on overseas territories under its jurisdiction. In 2009 there was civil unrest with ethnic connotations in these regions and the Committee Member asked for more information on racial discrimination in these areas. France did not acknowledge the existence of minorities or indigenous peoples, yet it adopted some principles in managing its territories and such was the case in New Caledonia surrounding the issue of land titles to deal with past discrimination. Would future legislation deal with indigenous rights? The Committee Member said that the development of an overarching anti-discrimination policy in France was welcomed as it seemed that in the past these cases had been dealt with on a haphazard, case by case basis.

The delegation was then asked about French security policy, and the characterization of immigration as a source of crime and problems. The Expert pointed out that naturalized French citizens could be stripped of their citizenship if they committed a crime and this did not help to foster a French identity or solidarity as only people who were born in the country were protected from having their citizenship revoked if they committed a crime. The facilitation of travellers through education should be a priority as well.

A Committee member then asked whether racially motivated violent acts were decreasing. The situation of the Roma was worrying because isolated cases of crime led to reactions at the political level, which stigmatized entire communities and generalized prejudices against the respective communities. It was noted that French citizens only had to live in a municipality for three months before they could vote there, while travellers had to live in a place for three years before they could vote in a locality. Referring to regional languages spoken in the State such as Catalan and Breton, education in these languages was not supported by the State so how did multiculturalism apply in the realm of language instruction? Data was also not collected on languages spoken in the population, although language of nationality was recorded. Had the economic crisis had an impact on underprivileged groups in the country and if so what was the Government doing to mitigate the impact on these groups? What measures were being taken to combat de facto segregation?

An Expert noted that France had acceded to almost all the human rights conventions and the State’s contributions to human rights were appreciated. Perhaps because of its geographic location, France was a convenient port for immigrants, but crimes against immigrants and harassment of immigrants had been on the rise in French cities. Chinese immigrants had held a demonstration in June 2010 to raise awareness of these issues among law enforcement authorities. What measures had been taken by local authorities to protect the human rights of immigrants and migrant workers?

The head of the delegation had described multiculturalism and several positive initiatives to promote French national identity. But the Committee Member wanted to know whether travellers and Roma had their own languages or if they just spoke French. Why was it that people from France were called travellers and people from Bulgaria or Romania were called Roma? Who was the owner of the land that was being offered to travellers and how could they mix a nomadic lifestyle with a settled lifestyle? What was the status of the law prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols of a visible nature, namely the veil, in schools?

The next Committee Expert wanted to know what the State party was doing to commemorate the year of African people.

Another Expert noted that the French logic sometimes resulted in rigidity and a tendency not to reconsider conclusions that had been drawn, even if the conclusions were based on faulty reasoning. The French refusal to countenance any distinction in the treatment of French citizens based on ethnicity or origin, even going so far as to refuse to count ethnic minorities, was perhaps one such decision that required reconsideration. Without this information, how could discrimination be measured and appropriate measures put into place targeting affected groups? The French now seemed ready to accept their approach was not cast in stone, and positive steps such as the appointment of diversity tsar and a national action plan against racism had been taken. A refusal to recognize discrimination did not make it go away.

In terms of racism in political discourse, a Committee Expert said this was a disturbing trend all over Europe and asked the delegation whether this was perceived as a serious issue and what was being done about it. What did the term French of foreign origin mean?

The next Committee Member raised an issue that was not in the report, but was important nonetheless, and that was racism in sport, particularly in football. The game was very integrated in France. If the French team was playing an African team one could probably not tell the teams apart. Having said that, the Expert said there were instances of racism in the sport, with black players being taunted during games by fans and even political figures making comments and calling players gang leaders and making other unflattering comments. What was the French Government doing about racism in sports? The next issue the Expert touched on was freedom of conscience. What had not been said was that there were developments after the banning of the hijab in 2004 and now the Government was attempting to ban the burka through a draft law that was before the senate. Could the delegation comment on how these laws and draft laws were perceived in the country?

On the debate on national identity, a Committee Member said they were pleased that the delegation said the Republic was not static and the nature of a Republic was one of debate. In light of this, the Member wanted to know what was being done to educate children of travellers. The position on Roma had seemed to harden. The Expert noted that the State took into account the customs and traditions of people in overseas territories, but did not recognize indigenous rights. Could the delegation comment on this? Was there any effect on public school attendance after the passage of the law banning the wearing of religious symbols in schools?

PIERRE-RICHARD PROSPER, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of France, said his colleagues had asked all the questions he had, so he wanted to use his time to assist the delegation in identifying groups of questions. He hoped the delegation could focus on the political will to change attitudes and political discourse in the country. Statistics and the need for numbers was an important issue as was the issue of travellers and Roma in France. The working methods between various human rights institutions were also of interest and the treatment of residents in overseas departments was an area about which Committee Members had a number of questions. The treatment and livelihoods of persons of foreign descent would also need to be addressed as well as cultural diversity and national identity. Integration and people being able to enjoy their culture of origin were also topics that should be addressed.

Intervention of the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights

A representative from the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights of France took the floor for an intervention. The representative said that the organization was one of the oldest of its kind in the world, having been established in 1949. Every year the Commission submitted a report to the Government on combating racism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia, analyzed trends in these areas and made recommendations to the Government on possible approaches to combating racism and discrimination. The Commission had a three pronged role in the process of the preparation of national reports, including a consultative role in which it provided comments and criticisms, making this information public, and ensuring follow-up activity to the concluding observations issued by the Committees. The follow-up activity was the most important aspect of their work in the view of the representative and they attached the greatest importance to this. For this purpose, last year for the first time the body published a work with a systematic overview of the concluding observations of United Nations bodies. In terms of the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, many of the questions posed by Committee Members overlapped with the Commission’s own concerns and recommendations. In particular, the Commission felt there was the need for France to adopt a national action plan to combat racial discrimination. Since yesterday, the Commission was assured that this plan was being prepared and they welcomed this. However, it was still concerned about the inter-ministerial agency against racism that had been established several years ago because unfortunately this committee met only sporadically and currently was not the fine tuning tool it should be.

Signs of racism on the Internet were a subject of ongoing concern for the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights of France and this activity was part of the overarching objectives in combating cyber crime. This needed to be a political priority for the French Government and there needed to be public observers set up to track racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia online.

The debate surrounding the prohibition on the Islamic veil had engendered polemics. A draft bill prohibiting hiding one’s face in public areas had been dealt with by the assembly without specifically mentioning the veil. The Commission had given an opinion on this draft bill as well as on the recent legislation concerning immigration, which was available on their website.

Regarding discriminatory statements made about travellers and the Roma in public, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights of France had put out a pamphlet on this topic. The representative also noted that the suggestion that naturalized citizens should be stripped of their citizenship if they committed a crime was an adverse trend that was contrary to the ideas of neutrality and equality and reinforced the stigmatization of French citizens of foreign origin. It was contrary to the values of the Republic to draw distinctions between French citizens and did not help the cause of integration and inclusion.

Response by Delegation

Answering the questions posed by Committee members, the delegation noted that several Experts had asked about the rigidity of French views on refusing to identify minorities and take into account the diversity of the nation. Other Experts asked about the compatibility of recent legislative initiatives with the constitution. The delegation felt it was important to remind the Committee of certain aspects of French law and government so that there was a better understanding of these aspects for the ensuing discussion. The delegation would also discuss the banning of the veil, the situation of travellers and Roma, and multi-lingualism in the country. In France a state of law and the latest constitutional review helped to strengthen rights and laws and the courts had developed jurisprudence to protect rights and freedoms, particularly to protect equality.

In terms of comments made by politicians and the draft law to strip people of their citizenship under certain circumstances, the delegation could not comment on a law that had not been adopted and implemented yet, but if it was adopted it would be subject to constitutional controls just like any other law.

Regarding a law that enabled authorities to break up travellers camps, the delegation said that a court ruled that the provisions of the law were in conformity with the constitution.

Turning to the creation of the ombudsman’s office, the delegation said anyone who felt their rights had been violated could file a complaint with the ombudsman free of charge. The ombudsman was also empowered to look into acts by individuals as well as the government and the office had broad investigative powers. The ombudsman could be heard by any jurisdiction, could propose actions, and if those recommendations were not taken up the office could issue injunctions. Non-compliance with ombudsman investigations would lead to sanctions.

The delegation then answered the questions raised about African veterans’ pensions, which it said would soon be aligned with that of French veterans. A decision adopted on 28 May 2010 said that a previous law which froze the pensions of African veterans from former French colonies was not constitutional and thus the courts overruled it. The decision would affect 30,000 people.

The French constitution affirmed that the application of identity was a personal choice not a governmental decision. Such an approach protected the rights of individuals to acknowledge their own traditions and cultures and heritages, but conversely it also protected their right to reject such heritages and identities. This meant that data, while it could not be based on ethnic identity, could be based on things like names, language, or previous nationality. Further, on the question of ethnic statistics, the delegation said that a committee had been set up and it issued a report that called for statistical information gathering that would analyze racial and ethnic feelings of belonging, an annual comparative report on professional equality between men and women to be issued, and the establishment of a monitoring system for discrimination. The delegation said that it was important to note that according to the report, there was no need to establish new legislation to determine the scale of racism in the country; the questions they asked, such as country of origin, allowed them to determine the makeup of the population without using ethnic or race based questions.

The delegation said anti-Semitism and racist acts were still far too high in France and this was why the Ministry of the Interior had hired a prefect to coordinate the work of the relevant authorities in this area and to propose ways to improve the gathering of statistical data on racist and anti-Semitic acts so the Government could better combat such crimes. Data was collected by the gendarme and the police, the points of first contact with victims, who then reported monthly on racist acts in their jurisdictions. This data was collected at the national level and then cross referenced and compared with data provided by religious organizations. These statistics were divided into two major categories: actions committed against persons or properties; and threats, such as threatening words, graffiti or written material such as pamphlets. Data available from the first five months of 2010 indicated that there were 75 actions and 305 threats of racism, a decline of 22 per cent from the same period last year. In terms of anti-Semitic acts there were 61 actions and 161 threats, which represented a 61 per cent decrease from the same time last year. The delegation said this sharp decline compared to 2009 was because there was a large increase in anti-Semitic acts at the beginning of 2009 due to an outbreak in the Middle Eastern conflict.

The delegation said judicial follow-up to such events was evaluated based on the number of convictions, but there was lag time in reporting these numbers since it took time to prosecute cases so unfortunately the delegation did not have exact numbers, but it could report that convictions for acts of racism and discrimination were on the rise. This reflected an increase in the number of complaints lodged as well as a better understanding of how to prosecute these crimes. Likewise, the length of prison sentences handed down reflected the severity of these crimes.

Turning to itinerant communities, the delegation said the term traveller was an administrative term that made the distinction between those people of French origin and those who were foreign nationals. Not all travellers were itinerant and some had adopted a sedentary lifestyle. The Roma were largely sedentary and were foreign nationals, largely from Bulgaria and Romania and the Roma population was very often assimilated into the traveller community. Regarding travel permits, the delegation said there had been calls to change provisions that required travel permits to be stamped every three months for those people who did not have a fixed place of residence and were resident in a vehicle, trailer or mobile domicile. These provisions existed because these people were in a different situation because they had no permanent geographical point of attachment or domicile. The measures were a counter balance to the freedom of movement these people enjoyed and allowed them to prove their identities. The documents also allowed the authorities to carry out checks and verifications. These questions would be considered by the national advisory committee for travellers as well as a parliamentary body that was also looking at the issue. The delegation noted that there was also debate within the traveller community itself, with some people wanting the permits abolished while others wanted to keep them as a sign of their identity.

In terms of voting rights for voyagers, the delegation said they had the right to vote and there were two systems for registering on the electoral rolls. They could register in a commune, but they would have to be resident there for three years. Another way to register to vote was through a social services office in a commune, but one had to be resident in the commune for six months. Regarding schooling for travellers, the delegation said that school was free and compulsory until the age of 16 in France. There were some difficulties in reaching the traveller community of course, but there was a whole legislative arsenal that had been established to facilitate access to schools. Itinerant children or those who lived far away from a school could receive 42 hours of mobile schooling. With regards to the Roma, courses were set up for children whose first language was not French. There was a coordinating inspector in each school district that was in charge of the file of traveller school children and they were also responsible for coordinating actions regarding their schooling and implementing the laws regarding this schooling.

On the question of housing for travellers, the delegation said the legal framework was very simple. The law provided that local collectivities should be developed along with representative associations with consultation with travellers to determine their needs and where housing would be established. Once this was all worked out, the communes would set up reception centres and secure the land for these housing sites with the help of the State if necessary. At this point, only about 50 per cent of these reception centres had been set up and the State was looking at ways to help localities meet their obligations. Much of this rested on the question of State assistance as well. The communes that had already been established had some problems with overcrowding since not all the planned sites were set up and the user fees for some communes were higher than others, so they were looking at ways to harmonize these prices throughout France. It made no sense that some locations were five times higher than others.

There were some sedentary traveller communities due to a desire for access to healthcare and education, as well as the desire of some family members to settle down. There were also some travellers that had family lands where they could park their caravans so this led to a sedentary lifestyle. The delegation said that the other trend was the development of suitable low cost housing provided by the State with adaptations that took into account of the lifestyle of travellers. The delegation said the State needed to work on improving and further developing the current mechanism in force to provide more housing.

On questions and concerns relating to the Roma, the delegation said that it was true that both Romania and Bulgaria were members of the European Union and as such their citizens benefited from freedom of movement throughout the European Union territory. However, the accession agreements of Romania and Bulgaria included a seven year transition period in which restrictions could be placed on the employment of nationals of these newly acceded countries and France had invoked this restriction. In the European Union, any Member State could put an end to the entitlement of any European Union citizen to stay on their territory if they were unemployed, had no means of supporting themselves, and were a drain on the social welfare system. All measures to send a national back to his country were carried out in the framework of a voluntary return programme with humanitarian assistance provided. The delegation stressed that these voluntary return decisions were individual, tailor made on a case by case basis, and carried out after a study of that individual’s situation. Assistance could also be provided with reintegration into the country of origin. In 2009, 7,000 Romanian nationals benefited form this voluntary return programme.

A number of questions were asked about the overseas departments and territories and there were two technical questions asked which the delegation would tackle first. In terms of establishing Mayotte as a department, there was a bill in its first reading in the parliament regarding this now and should it become a department it would receive all the rights and resources this entailed. On the restitution of land in New Caledonia, the delegation explained that this land was currently entrusted to a land agency whose mission was to analyze the area of despoiled land and make restitution to the tribe concerned. It was a long and difficult process, with problems deriving from the fact that all the land in New Caledonia had to be registered and then it had to be proved that the tribe was despoiled of its lands.

In terms of indigenous peoples and why France did not recognize the notion of indigenous peoples, the principle on the indivisibility of the Republic stated that the law was the same between one and all and there would be no distinction based on origin, race or religion. Under this principle, only the French nationality was recognized and French was established as the language of the Republic. However, the delegation pointed out that the legal impossibility of recognizing indigenous people did not deny them their right to their own cultural lifestyle, the right to speak any given language they desired or practice their chosen religion. France did not deny diversity, but protected it so that it could flourish. France also worked to ensure that overseas citizens enjoyed their rights to health and education and these items were of high governmental priority.

Regarding the issue of racism in sport, the delegation assured the Committee that the State was totally mobilized to deal with this including the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the Secretary of Sport. The stakeholders in football were also very active on this question and there were institutional areas in which various stakeholders could get together, namely the national football commission, where this was discussed extensively. The sport code sanctioned the wearing or use of signs and symbols with racist or xenophobic ideology during sporting events and the incitement of hatred against players, referees, persons or groups of persons. Fines, imprisonment, and bans could be imposed to prevent perpetrators of such acts from attending other sporting events.

In terms of secularism and religious symbols the aim of the Convention was to eliminate racial discrimination and the State contended that religious discrimination was not under the scope of the Convention. Secularism was a fundamental tenet of the State. The State was not opposed to religion and supported freedom of religion, but there was the separation of church and state. The freedom to express one’s religious beliefs had to be exercised in conjunction with the freedom of others, so the State felt that religious signs, proselytizing clothes or clothes that prohibited the normal participation in school activities and learning should be proscribed in schools. Private schools and higher education institutions were not affected and discreet religious symbols were allowed. The legislation did not include a list of symbols and it was important that parents were made aware that respect for the law did not constitute a rejection of their religion on their part. Children who did not conform to the law could be expelled after a hearing with a disciplinary council. Expelled children could enrol in private schools so they were not denied their right to education. Since the implementation of the law, 163 pupils had arrived in school with ostensible signs of religion and the great majority chose to conform to the legislation and very few were expelled following disciplinary council decisions. Since the law entered into force, 31 cases had come before the administrative courts and all appeals of the disciplinary council decisions to expel students had been rejected.

Regarding the draft law against hiding ones face in public, the national assembly had adopted a first reading in July. Many hearings and consultations had been carried out regarding this legislation and there had been consensus on two points: (1) that the full veil was not a religious obligation but was in keeping with cultural practice; and (2) the full veil was contrary to values of the French Republic. The law had three aims: to protect and promote the full dignity of women; to assist in social integration because hiding women’s faces cut them off from socialization and interaction with other citizens, whether this was deliberate or imposed by third person; and to secure public law and order as people needed to carry out actions in public places with bared faces to ensure security. The general wording of the law did not single out specific garments or faiths and it was in keeping with France’s international obligations.

Further Questions Posed by Experts

A Committee Expert asked whether it would not make more sense to issue an obligatory national identity card to everyone, rather than requiring travellers to carry movement permits that had to be stamped every three months. The Expert also commented that there seemed to be many bodies dealing with discrimination and it was difficult to understand their competencies and how they worked together.

An Expert asked about the progress of the criminal code reform as well as the status of travellers who lived on barges or boats.

With regards to proposed legislation that would strip naturalized citizens of their French nationality if they were convicted of certain crimes, were these people immediately sent back to their country of origin or did they serve their prison sentences in France? If they served their sentence in France, what was their nationality after they got out of prison? Were they stateless? Would their state of origin take them back? What was done regarding social reintegration of offenders?

Another Committee Member commented that sending the Roma back to their country of origin was not a solution and countries needed to figure out a Europe wide solution to this question.

The next Expert noted that this Committee could look at questions that went beyond racial discrimination, including religious discrimination, and the only other country that had invoked this argument that the Committee did not have competence in this area during this session was Iran.

A Committee Expert asked if there were any statistics available on police officers sanctioned for racial discrimination.

A Committee Member said that in the discussion on travellers, there were many comments on their lifestyle and the better term might be culture since this was less of a choice than a manifestation of their culture. What obligations did the Government have to people while they were on French territory and could the delegation explain France’s signing of the United Nations declaration on indigenous peoples when it did not recognize indigenous people?

Replies by Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said that there was a distinction between local populations and local people. There might be something lost in translation, but there was a difference between population and people. The delegation also said that they were trying to harmonize the work of various anti-discrimination institutions to make the system easier to understand and navigate so the Committee should rest assured that these concerns were being taken into consideration and something was being done about it.

In terms of travellers, it was stated that several provisions existed regarding identification documents and in the coming weeks much thought would be given to this in the national advisory committee on travellers so the discussion was underway.

The delegation said reform of the criminal procedure code was still underway, so it was still to be decided how the examining magistrates would be replaced to deal with sensitive cases. It was premature to give a more precise answer. The delegation said the same restrictions applied to the draft law to strip someone of their citizenship because the law had not been adopted so there were no texts to refer to. The delegation did say that the criminal code already allowed people to be stripped of their nationality for serious offences, provided they would not become stateless. Regarding the possibility of rehabilitation, the delegation felt this was going beyond the competencies of this Committee.

The delegation said there were no means to determine if someone was discriminated against by the police since they did not keep statistics regarding race or ethnicity and this was not considered an exacerbating circumstance in cases of police brutality or ill-treatment. The delegation said that it could provide numbers on disciplinary actions taken against police, but this would include figures for all infractions, not just discrimination related problems. In 2008, 3,423 disciplinary sanctions were handed down against police officers, 163 of which related to acts of violence and 14 of which led to the person being stripped of their functions or related measures, including forced retirement.

The delegation said the Roma were covered as aliens while on their territory and foreign children enjoyed specific measures for schooling and learning the French language. The delegation said it recognized that France’s position on indigenous peoples was not the majority view in the United Nations and it had tried to explain the other means it brought to bear to promote the rights of indigenous people. France had no intention of opposing the consensus in the United Nations over the declaration regarding indigenous people.

The delegation said it would respond in writing to any questions it did not have time to answer during the session.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

In preliminary concluding observations, PIERRE-RICHARD PROSPER, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of France, thanked the delegation for a robust and open discussion. There were many positives they heard about in France, including the numerous tools at its disposal to address these problems and a forward looking vision for the future. The Committee was here to help the country move forward in combating racism and the concluding observations would be done in this spirit of constructive help and not criticism. The Committee would ask that the State reconsider its position on statistics, which were not designed to further discrimination, but rather to identify problems and groups that suffered from discrimination and the reasons why in order to devise solutions. Mr. Prosper also suggested that France should consider what executive level decisions could be made to tackle these problems, because while it was helpful to have the input of all sectors of society, it was also possible for things to become bogged down in bureaucracy and sometimes there were immediate steps the executive could take to set the tone and effect changes more quickly. Mr. Prosper applauded the national action plan to combat racism, but said it would be a challenge to identify the problems and then tackle the attitudes of people. Hopefully the national plan would look at the issues of statistics, the Roma and travellers and the overseas territories.

JACQUES PELLET, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in concluding observations, thanked the Rapporteur and the Committee and said the delegation was aware of the difficulties the country faced, but France had tried to be active in all the relevant fields and they were open to recommendations. The message Mr. Pellet wanted to get through to the Committee today was that the State was thinking about how to solve these problems, and the delegation had not come here to say that everything was fine. When drafting the concluding observations, Mr. Pellet asked that the Committee keep in mind France’s legal and constitutional structure and not ask the State to overhaul its system because it was not like others, but to offer ways in which it could address these problems. Mr. Pellet assured the Committee there was no lack of political will in France to address racial discrimination.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record