Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers report of Norway

22 February 2011

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the nineteenth and twentieth periodic reports of Norway on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Tora Aasland, Minister of Education and Research and Acting Minister of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, reiterated the promise made by the Norwegian Prime Minister to prioritize the fight against hate crimes in memory of Benjamin Hermansen, a 15 year old Norwegian boy who was killed just because of the colour of his skin. She stressed that the advancement of universal human rights was a principal objective for the Norwegian government as it was a core value deeply rooted in Norwegian society. Ms. Aasland said Norwegian society was seen as being homogenous despite the fact that immigrants and their children made up 11 per cent of the population. There were five national minorities living in Norway and this diversity was not only a strength, it also contributed to Norway’s economic growth and cultural enrichment. This was also a challenge to the Government as the society was not immune to prejudice and xenophobia where people were victims of stigmatization and discrimination.

Ms. Aasland further stressed that the Norwegian government had taken several steps to guarantee full protection of its population from any type of discrimination. For example, the Sami people had been granted the possibility to elect representatives to the Sami parliament that would work exclusively for the interest of the Sami. Ms. Aasland underlined three main legal and institutional pillars which made up the basis for Norway’s efforts to prevent ethnic discrimination, including; the Anti-Discrimination Act; the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombudsman to monitor and enforce legislation against discrimination; and the state-engineered national and cross-sectoral action plan to promote equality and prevent ethnic discrimination. She underlined that one of the major challenges faced by the Norwegian government was that it lacked enough knowledge on the nature, scope and causes of discrimination and stressed that such knowledge would enable them develop measures that accurately addressed these issues.

During the interactive discussion Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on issues regarding, among others, the availability of data on the demographic composition of the population, the delegation’s disregard or non-utilization of the word “race” in the formulation of legislation, the rights of and indiscriminate detention of immigrants and asylum seekers, stringent requirements for learning the Norwegian language by immigrants, racial profiling by the police and immigration authorities, and gender discrimination, especially against migrant women and other vulnerable groups such as children. Regarding the Sami, Experts asked whether the delegation could consider including Russia in the Northern Council in order to address the issue of the Sami given that the Sami also existed in Russia. Regarding the Roma community, Committee Members raised concerns about obstacles which impeded their access to restaurants and other public spaces.

In preliminary concluding observations, Régis de Gouttes, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Norway, referred to issues of national legislation and the position that the Committee would like allotted to its recommendations in Norwegian domestic law. He also mentioned policies dealing with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in Norway and expressed his concerns about the requirement of learning the Norwegian language, detention of unidentified individuals, access to jobs, medical care, education, interpretation services, and the status of minority women, especially those victimized by violence and other forms of discrimination. These issues and others would be included in the Committee’s concluding observations on Norway’s periodic report.

The delegation of Norway included representatives from the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, the Ministry of Justice and Police, the Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs, the Ministry of Education and Research, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Sami Parliament and the Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the nineteenth and twentieth periodic reports of Norway, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 11 March.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon it is scheduled to take up the third and fourth periodic reports of Ireland (CERD/C/IRL/3-4).

Report of Norway

The nineteenth and twentieth periodic reports of Norway, submitted in one document (CERD/C/NOR/19-20), say that the work of combating racism and discrimination requires long-term, focused efforts on the part of various actors. The previous action plans to combat racism and discrimination have mainly contained measures for which the central government is responsible. In the Plan of Action to Combat Racism and Discrimination 2002–2006, important milestones were reached in efforts to strengthen legal protection against discrimination, including a new Anti-Discrimination Act.

Recently there has been an increase in racially charged and discriminatory expressions regarding the Sami and their rights as an indigenous people, especially in the media and in related discussion forums on the Internet. The Government makes it clear that over time, the promotion of human rights is a tool for reducing conflict through the establishment of orderly and legitimate legal relations between the state and indigenous peoples, and between different ethnic groups. The Government will, through dialogue, information and democratic processes, seek to promote knowledge, understanding and respect for the democratic procedures that have been established to protect Sami interests (such as the Sámediggi (the Sami Parliament), the Finnmark Act and the consultation procedures.

The Government wishes to intensify efforts to combat ethnic discrimination and presented a new Plan of Action to Promote Equality and Prevent Ethnic Discrimination in April 2009. The Plan of Action mainly concerns measures to combat discrimination of persons from minority backgrounds, including immigrants and their children, Sami and national minorities such as the Roma, Romani and Finn. The plan will incorporate a gender perspective on implementation of the measures.

The report states that the reason for tightening Norway’s asylum policy was that Norway had experienced a marked rise in the number of asylum seekers. Furthermore, the Government also wanted to ensure a more efficient administrative process, so that the people who are granted residence can rapidly embark on their new life in Norway.

The report further states that the Government presented the third Plan of Action to Combat Female Genital Mutilation on 5 February 2008 for the period 2008–2011. The long-term goal of the plan is to prevent genital mutilation of girls. At the same time, the plan emphasizes that girls and women who have been victims of genital mutilation must receive good, appropriate treatment.

Presentation of Report

TORA AASLAND, Minister of Education and Research and Acting Minister of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, in presenting the report of Norway, reiterated the promise made by the Norwegian Prime Minister on 26 January 2011 to prioritize the fight against hate crimes in memory of Benjamin Hermansen, a 15 year old Norwegian boy who was killed just because of the colour of his skin. Ms. Aasland said she believed that an inclusive society was based on equal rights and opportunities to participate for all. She stressed that the advancement of universal human rights was a principal objective for the Norwegian government and a core value deeply rooted in Norwegian society.

She pointed out that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination included discrimination on grounds such as ethnicity, national origin, descent or skin colour. Ms. Aasland underlined that the issue of gender balance was supposed to be a backbone of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which included only two women. She informed the Committee about the involvement of the Sami parliament in the preparation of the State’s latest periodic report and their presence as observers during the present examination of the report.

The delegation leader said that Norwegian society was seen as homogenous despite the fact that immigrants and their children made up 11 per cent of the population. There were five national minorities living in Norway with people with backgrounds and roots from more than two hundred different countries and independent regions. This diversity was not only seen as a strength, it also contributed to Norway’s economic growth and cultural enrichment. This was also a challenge to the government as the society was not immune to prejudice and xenophobia with people victims of stigmatization and discrimination. She stressed that integration policies were based on the fundamental values of Norway and included freedom of opinion and expression, gender equality, equal treatment and the right to marriage and choice of spouse.

Regarding the Sami, she said they had been given the right to elect their own parliament, the Samediggi, to represent them and promote Sami political initiatives, and to carry out administrative tasks delegated from the national authorities or by law to the Samediggi. This parliament worked on issues considered to be of special interest to the Sami people.

The government expressed the wish to maintain close dialogue with organizations that represented minorities in order to ensure that they were being heard. Ms. Aasland underlined the importance of consultation with different minorities in Norway and said that a Contact Forum between the national minorities and the authorities had been established in 2003 and that a number of topics were brought into a bilateral dialogue between the authorities and minority groups. She also said that the Contact Committee for Immigrants and Authorities (KIM), appointed every four years by the government, advised the government on matters that affected immigrants and facilitated dialogue.

Ms. Aasland underlined three main legal and institutional pillars which made up the basis for Norway’s efforts to prevent ethnic discrimination including; the Anti-Discrimination Act which covered discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, descent, skin colour, language, religion or belief; the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombudsman who monitors and enforces anti-discrimination legislation whereby anyone can take his or her complains to the Ombudsman free of charge; and the a national and cross-sectoral action plan to promote equality and prevent ethnic discrimination.

She underlined that one of the major challenges faced by the Norwegian government was that it lacked enough knowledge on the nature, scope and causes of discrimination and stressed that such knowledge would enable them to develop measures that accurately addressed these issues. The cabinet had funded a survey that was underway on Norwegian people’s attitudes towards Jewish people, Judaism, the state of Israel as well as attitudes towards Roma and Muslims.

ARNI HOLE, Director General of the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, highlighted how her Ministry worked on the legal background of issues of gender, disability, sexual orientation and ethnicity. She did not exclude the possibility of structural discrimination within the public services or within the labour or housing markets in an open economy like that of Norway.

She said the Ministry had taken steps to set up a central bureau for statistics as a forum for data collection on all types of discrimination. She stressed the need to recognize the difference in the legal distinction between what was known as prejudice and what was understood as discrimination or unequal treatment. Prejudice still prevailed in Norway, but from a legal framework prejudice wasn’t equal to discrimination. The government could be opposed to the content of what people said in public, but would not relent in defending the right to freedom of speech. She underlined that the legal framework applied to secure all individuals’ legal protection and to strive for equality contained obligatory duties for the private and public sector alike, to work for equal treatment and report annually on discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, religion or disability. She further stressed that in 2009 the government began developing a manual on the duties for working life, to be disseminated to companies and social partners in all branches of industry and services. She said the Diversity Portal website offered good examples on recruitment, inclusive working environments and multicultural workplaces. Furthermore, the government had initiated a pilot project with moderate quota systems.

JAN AUSTAND, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Justice and Police, provided information in relation to hate crimes based on ethnicity, religion and other grounds. The police department always reported cases of hate crimes in the country and a new analysis from the police director showed that the number of hate crimes reported had been quite stable for 2007 to 2009. Hidden figures were a central problem as there was limited evidence with regards to registration of motives behind crimes. Motives were usually very unclear and certain reasons were very difficult to identify and classify. Norway was making progress on registration and improving the fight against hate crimes and it welcomed any questions, guidance and recommendations from the Committee.

ANNE FOLKVORD Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, said that the government was committed to improving the situation of children of foreign born parents. The integration policy was well structured to help immigrants acquire a good grasp of the Norwegian language in order to gain access to and profit from the various opportunities at their disposal. It was also designed to speed up the integration of new arrivals in the Norwegian social system. The government financed various programs at the municipal level to facilitate access to the work place for the immigrant population. The State needed a proper platform to dialogue with immigrants in order to facilitate their participation on an equal footing in Norwegian society.

BJON OLAV MEGARD, Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs, said that minorities would always be on the losing side if democratic processes were sold to or left in the hands of the majority. He stressed that the Norwegian government agreed on a framework to dialogue and consult with the Sami in order to let the Sami express their views and their position on several national issues. This had led to increased awareness in matters of governance and this had enabled the Sami to strengthen their position in fighting for or securing their rights. The Roma people had equally been involved in drafting resolutions of the committee in order to improve the situation of that community. Measures included a special adult education program and guidance for Roma families on equal terms with the population at large. Courses for public servants had been initiated to improve their understanding of the Roma. The government had also undertaken the building of a Sami museum to serve as a cultural centre for this population.

Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

REGIS DE GOUTTES, Committee expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Norway, agreed that Norway had undergone several changes in the composition of its population. He noted that the government had presented its periodic report on time and in keeping with the guidelines stipulated by the Committee. He expressed the need for more information regarding data on the composition of the population as the core document contained few details as to the origin of the population. There was more information given on the Sami, though the current number was an approximation so the Committee would like to have a precise number. The delegation had to make more of an effort to give detailed information on the demographic make up of the population. Information as to the incorporation of the Convention and the Committee’s recommendations into domestic legislation should also be included in the report.

Mr. De Gouttes noted that the government did not use the word race because it purported that it could lead to a further division of the population along racial grounds. He asked that the term be used in a properly defined manner so that it tied in with the Committee’s prescriptions.

Immigration and the rights of immigrants seemed not to have made any progress with certain stringent measures in place, including the detention of foreigners as was the case in other European countries.

Regarding language requirements, he noted that these were very stringent and the Committee believed they could be better adapted to the needs of individuals on a case by case basis.

He underlined that municipalities did not attach the same or enough importance to the plight of asylum seekers and other immigrants such as access to healthcare and the right of children to education and the rights of unaccompanied foreign minors. He noted that Norway still had not ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.

The Rapporteur asked about the evaluation and monitoring of the national plans of action and what results had been achieved with regards to the contact and dialogue between the State and the league of immigrants. Migrant workers in the oil and gas industry still had very limited protection of their rights with regards to health and sanitation and Mr. De Gouttes wanted to know what the state had done to examine and improve the situation.

Mr. De Gouttes asked why there was still a delay in the Committee’s recommendations being incorporated into the civil and criminal codes of the country.

With regards to asylum seekers, he asked the delegation to provide more information on laws regulating their applications and length of stay. Mr. De Gouttes also asked about claims of racial profiling by police as well as further information regarding a program to train new teachers to enhance their knowledge of the Roma community. He also asked the delegation to provide detailed information as to the guarantees of freedom of the press in reporting and or denouncing hate crime.

An Expert thanked the delegation for their initiative in supporting the international community in defending the rights of indigenous people. They expressed concern, however about the negative impact of certain Norwegian companies in foreign countries such as Chile and the Philippines were local legislation reportedly was not being respected. The Norwegian companies had continued to enforce their rules on the indigenous people even though they had a negative impact on the living conditions where the companies operated. The Expert asked the delegation to explain what mechanisms Norway had to ensure that its national companies could be sanctioned in Norway in case of serious violations of the livelihood of the indigenous population in other countries.

Another Expert raised concerns about victims of gender discrimination. The Committee could not discard the issue of race discrimination and underlined the view as to the use of the term “racial” discrimination. There were people of African descent in several countries who were discriminated against due to their racial background and not just because of their ethnicity. The Committee Member requested that the authorities incorporate the Committee’s recommendations in Norwegian law. The delegation was also asked whether Russia could be made to join the Northern Council in order to address the issue of the Sami given that the Sami also existed in Russia. Regarding the Roma, the Expert raised concerns about obstacles which impeded their access to restaurants and other public spaces and asked the delegation to provide further comment and information in that regard.

A Committee Expert asked for more information regarding the intersectional aspects of discrimination given that there were different levels of protection against discrimination. What was the exact issue in dealing with “race” since the Convention did not make any scientific statement about race?

Another Expert reiterated the issue of racism and discrimination on racial grounds and stressed that the delegation ought to be clear in its use of the terms and state its stand in the matter given that a definition should not limit what the Committee sought to eliminate. The public discourse regarding the subject of Islamization in Norway was alarming and the delegation was urged to pay attention and initiate measures to address this issue. The Expert said that statistics portrayed that people belonging to specific minority groups were more liable to have their identities checked and their access to certain public spheres systematically blocked and the State was urged to take measures to eliminate this kind of discrimination. The delegation was also cautioned that if Norwegian authorities did not pay attention and help ethnic minorities preserve their culture, these cultures would disappear and this would be a disadvantage to Norwegian society.

An Expert then asked for further information about victims and perpetrators of female genital mutilation, specifically regarding people of Somali origin. They also asked for details about the prison population in order to ascertain cases of racial discrimination.

To ensure further independence, an Expert said the State should institute, or at least facilitate, access to funds by civil society so that they did not feel indebted to the government when they had to speak up on matters which might place government authorities in a tight position.

Statements by Civil Society Organizations: the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights and the Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombudsman

One speaker regretted that the state rejected the Committee’s clear and firm request to consider the incorporation of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination into domestic legislation through the Human Rights Act in order to ensure the Convention’s primacy over domestic laws in case of conflict. The speaker reminded the committee that in 2009 the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women was incorporated through the Human Rights Act despite previous incorporation through the Gender Equality Act. The speaker asked the Committee to urge the government to incorporate the Convention through the Human Rights Act in order to send a strong signal at both the national and international levels and foster protection against ethnic discrimination.

It was further underlined that the Norwegian constitution did not contain any specific provision against ethnic discrimination, contrary to recommendations from international bodies. The speaker said that although such a provision had recently been proposed by a government appointed committee of experts on discrimination, it had not yet been followed up by the government. The speaker asked the Committee to remind the State to give due consideration to appropriate constitutional protection against ethnic discrimination.

Another speaker said the ombudsman was concerned about possible indirect discrimination against certain groups in terms of access to adequate and quality language training. The ombudsman recommended that the language requirement be suspended until the quality of the language tuition had been evaluated and secured regardless of gender, educational background, or country of origin.

The ombudsman was equally concerned about the provision of health services in terms of interpreters for medical examinations and treatment and asked the Committee to encourage the State to ensure the right to a professional interpreter in all public services. The ombudsman asked the Committee to encourage the State to establish a centralized institution with special expertise in the treatment of traumatized refugees that followed UN guidelines.

The ombudsman further deplored the lengthy periods of stay endured by minority women in crisis centres and called on the Committee to encourage Norway to ensure that women who stayed in crisis centres for a long time were offered alternative accommodation within a reasonable period of time as well as ensuring the necessary funding of these centres. Finally, the ombudsman expressed concern regarding the lack of coordinated public services for women facing domestic violence and trafficking.

Response by Delegation

Regarding the use of the term “race”, which the Norwegian government was opposed to, the delegation said even if the government accepted the use of the term “racial discrimination” which was broad-based, they did not believe in the idea of race because it went against the core values and principles of the Norwegian society. The delegation expressed a willingness to continue the discussion on the issue, but they were adamant that as a matter of principle, the State would not use the term “race”.

Regarding the incorporation of the recommendations of the Committee, they were already included in the Anti-Discrimination Act and the delegation did not see any reason to do the same thing through the Human Rights Act.

Norwegian authorities were obliged to respect all human rights aspects of the population and the committee charged to work with ensuring this would submit a report later this year and the government intended to follow up on the matter.

Norwegian media and other press organizations and social groups enjoyed a broad based freedom of expression and the Government engaged in proactive dialogue with the press corps. There existed a ban on gender discrimination in advertising and the Government was serious about its strict application.

Shelters were available to every victim of marital violence including forced marriages and domestic violence, and the crisis centres were obliged to cooperate with local authorities in order to secure private accommodation for victims. There was a well developed system for follow-up to ensure that the rights of women were properly respected by the municipalities.

Regarding the presence of racist organizations and the fight against xenophobia, the delegation stressed that parliament refused to incorporate a provision criminalizing blasphemy in the penal code because Norway should be robust enough to tolerate such views. They underlined that it was the objective of the government to promote dialogue and cooperation between religious and life stance communities in Norway so as to encourage mutual understanding, respect and appreciation for both differences and common values.

Regarding the Sami, the delegation said their population was estimated to be between 40,000 and 80,000. The variance could be attributed to the fact that most of the people did not necessarily want to be counted as Sami and many of them had moved out of their residential areas so it was difficult to have an accurate figure. They were counted, but not always as belonging to a group and this could be understood given their recent history with the Holocaust.

Regarding the issue of Norwegian trans-national companies thwarting the human rights principles of indigenous populations overseas, the delegation underlined that Norway attached great importance to the promotion of international standards on business and human rights and it had a leading role in establishing the mandate of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on business and human rights. Norway would lead the work in the Human Rights Council to take action on these principles and it was the State’s aim that the guiding principles be given a strong endorsement by the Council.

Regarding the issue of female genital mutilation, it was a punishable practice in Norway and this applied even when it was done outside of Norway. Every public service employee who had taken a vow of professional secrecy had a statutory duty to report to the municipal child welfare service any suspicion that a child was being maltreated at home or exposed to other forms of gross neglect. Systematic registration of cases of genital mutilation had proved to be difficult for several reasons. In all its efforts against female genital mutilation, Norway based its actions to combat the practice on World Health Organization data. The current action plan was developed in very close collaboration with the groups in question. The action plan was under evaluation by an independent research institute and results were due to be published later this year.

Responding to the question about language requirements to obtain citizenship, the delegation said that applicants between 18 and 55 years of age were required to have completed 300 hours in Norwegian language lessons and there was no particular level attached as a certificate was granted to all participants in the course. The Nationality Act had no requirement for a test in Norwegian language or civics. The services delivered by the municipalities might differ because the municipalities had a high level of autonomy. However, an approved curriculum had to be followed and municipalities could only use government-approved language teaching institutes.

The delegation underlined that the impact of the action plans that had been put in place could not be accurately measured at the moment given that they were still running, despite the fact that the action plan period had come to an end.

Further questions by Experts

An Expert asked what consultation had been initiated with regards to the mining law, including protection for inhabitants of the area.

Response by Delegation

According to the delegation, there was one general rule on consultations and the procedures covered everything relating to the Samis and these rules applied comprehensively. The Mining Act, which went into force in January 2010, aimed to protect the interests of society and the Sami community in particular. Consultations were initiated, but the final report was established without a common agreement among the parties concerned.

Concerning the issue of discrimination against minority groups which prevented them from having full access to restaurants and other public areas, the government had undertaken to intensify and control these premises in order to ensure that the incidents of discrimination based on racial background and country of origin were eliminated.

Further questions by Experts

What specific role was played by the Sami population regarding the plight and livelihood of the Sami community and what measures had the government undertaken regarding self- determination for the Samis?

Response by Delegation

The delegation stressed that it had taken the State a lot of time and effort to consult with the Sami and this dialogue would continue because the State was determined to pursue these efforts. The delegation said the issue of self-determination for the Sami people was discussed by the Government and parliament and it was resolved that any such discussions would be done through the Samediggi (Sami parliament) which was a democratically elected body and was competent in handling such matters.

Further questions by Experts

An Expert insisted that it was not possible to be blind to the issues of race plaguing the planet and stressed that the dialogue concerning the use of the term “race” should be pursued until an appropriate agreement was reached. They expressed hope that the Convention would subsequently be incorporated into the Human Rights Act and enjoy primacy over domestic legislation.

Response by Delegation

The delegation stressed the government’s willingness to search for an appropriate word to use, especially one which would not create further room for discrimination. The delegation conveyed the State’s willingness to embrace recommendations from the Committee, especially after profound dialogue and consultation.

Further questions by Experts

An Expert said the concept of racial discrimination was present in the Convention which Norway had ratified and said there could not be any other obstacles to its incorporation into Norwegian legislation. There was an abusive use of this notion by certain parties aimed at stigmatizing them simply because they were different. Why were other treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women incorporated into the human rights law while the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was not? If both the victim and perpetrator of female genital mutilation were not Norwegian, was it still possible for the State to punish them or not?

Response by Delegation

Responding to the question about the use of the term race, the delegation said that this was not just an issue of semantics, but required a very interesting and lengthy discussion because Norway was convinced that to eliminate discrimination on racial grounds they had to start with the use of language. This was because in Norway, a citizen was simply considered Norwegian regardless of skin colour, origin or ethnic belonging. The government considered the museum for the East Sami as a very good development because it served the purpose of raising awareness and educating Norwegians on the matter.

Regarding the issue of female genital mutilation, steps had been taken towards Norwegian citizens or persons with permanent residence in Norway who went on holiday outside the country. They were subject to punishment.

Concerning the number of prisoners in Norwegian prisons, the delegation said 1,201 foreigners were in Norwegian prisons and that accounted for a third of the total number of prisoners. It was up to the Committee to deliberate and decide whether these figures were disturbing and if they spoke of a deliberate policy motivated by racial and other forms of discrimination.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

In preliminary concluding observations, REGIS DE GOUTTES, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Norway, thanked the delegation for their hard work and determination to respond to the numerous questions asked. He was also very happy with the open and frank dialogue, but there were a number of questions which ought to be taken into account when the Committee elaborated its concluding observations. Mr. de Gouttes referred to issues of national legislation and the position that the Committee would like allotted to its recommendations in Norwegian domestic law. He also mentioned policies dealing with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in Norway and expressed his concerns about the requirement of learning the Norwegian language, detention of unidentified individuals, access to jobs, medical care, education, interpretation services, and the status of minority women, especially those victimized by violence and other forms of discrimination. He further mentioned questions about the Sami and their living conditions as well as the Roma and their basic rights and access to health and other social services. The Rapporteur asked about instances of xenophobia and racist ideas by political leaders and media which might lead to racial violence and how the State could combat this. Mr. de Gouttes also talked about the discrimination experienced by minority groups. These were issues which would or should be included in the committee’s final report.

In concluding remarks, TORA AASLAND, Minister of Education and Research and Acting Minister of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, thanked the Committee for the discussion and promised to take the issues back to Oslo for further discussion within the Norwegian government. She said that the Government was in a grey zone regarding migration as to what the responsibility of the State ought to be concerning the living conditions of the immigrants, but assured the Committee of the commitment of the State to continue to seek improvements in that domain.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record