Human Rights Council holds Panel discussion on best practices in the fight against racism

Human Rights Council
MORNING 15 June 2011

Concludes General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance

The Human Rights Council this morning held a panel discussion on best practices in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in the context of the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It also concluded its general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance: follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel, said that the importance of information sharing at the national, regional and international levels was highlighted both by the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference. This exchange of inspiring experiences could assist Governments, parliaments, the judiciary, social partners and civil society in their efforts to promote racial equality by replicating or adapting practices to local conditions anywhere in the world. Racial discrimination in its many guises persisted. In recent years, in many regions of the world there had been a general increase in racial violence.
Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action had already contributed to important developments in the battle against racism and racial discrimination at all levels. In certain national and regional systems, racial equality legislation had evolved in the last few decades. This body of law contained concepts, definitions and approaches that had increased protection against racial discrimination. To put the law into practice and protect the rights of victims, it was necessary to create appropriate national bodies, policies and programmes, as well as to strengthen the justice system.

Fedor Rosocha, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, in his opening remarks, said that in its resolution 14/16 entitled “From rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”, the Human Rights Council had decided to hold at its seventeenth session a discussion on best practices in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The panel was taking place in the context of the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and would address good practices in particular in the adoption of national action plans, national legislation and education measures.

The panellists were Luiza Bairros, Minister of the Secretariat of Policies for the Promotion of Racial Equality of Brazil; Githu Mugai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; Ricardo Bucio, President of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination of Mexico; Mireille Fanon-Mendes France, Member of the Working Group on people of African descent; Joris de Bres, Race Relations Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission, New Zealand; and Jerald Joseph, Executive Director for Dignity International, Malaysia.

Luiza Bairros, Minister of the Secretariat of Policies for the Promotion of Racial Equality, Brazil, stated that in the case of Brazil, talking about good practices in combating racism required, above all, the recognition of the role played by the black social movements for the consolidation of issues such as racism and racial equality in the national agenda. Throughout the twentieth century, demands from different political and cultural organizations formed the basis of the Brazilian Government’s responses to the issue of racial equality. Over the past decade, Brazil had advanced in the debate and in the fight against the effects of racism on the lives of black people. Mechanisms contributed to broaden the impact on the debate about the racial issues in the public sphere and to ensure continued government commitment to racial equality. By acknowledging the historical dimensions of racism and the richness of the contribution of people of African descent to the world, it would be possible to bring the meanings of the struggle against racism and the promotion of racial equality closer. As a result, the public sector would be able to more effectively guarantee the rights of groups historically discriminated against.

Githu Mugai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said that ten years after the Durban Conference’s multiple initiatives had been adopted to realise the visions and commitments accepted in 2001, now it was crucial to consider how those commitments had been translated into domestic orders. Most States had prohibited racial discrimination under their legislation, while some developed national laws that provided good protection for the Roma people and prohibited discrimination based on work and descent. Many countries had also adopted action plans to prevent, combat and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. While good practices had been adopted, some challenges still remained and required further efforts from Governments. Those challenges mainly lay in the lack of effective implementation of the various measures taken to eliminate racism and racial discrimination, and the limited sharing of experiences and good practices. The lack of implementation resulting from the absence of political will was a major obstacle.

Ricardo Bucio, President of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, Mexico, said a large number of United Nations’ Member States, including Mexico, had made changes to their legislation, establishing specialized bodies and carrying out data analysis on racism and discrimination. In 2001, Mexico passed legislation prohibiting all forms of discrimination and created a specialized body, the National Council to Counter Discrimination which became the authority for fighting discrimination and which was different from national human rights institutions. Through such efforts the Government of Mexico could see the clear relationship between poverty, lack of access to justice, inequality and skin colour. However because racial discrimination was founded on cultural concepts, there was a need to promote cultural change and to ensure specialized national institutions were established to carry out such work, institutions based on the Paris Principles, which created basic guidelines in the formulation of State policy.

Mireille Fanon-Mendes-France, Member of the Working Group of Experts on people of African descent, stated she would speak only of the situation in France, a situation she knew well and which reflected what was happening in many European countries. France had taken many steps, whether in its constitution, legislation, law and courts, to prevent discrimination and promote equality. Ten years after the Durban Conference and ten years after the final declaration and programme of action were established, Ms. Fanon-Mendes-France asked whether the noblest of human endeavours, fraternity and equality, had been advanced. Had racism been significantly push backed, she inquired. For those who lived largely in Europe, this seemed to be a largely rhetorical question, but racism was hiding in silences. It constituted one of the matrixes for understanding the old continent. Progress had been made and racism in many countries was considered a punishable offense. However, racism had found new clothes to wear. Now people were deemed inferior not because of appearance but because of religion or culture.

Joris de Bres, Race Relations Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission, New Zealand, said that there were two predominant issues in race relations in New Zealand: the indigenous rights of Maori and the full acceptance and inclusion of new migrant communities. There was low incidence of hate crime, but there remained a degree of racial discrimination, harassment and prejudice and the National Human Rights Commission was actively engaged in addressing both those issues. In the experience of the Commission, the most effective way to counter racism was to promote positive and practical response to cultural diversity, and the Commission was in charge of developing New Zealand’s Diversity Action Programme, a coalition of public, private and community organizations that committed to undertake identified projects in their communities. The Human Rights Council and Member States should consider recognising the unique contribution that national human rights institutions could make to the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. States should also consider a statutory mandate for national human rights institutions that specifically included promotion of harmonious relations, cultural diversity and indigenous rights and encourage them to engage in their independent capacity with United Nations treaty bodies.

Jerald Joseph, Executive Director of Dignity International, Malaysia, said that Governments had started an important undertaking since 2001 in Durban but this was slowed by a lack of serious commitment and political will. The first step for Governments to handle this issue was to admit that racism was a problem. Governments had the primary obligation to promote the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and denouncing racism and racist rhetoric should be the primary role of Governments and agencies aligned with it. In Malaysia, the recent year had seen the Government controlled mainstream Malaysia media, Utusan Malaysia, allowed to publish with impunity hate speech, without any reprimand or denunciation by the Government. Despite this, an emerging good practice was starting to appear and politicians from the opposition and a few courageous ones from the ruling party openly condemned this racist slant taken by a mainstream media. As of 2009, no Asian Government had created a National Action Plan against racism and discrimination. The time had come for the completion of the promises for National Action Plans.

In the discussion, speakers said that the dream for a world free of racism and hatred remained unfulfilled and regretted the continued practice of discrimination and racism worldwide. As technology brought the people of the world closer together and political barriers tumbled, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance continued to ravage societies. Society remained confronted by racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other forms of discrimination. Several speakers spoke about discrimination against Roma communities and indigenous people. The fight against all forms of discrimination was a priority for many, requiring the promotion of tolerance, integration, inclusion, equal access to employment and education, and intercultural dialogue. In order to build a sustainable environment for diversity to flourish, a world where respect for diversity came from within the individual needed to be established. Speakers lauded the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action as paving the way for the implementation of anti-discrimination best practices.

Speaking in the general discussion on best practices in the fight against racism were Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, European Union, Cuba, Spain, Belgium, Slovakia, Sweden, France, Morocco, Norway, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Ecuador, United States of America, Senegal, Germany, Mexico, African Union and South Africa.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions took the floor, as did the following non-governmental organizations: Conectas Direitos Humanos, the Indian Council of South America and Open Society Institute.

At the end of the meeting, the Council also concluded its general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance: follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Speakers said in the follow up on the Durban Conference, where the international community had confirmed its commitment to human rights for all without any distinctions, there was a worrying resurgence in racism, particularly in industrialised countries of the North, including new forms of racism. Political parties were setting up platforms for discrimination against migrants and minorities such as the Roma continued to be treated in humiliating ways. There was a need for a full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, but the political will and commitment was scarce. Efforts against racism and racial discrimination had not prevented the development of new forms of racial discrimination. These new forms were influenced by negative views based on religion, particularly the denigration of Islam. The growth of extremist tendencies in the world raised grave concerns. While some States were undertaking serious steps to confront them, others were still lagging behind and their inaction gave way to proliferation of extremist political agendas. Alarming was also the conflation between combating terrorism and negative religious stereotyping, and in total disregard to the fact that the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression or opinion came with great responsibility.

Participating in the general debate were the following: Cuba, Ecuador, Qatar, Egypt, Iran, Morocco, and Kuwait. The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Fraternité Notre Dame, Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, France Liberte, Liberation, Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy, International Educational Development, Inc., UN Watch, International Committee for the Respect and Application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, World Muslim Congress, Tchad agir pour l’environment, Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peoples, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, and Indian Council of South America.

The Council today is holding a full-day of meetings, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. In its midday meeting, the Council will hold an interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Côte d’Ivoire, which will be followed by the High Commissioner for Human Rights presenting her reports on Côte d’Ivoire and Syria.

Opening Remarks

FEDOR ROSOCHA, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, in his opening remarks said that in its resolution 14/16 entitled “From rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”, the Human Rights Council had decided to hold at its seventeenth session a discussion on best practices in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The panel was taking place in the context of the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and would address good practices in particular in the adoption of national action plans, national legislation and education measures.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel, said that the importance of information sharing at the national, regional and international levels was highlighted both by the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference. This exchange of inspiring experiences could assist Governments, parliaments, the judiciary, social partners and civil society in their efforts to promote racial equality by replicating or adapting practices to local conditions anywhere in the world. Equality and non-discrimination were basic legal norms that should be respected and all human rights treaties rested on these fundamental principles. Yet, racial discrimination in its many guises persisted. In recent years, in many regions of the world there was a general increase in racial violence. Hate speech, prejudice and stereotyping were features of everyday life. Groups defined by their race or ethnicity remained disproportionately disadvantaged and minority cultures were silenced and excluded. The recent events in North Africa once more demonstrated the continuing vulnerability of migrants. The effects of the economic crisis on the human rights situation of vulnerable groups were of great concern. This was compounded by increasing xenophobic sentiment and even violence which fomented public opinion against immigrants, refugees and outsiders in general. In many regions, indigenous peoples bore the burden of the social and human costs of resource-intensive and resource-extractive industries; they were deprived of their traditional land and faced forced eviction, displacement and violence.

Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action had already contributed to important developments in the battle against racism and racial discrimination at all levels. In certain national and regional systems, racial equality legislation had evolved in the last few decades. This body of law contained concepts, definitions and approaches that had increased protection against racial discrimination. To put the law into practice and protect the rights of victims, it was necessary to create appropriate national bodies, policies and programmes, as well as strengthen the justice system. Progress was still too limited as most countries in the world had yet to adopt adequate measures to promote racial equality. To fill this gap, it was imperative that courts were sensitized to the importance of enforcing equality and non-discrimination laws. National specialized bodies, commissions, ombudsmen or other institutions whose mandates addressed racism and racial discrimination played an important role in combating racism and intolerance at the national level. The High Commissioner underscored the importance of giving specialized bodies the independence and powers required to be able to function effectively. National action plans could be effective mechanisms and States’ growing demand for technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner for the development of national action plans against racial discrimination confirmed this positive development.

Some Member States recognized the need to collect and publicize data, including relevant statistics, in order to give full effect to racial equality, to identify, monitor and measure inequalities, discriminatory practices and patterns as well as to analyze the effectiveness of measures to promote racial equality. While many States were reluctant to engage in data collected, some had adopted data collection systems that incorporated adequate safeguards and were used in the design and implementation of equality policies and programmes. Steps taken in several countries by Governments and civil society to promote dialogue and multiculturalism and awareness-raising activities within and among communities were to be commended. The Office of the High Commissioner was elaborating practical policy tools for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. These tools were built on best practices from around the world and focused on legislative measures, national action plans against racial discrimination and on national bodies against racism and discrimination.

Statements by the Panellists

LUIZA BAIRROS, Minister of the Secretariat of Policies for the Promotion of Racial Equality, Brazil, stated that in the case of Brazil, talking about good practices in combating racism required, above all, the recognition of the role played by the black social movements for the consolidation of issues such as racism and racial equality in the national agenda. Throughout the twentieth century, demands from different political and cultural organizations formed the basis of the Brazilian Government’s responses to the issue of racial equality. Over the past decade, Brazil had advanced in the debate and in the fight against the effects of racism on the lives of black people. Mechanisms contributed to broaden the impact on the debate about the racial issues in the public sphere and to ensure continued government commitment to racial equality. Although the evaluation of policies and actions implemented in Brazil had not been concluded it was possible to anticipate that their positive effects for the black population had been boosted by universal policies, especially in the context of the fight against poverty, a segment in which black men and women had always been overrepresented. The social mobility experienced by the Brazilian population in general, and by the black population in particular, created, however, other types of contradictions. Such findings stressed the challenges of government and society to fight and overcome racism, a phenomenon that was characterized by the constant adaptation to new situations, and by the constant re-creation of exclusion mechanisms.

Based on the Brazilian experience, Ms. Bairros presented two challenges for reflection in the International Year of African Descent: to overcome the resistance to recognizing racism as structuring social relations, and to defeat approaches to the issue of social inclusion, in which women and men were only perceived as potential subjects of different polices, when it was possible to demarcate their economic and cultural exclusion in the structures of power and wealth of society. Public policies were, above all, an area of dispute of interests and, as such, reflected the conflicts and tensions in society. This was most evident with regard to policies to promote equality. Thus, the High Commissioner for Human Rights should also encourage its network of experts, rapporteurs and collaborators to encompass in their analysis, aspects that were generally little discussed in regard to the progress of countries in tackling racism and promoting racial equality. To enhance the learning of lessons from different national experiences, it was also important to know how, in each context, institutions had been developed and, within them, how institutional racism operated. Thus, by acknowledging the historical dimensions of racism and the richness of the contribution of people of African descent to the world, it would be possible to bring the meanings of the struggle against racism and the promotion of racial equality closer. As a result, the public sector would be able to more effectively guarantee the rights of groups historically discriminated against.

GITHU MUGAI, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said that ten years after the Durban conference multiple initiatives had been adopted to realise the visions and commitments accepted in 2001 and now it was crucial to consider how those commitments had been translated into domestic orders. The Special Rapporteur said he had identified a number of good practices in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, which included legal, policy and institutional measures. Most States had prohibited racial discrimination under their legislation, while some developed national laws that provided good protection for the Roma people and prohibited discrimination based on work and descent. Many countries had also adopted action plans to prevent, combat and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. States should also ensure that specialised institutions to monitor and raise awareness about racism and racial discrimination were established and that they had a robust mandate and adequate resources. Another major area of intervention was education which was a key tool for promoting democratic values and human rights and instilling a sense of tolerance at an early age. National legislative frameworks should provide effective judicial and other remedies to victims of racial discrimination, and good practices in this regard included adoption of specific measures to protect vulnerable groups such as migrant workers, training of law enforcement agents and awareness raising measures.

While good practices had been adopted, some challenges still remained and required further efforts from Governments, Mr. Mugai said. Those challenges mainly lay in the lack of effective implementation of the various measures taken to eliminate racism and racial discrimination, and the limited sharing of experiences and good practices. The lack of implementation resulting from the absence of political will was a major obstacle. The elimination of racial discrimination was not always seen as a priority at the national level and local authorities sometimes failed to implement properly the legislation and policies developed. Creating an institutional framework for the adequate promotion and sharing of best practices in the fight against racism would help States to draw on positive lessons that could be transferred to other contexts. Once finalised, the best practice database of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be a key tool in the identification and sharing of the best practice. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur said that there was a need to encourage States to develop a comprehensive approach when developing good practices, which should include legislation consistent with international human rights standards, the elaboration of national action plans, effective human rights institutions to fight racism and better coordination at local and national levels.

RICARDO BUCIO, President of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, Mexico, said equality and nondiscrimination were at the very core of the instruments making up international law and as an issue brought together the work of various United Nations bodies around the world. A large number of United Nations’ Member States, including Mexico, had made changes to their legislation, establishing specialized bodies and carrying out data analysis on racism and discrimination. In 2001, Mexico passed legislation prohibiting all forms of discrimination and created a specialized body, the National Council to Counter Discrimination which became the authority for fighting discrimination and which was different from national human rights institutions. These legislative changes were followed by the design and implementation of information collection systems to obtain a comprehensive view of the state of discrimination in the country. The first survey on racism and discrimination was carried out in 2005, followed by another study in 2010. These studies included national investigations into the prevalence of discrimination with a questionnaire; 323 local authorities participated with over 50,000 people surveyed. The data collected examined racism and discrimination by generation, gender, socio-economic diversity and regions. In addition, self-perception surveys were conducted, whereby individuals were asked questions on their own perception of the color of their skin. In general, it was found that men stated their skin was a lighter color than it was.

Through such efforts the Government of Mexico could see the clear relationship between poverty, lack of access to justice, inequality and skin colour. However because racial discrimination was founded on cultural concepts, there was need to promote cultural change and to ensure specialized national institutions were established to carry out such work, institutions based on the Paris Principles, which created basic guidelines in the formulation of State policy. In addition, Mexico participated in regional efforts to counter racism and racial discrimination, including in 2007 the Ibero-Americana network which brought together 30 organizations to discuss the impact of racism and racial discrimination the region.

MIREILLE FANON-MENDES-FRANCE, Member of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, stated she would speak only of the situation in France, a situation she knew well and which reflected what was happening in many European countries. France had taken many steps, whether in its constitution, legislation, law and courts, to prevent discrimination and promote equality. Ten years after the Durban Conference and ten years after the final declaration and programme of action were established, Ms. Fanon-Mendes-France asked whether the noblest of human endeavors, fraternity and equality, had been advanced. Had racism been significantly push backed, she inquired. For those who lived largely in Europe, this seemed to be a largely rhetorical question, but racism was hiding in silences. It constituted one of the matrixes for understanding the old continent.

Progress had been made and racism in many countries was considered a punishable offense.
However, racism had found new clothes to wear. Now people were deemed inferior not because of appearance but because of religion or culture. There was identity segregation in all public discussions taking place in France. This kind of ideology, deeply rooted in the colonial republic and previously only flourishing in the extreme right, had taken on a more ordinary role in French politics. Many non-governmental organizations had tried to ensure best practices in fighting racism and xenophobia continued, and their work was the approach for the future. The fight against discrimination was of course fragile, and could be threatened by a new style or re-looked racism where religion and culture, in addition to appearance, were the basis for discrimination. There were debates on cultural identity which had been forthcoming in France for obvious reasons, but racism had not intellectual but emotional roots. A racist in a racist culture was something very normal. Economic relations based on historical relationships also played a role. The economic crisis and its effects could give rise to discourse based on discrimination of the most fragile elements of the population. Ten years after Durban, progress had been made but the wave of intolerance rolling across Europe made this work all the more urgent. The importance of establishing new relations between States would be the true guarantee for future exchanges between people of the world. Best practices should be systematically disseminated to all people and governments in the world.

JORIS DE BRES, Race Relations Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission, New Zealand, said that there were two predominant issues in race relations in New Zealand: the indigenous rights of Maori and the full acceptance and inclusion of new migrant communities. There was low incidence of hate crime, but there remained a degree of racial discrimination, harassment and prejudice and the National Human Rights Commission was actively engaged in addressing both those issues. The Commission was well equipped to address issues of racism, due to its specific legislative mandate and provision for a dedicated Commissioner and staff. The Commission was engaged with the United Nations treaty bodies and in particular with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and was now in the process of implementing a similar system of engagement with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. The Commission had recently concluded its five-year review of human rights in New Zealand, which had identified priorities for action and would form the basis of the second New Zealand Action Plan for Human Rights. This action plan also served as the national action plan to combat racism called for in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

In the experience of the Commission, the most effective way to counter racism was to promote positive and practical response to cultural diversity, and the Commission was in charge of developing New Zealand’s Diversity Action Programme, a coalition of public, private and community organizations that committed to undertake identified projects in their communities. The programme included networks for refugee issues, religious diversity, language diversity and media diversity, a network for indigenous rights issues, publishing of a monthly e-newsletter and an annual Diversity Forum to discuss priorities and further practical action on race relations. The Diversity Action Programme had been the vehicle for the development of national statements on race relations, religious diversity and language diversity. A relatively new departure for the Commission had been the use of social media such as Facebook and YouTube, which had proven to be a powerful medium for promoting positive action on race relations and providing people with access to resources, information and networks and opportunities to engage with each other.

In conclusion, the National Human Rights Commission of New Zealand encouraged the Human Rights Council and the Member States to consider recognising the unique contribution that national human rights institutions could make to the implementation of Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. States should also consider a statutory mandate for national human rights institutions that specifically included the promotion of harmonious relations, cultural diversity and indigenous rights and encouraged them to engage in their independent capacity with United Nations treaty bodies. Also, States should acknowledge the role of national human rights institutions in monitoring racism and their capacity to facilitate partnerships of Government, civil society, business and communities to promote practical action to achieve harmonious race relations and develop active networks to address issues raised in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

JERALD JOSEPH, Executive Director of Dignity International, Malaysia, said that Governments had started an important undertaking since 2001 in Durban but this was slowed by a lack of serious commitment and political will. The demand was clear as per the Durban Outcome Document, which stressed the need for mobilizing the political will of relevant actors at all levels to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The first step for Governments to handle this issue was to admit that racism was a problem. Governments had the primary obligation to promote the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and denouncing racism and racist rhetoric should be the primary role of Governments and agencies aligned with it. In Malaysia, the recent year had seen the Government controlled mainstream Malaysia media, Utusan Malaysia, allowed to publish with impunity hate speech, without any reprimand or denunciation by the Government. Despite this, an emerging good practice was starting to appear and politicians from the opposition and a few courageous ones from the ruling party openly condemned this racist slant taken by a mainstream media. There needed to be more empowerment for parliamentary members to be able to articulate human rights away from their party lines which was sometimes regressive and against human rights. Setting up incentives to recognize politicians’ stance on anti-racism, making them Ambassadors on fighting racism, would go a long way to do this.

As of 2009, no Asian Government had created a National Action Plan against racism and discrimination. The time has come for the completion of these promises for National Action Plans and the Office of the High Commissioner should make a public listing of countries that had complied, which would be an incentive for others to follow suit. Dignity International applauded Governments that respected and allowed freedom to continue in cyber space. Estonia, the United Kingdom, Brazil and South Africa were amongst nations with the highest space for freedom on the Internet. Freedom of information was a cornerstone in the prevention of any race-based conflicts and newspapers should be independent and free. Amongst other countries Indonesia, the Philippines and India stood out as good examples of free media and other countries should emulate these models. A human rights based approach to development training at the global and the grassroots level was critical for combating racism. Training brought economic, social and cultural rights discourse into the hearts of struggling communities. To counter the negative and biased views about other groups in many societies, a rigorous human rights education programme on non-discrimination should be mainstreamed utilizing creative and popular education methodologies. The increase in undocumented migrant workers had grown significantly around the world with many migrant workers still not receiving decent wages in spite of laws providing for non-discriminatory treatment. An effective way to expose and decrease labour practices that discriminated against migrants was through an annual report on racism against migrants to be compiled as was being done in Spain by a non-governmental organization.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion on best practices in the fight against racism, speakers stated that the dream for a world free of racism and hatred remained unfulfilled and regretted the continued practice of discrimination and racism worldwide. As technology brought the people of the world closer together and political barriers tumbled, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance continued to ravage societies. Society remained confronted by racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other forms of discrimination. Several speakers spoke about discrimination against Roma communities and indigenous people. The fight against all forms of discrimination was a priority for many, requiring the promotion of tolerance, integration, inclusion, equal access to employment and education, and intercultural dialogue. In order to build a sustainable environment for diversity to flourish, a world where respect for diversity came from within the individual needed to be established. Speakers lauded the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action as paving the way for the implementation of anti-discrimination best practices.

Speakers said the panellists provided valuable contributions, suggesting a number of practices and measures, legal as well as administrative, to fight racism. Speakers hoped that this programme of action would catalyze political will and inspire action by relevant actors, including national, regional and global institutions, specialized agencies, and civil society. Speakers highlighted best practices such as adopting basic constitutional tenets, constitutional reform, comprehensive legislation, funding mechanisms, national action plans, awareness-raising measures, international cooperation and preventative approaches. Support for national human rights institutions and ratification of international treaties were emphasized. Education was highlighted as an ideal platform for fostering a genuine appreciation of diversity.

Speakers suggested the establishment of an international observatory or other regional and global mechanisms to record and monitor instances of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. One speaker suggested the establishment of a document of principle on institutions for combating discrimination. Speakers asked for further information about addressing hate speech on the Internet and approaches for reaching young people. The panellists were asked to provide best practices and main criteria for developing national plans of action as well as methods for collecting data about victims of racist acts and evaluating efficiency in addressing these acts. One speaker suggested the establishment of a best practices database. Another speaker inquired what role the media could play in promoting tolerance and cultural diversity.

Speaking in the general discussion on best practices in the fight against racism were Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, European Union, Cuba, Spain, Belgium, Slovakia, Sweden, France, Morocco, Norway, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Ecuador, United States, Senegal, Germany, Mexico, African Union and South Africa.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions also took the floor, as did the following non-governmental organizations: Conectas Direitos Humanos, the Indian Council of South America and Open Society Institute.

Concluding Remarks

LUIZA BAIRROS, Minister of Policies for the Promotion of Racial Equality of Brazil, in concluding remarks, said that she would address specific questions by certain countries. One question referred to the effectiveness of action plans to combat racism, asking for the main criteria for those plans to be effective. In response to this, Ms. Bairros noted that plans of action should involve ministries at the federal level; also different departments at the federal level. Further they should necessarily include budgetary provisions to ensure the implementation of action. Additionally it was important for those plans to put together some sort of plan that allowed a strong partnership between the federal government and local and state governments. Ms. Bairros noted that this would ensure that policies were able to reach people in terms of their participation in the structures of power in society. She further addressed a question posed by Mexico regarding the need for an international forum to define what kinds of national institutions were needed to take care of racial equality. Ms. Bairros stressed that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be the space in which the international community could engage in a discussion about the general profile of these national institutions to promote racial equality.

GITHU MUGAI, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in concluding remarks, said that it was now most urgent that the international community must move from rhetoric to real action on the issue of racism and racial discrimination. Without underestimating the international and region actions that had been taken so far, the international community must nonetheless move to domestic legislation and implementation to develop laws which were effective and victim based.

RICARDO BUCIO, President of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, Mexico, in his concluding observations, said it was very stimulating to see so many initiatives being undertaken by States against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. Mr. Bucio wondered if this meant that, ten years after the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the international community was indeed coming up with the global system with less racism and racial discrimination. While it was possible to find out what kind of legislation had been passed by States, what plan of actions had been developed, what education programmes were put in place in each country, there was still a need to move from policy to practical implementation. Mr. Bucio said that there was a difference in what had been done by national institutions that were meant to protect victims from discrimination but also to prevent discrimination. Those institutions needed to implement policies, while legislative bodies needed to ensure that perpetrators were brought to justice.

MIREILLE FANON-MENDES-FRANCE, Member of the Working Group of Experts on people of African descent, thanked the organizations and States that took the floor and provided information on best practices to combat racism, discrimination and xenophobia. Ms. Fanon-Mendes-France found that the High Commissioner’s office had recorded much of the work done by many countries on these issues. Even so, new forms of racism were emerging, as theory and speech evolved faster than they should. Thus, new instruments or reform to existing instruments were needed to combat these new forms of racism and discrimination. These new forms sometimes emerged at a high level in certain States. There was a sort of divide between policies and the reality on the ground. This divide could be reduced with the support of state structures, international intuitions and bodies and with the assistance of non-governmental organizations in the field. Ms. Fanon-Mendes-France believed the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action should be a job description, an element of work to be adopted so that what was happening on the ground and how principles were being implemented could be observed.

JORIS DE BRES, Race Relations Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission New Zealand, in concluding remarks, wanted to emphasize that the effort to combat racism was one that needed to be a partnership between States, governments, businesses and civil society. Further, in terms of national human rights institutions, it was necessary to give them the ability to work more broadly in this field. Human right and anti-discrimination were interrelated concepts in international law. Additionally anti discrimination did not cover all the things that were needed to eliminate racial discrimination. Mr. De Bres noted using Belgium and Switzerland as examples where there were a number of organizations that had applied for national status and had not been able to achieve this because they did not have the broad elements according to the Paris Principles. He believed that here was a need for synergies at the UN level between the different units dealing with indigenous institutions; treaty bodies and noted that an integrated approach to these issues should be taken.

JERALD JOSEPH, Executive Director of Dignity International, Malaysia, in his concluding observations, said that many efforts were happening in States and that more needed to be put in communities and grassroots levels, so one of recommendations would be more intensive empowerment for generic human rights education and training and education in economic, social and cultural rights. Concerning the role of the media, Mr. Joseph said that the media had a great influence in promoting and perpetuating impunity for racist slants and recommended the establishment of monitoring and self-regulatory frameworks. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could establish a database on laws that were allowing racism and racial discrimination, most of them old laws that had still not been repealed. In order to support giving voice to victims, the role of non-governmental organizations needed to be supported, but the trend in international aid was such that it did not facilitate this role of non-governmental organizations. Mr. Joseph called on European donor countries, but also on India, Brazil, South Africa and China to support non-governmental organizations in this regard. Since the references to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action were constantly being made and the international community did not have a system of monitoring of its implementation, Mr. Joseph suggested that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights monitor what had been successful and what had been regressive in the implementation of this instrument.

General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance

JUAN QUINTANILLA (Cuba) said that unfortunately there was ongoing discrimination against whole groups. In the follow up to the Durban Conference, where the international community had confirmed its commitment to human rights for all without any distinction, there was a worrying resurgence in racism, particularly in industrialised countries of the North, including new forms of racism. Political parties were setting up platforms for discrimination against migrants and minorities such as the Roma, who continued to be treated in a humiliating way. In Cuba, structural changes made it possible to get rid of the colonial inheritance of discriminating practices and now policies and plans of action that had been applied since the revolution had succeeded in building an equal and tolerant society. There was a need for the full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, but the political will and commitment was scarce. Cuba urged all States, particularly developed ones of the North, to make a full commitment to eradicating the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance.

ALFONSO MORALES (Ecuador) stated that after a significant historical process, Ecuador had been able to establish constitutional provisions that confirmed the multi-ethnic, pluralistic nature of the Ecuadorian State. These provisions summed up the characteristics that governed Ecuador. Ecuador had established broad legal standards for the equal rights of all citizens and had measures in place to promote tolerance and respect for human rights. This was ensured by dialogue, participation, and initiatives oriented toward retrieving historical memory and disseminating documents regarding the social and cultural characteristics of different people. This had created space for further participation and debate regarding human rights including the respect for the opinion of others and the prevention of discrimination based on origin, religion, culture and other elements. For many years, situations of intolerance had not occurred, although there was incitement for discrimination. Freedom of religion was assured by the State. Apart from endorsing all international instruments, Ecuador had legal frameworks in place that ensured all human rights were enforced.

KHALID FAHAD AL-HAJRI (Qatar) noted that the international community was commemorating the tenth year of its renewed commitment to combat racial discrimination. This had been achieved through the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action and times as well as the outcome of the Durban Review Conference. All of this had been followed up by national, regional and international measures. Efforts against racism and racial discrimination had not prevented the development of new forms of racial discrimination. These new forms were influenced by negative views based on religion, particularly the denigration of Islam. Qatar stressed its renewed commitment to pursue fresh legislation to avoid these deviant behaviours and protect freedom of expression in Qatar. This September Qatar would host the conference of the Alliance of Civilizations on the subject of eliminating the threat to international peace and security.

AMR ESSAM (Egypt) said that the growth of extremist tendencies in the world raised grave concerns. While some States were undertaking serious steps to confront them, others were still lagging behind and their inaction gave way to proliferation of extremist political agendas. Also alarming was the conflation between combating terrorism and negative religious stereotyping. There was still much to be done at national levels to raise awareness and correct misconceptions and in some cases deal with the absence of legal instruments necessary to prohibit incitement and prevent impunity. The world should be very careful not to allow enthusiasm to lead to the creation of parallel structures and they must avoid attaching any conditionality that aimed at imposing controversial notions that did not take into account different societal, cultural and value systems.

SEYED HOSSEIN ZOLFAGHARI (Iran) highlighted the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action which should be utilized to mobilize political will. Iran welcomed the High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly regarding the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and called on States to promote, respect and implement their provisions. New forms and attitudes of discrimination, racism and xenophobia were being witnessed. It was unfortunate that Muslims, Roma, indigenous people, migrants and others were suffering from racism and xenophobia. Acts representing discrimination against Muslims were unfortunate and undermined efforts of the international community to promote mutual understanding of different religions and cultures. If countries had fully adopted the recommendations of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, these acts would not have occurred.

MOHAMED ACHGALOU (Morocco) noted that the consensus with which the Durban Review Conference was endorsed was a strong indicator of all countries’ commitment against the scourge of racism. Despite these developments, there were new manifestations of racism, racial discrimination xenophobia and intolerance which had taken disquieting dimensions. Morocco noted that this consisted of religious hatred, in particular islamophobia resulting in an amalgamation of prejudices and stereotypes with regard to Muslims and Islam. Morocco drew the attention of the Council to the situation of two vulnerable groups; people of African descent and migrants. They remained on the sidelines and were discriminated against based on skin colour, descent and sometimes status.

MALEK ALWAZZAN (Kuwait) said that the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action provided the world with the opportunity to reaffirm the commitment to effective measures to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. Kuwait upheld the principles of dialogue among civilisations and cultures and hoped to find the solutions to conflict that threatened the global community. Kuwait appealed to the High Commissioner for Human Rights to study the phenomenon of racism and racial discrimination and called on everybody to continue combating this scourge.

SABINE LEGRAND, of Fraternite Notre Dame, requested the Human Rights Council to consider the escalating discrimination, attempts to restrict freedom and obstacles to free circulation in Europe. Catholic missionaries working to service the most destitute in the world, such as Fraternité Notre Dame’s religious and lay people, frequently used air transportation. Fraternité Notre Dame emphasized that these people were often victims of harassment, verbal aggression and attempts against freedom of travel using airlines. Security agents were aggressive beyond measure and had denied a nun access to a plane because she refused to go through a body scan. Other lay persons were affected by similar cases of discrimination and pressures in order to access flights. Fraternité Notre Dame was very preoccupied with such restrictions on freedom and thus demanded respect for the right of free choice when it came to body scans or other forms of respectful inspection in all airports. Fraternité Notre Dame regarded body scans as a violation of human rights and religious principles.

NUR ARAFEH, of Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, said that Palestinians inside Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories were subjected to different laws than Jewish Israelis and were systematically denied equal access to education, healthcare and work opportunities. This institutional discrimination was based on ethnicity, religion and nationality. Israel’s dual legal system and racially discriminatory policies were designed to maintain Jewish dominance over the indigenous Palestinian population and were tantamount to a regime of apartheid. Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights called on the Human Rights Council to condemn recent Israeli legislation, condemn Israel’s racist residency practices and demand Israel end its illegal blockade of Gaza.

ANNINA MIRJAM HIRZEL, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, noted the need to avoid hierarchy among the many ways discrimination could be manifested, thereby underscoring the need to address and respond to discrimination according to the individual and specific needs of each victim. Racial discrimination could be due to differences in language, religion etc. Discrimination took subtle forms such as delayed or denied medical treatment. It also included the refusal to grant the right of a people to its own ancestral lands. These forms of discrimination, looked, if not legitimate, at least spontaneous; yet there was no doubt that they registered racial discrimination. This was the situation of many indigenous people including the Mapuche of Chile.

UDIT RAJ, of Liberation, noted that the term Dalit referred to the lowest caste of Hindus which were Siddhus who were known as untouchables. The international community had failed to play its part in persuading the Government of India to take practical measures to end this institutionalized discrimination. Liberation noted that the United States Department of State’s human rights report on India 2010, raised its concerns following the Tail Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front State conference in May 2010, which highlighted the on-going caste based discrimination in India. Liberation noted that while India wished to assume a leading role in international politics it was inconceivable that India allowed such inhumane practices to continue.

ANEZKA PALKOVA, of Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy, said that the human rights of indigenous peoples remained a low priority for a number of States. Indigenous peoples of the north-east states of India continued to experience the worst kind of discrimination in their daily lives. The indigenous population had been reduced to a minority due to the Bengali migration from Bangladesh and due to discrimination in education, politics and language, while their efforts to raise their voice were silenced. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had also expressed concerns that the police frequently failed to properly register and investigate complaints about acts of violence and discrimination against members of tribes.

KAREN PARKER , of International Educational Development, Inc., said that International Educational Development had for many years drawn the attention of the Human Rights Council to the issue of ethnic conflicts, many of which qualified as armed conflict against racist regimes. The Advisory Panel of the United Nations Secretary-General to make recommendations following the end of the war in Sri Lanka was failing to live up to its responsibilities to the Tamil people. The plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka was the clearest example of the failure of the United Nations system to come to the aid of people besieged on the basis of ethnicity and race. International Educational Development, Inc. urged the Council to heed the call of the Advisory Panel and undertake measures to ensure that the situation of Tamils was addressed.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said the struggle against intolerance was abused by murderous dictators who sought to deflect attention from their crimes. UN Watch welcomed President Barack Obama’s decision not to legitimize the United Nations’ commemoration of the 2001 Durban Conference to be held in New York in September. Did anyone expect this third Durban summit to address Sudan’s racist genocide or Saudi Arabia’s subjugation of women or Pakistan’s death sentences for so-called blasphemers; the answer was no. UN Watch would organize a real conference to hear from the world’s greatest victims of intolerance across the street from the third Durban summit with 25 other human rights non-governmental organizations.

SANGHAMITRA DEBBARMA , of International Committee for the Respect and Application of the African Charter on Human an d Peoples Rights, said that the indigenous peoples of Tripura suffered many forms of discrimination as identified in Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Their right to identity was pushed aside and their economically beneficial rights were being withheld from them and instead rights allocated for indigenous peoples were being made available to non-indigenous people. The Committee urged the Human Rights Council to send a Special Rapportuer to visit the State of Tripura to investigate these claims.

ALTAF HUSSAIN WANI, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, noted that the conditions of those suffering from racism and racial discrimination, in its various forms and manifestations, had rather deteriorated over the years. Across Europe, far right extremism was on the rise, specifically targeting Muslims and asylum seekers. Global issues of migration were prominent on the political agenda and they tended to be linked to security concerns, migrants often became targets of hostility and discrimination. Ethnic, religious minorities, economic migrants and refugees, in particular from Africa, Asia, and the Arab world, were visibly subjected to racial and religious profiling. While the manifestation of racism was rising in some parts of the world, several age old practices and institutions of racism, like the caste system in India remained to be addressed.

FAISAL REHMAN, of World Muslim Congress, noted that discrimination on the basis of race, colour and religion was on the rise. Any attempt by any country or group of countries to marginalize any group on security concerns was an unwelcome step. The terrorist acts of 2001 had spawned a non-ending series of acts of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia in various parts of the world. The World Muslim Congress also noted that the discriminatory treatment of Dalits and other lower caste Hindus in India had been in practice for centuries. They had not yet experienced benefits of so-called pluralism in the largest democracy of the world. World Muslim Congress said that Governments had not yet devised their National Action Plans under the Durban Declaration Programme of Action and that they should take immediate steps to do so.

ABDOULAYE YAYA ALI, of Tchad agir pour l’environment, said that the extension of the conflict in Libya might mean it spread in neighbouring countries and the whole region going up in flames. The testimony of Chadian refugees from Libya demonstrated the atrocities being committed against civilians who had been living in Libya for decades. Sometimes the Libyan rebels came to look for black people in their homes and exhibited them in public as captured mercenaries. The foreign black population had no protection in Libya from the racism of the Libyan population. Tchad agir pour l’environment called upon the African Union and international community to assist in stopping this behaviour of rebels in areas they controlled, and also called on the Council to think of negotiations between the parties to the conflict to avoid the suffering of the civilian population.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples, said in April 2011, the presidential party in France had organised a sham debate on laicism and by feeding irrational fears and fantasies, had set people against each other. Several officials from presidential majority started dangerous crusade, presenting Muslims as those who created problems, forbidding the use of veils to mothers escorting children to school and trying to impose French in mosques. The French Government continued misusing Islam and feeding feelings of Islamophobia in the country. Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples invited the Special Rapporteur to examine the root causes of racism and structural and institutional discrimination.

The Representative of International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said the International Youth Movement was strongly supportive of the observance of the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. While the challenges of racism and xenophobia were becoming more acute in some countries, the international community should be concerned about the negative narrative developing against the Durban Declaration Programme of Action, which was partly responsible for the current setbacks in the fight against racism and xenophobia.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said that indigenous peoples were recognized as colonized peoples and with the right to self-determination at all levels, having enjoyed complete independence and were recognized with the full capacity to exercise their right to self-determination. It was clear that indigenous people lived under the crime of apartheid. The Human Rights Council should convene a panel calling for papers to address the denial of the right to peoples, including indigenous peoples who were denied their rights based on the crime of apartheid, crimes against humanity and other grave crimes.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record