Stakeholders brief the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the situation in Norway and the Netherlands

17 August 2015

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning heard from civil society stakeholders from Norway and the Netherlands, ahead of reviews of their reports this week.

Speakers said a strong anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment was rising in the political discourse in Norway; it was a long-term process, but the 2011 attacks had pushed the boundaries for expressions of extremisms and made it more acceptable. It was clear that addressing hate crimes, including hate speech and hate violence, was not a priority: there was no definition of or coordinated policy against hate crime, while the Government was absent from addressing hate speech. The situation of the Sami in the east was grave; special measures to preserve and revitalize the Sami culture should be adopted. The Committee should urge Norway to provide adequate follow up to the report on policy towards Taters/Romani people from 1850 until today; the report found that the authorities had been implementing a hard-handed assimilation policy, traceable as late as the 1980s, which included removal of children from parents, forced settlements and forced sterilizations. Further, the Committee should address the issue of visiting or migrant Roma, and the criminalization of begging and sleeping rough.

Participating in the discussion were the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution and the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud, and the following non-governmental organizations: Norwegian Centre against Racism, Roma Centre, Sami Centre, Sami Parliament of Norway, and Organization against Public Discrimination.

Speakers said the Government of the Netherlands should acknowledge the systematic use of ethnic profiling in policing and develop effective policies to counter discrimination in policing. The position of ethnic minorities in the labour market was alarming, while the detention of migrants and asylum seekers was not being used as a measure of last resort. The Government had no intention to guarantee in the law the basic right of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers to “bed, bath and bread”, while its assimilation policy violated the rights of Travellers, Roma and Sinti people. Non-governmental organizations raised concern about the lack of political will to implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and lack of recognition of the People of African Descent.

Addressing the Committee were the Netherlands International Commission of Jurists and the National Association of Black, Migrants and Refugee Women.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon to start its review of the combined twenty-first and twenty-second report of Norway (CERD/C/NOR/21-22). The country reviews can be watched via live webcast at http://www.treatybodywebcast.org.

Statements on Norway

Discussion with Non-governmental Organizations

Norwegian Centre against Racism said that since the right-wing terrorist attack of 2011, there had been an increase of hate speech and anti-Muslim and anti-Immigrant rhetoric, including in one of the political parties. The police had established a Hate Crime Group in Oslo, but this represented a local initiative and the national government could not take credit for it; there was no coordinated national policy against hate crimes and violence, and it was clear that this was not one of the national priorities. There was a need to adopt a clear national definition of hate crime, and ensure improvements in routines in dealing with hate crimes. The Government needed to get actively involved in addressing hate speech.

Roma Centre said that Norwegian Roma still had a problem to obtain spaces in camps, and experienced mortality rates three times higher than the rest of the population. The State needed to create a national action plan and organize facilitated education for Roma children during their traditional travels. The child welfare officials should not be contacted by the school system when a child was absent because of participation in traditional travels. There was a lack of knowledge about Roma as a national minority, and they experienced discrimination in employment and apprenticeship.

Organization against Public Discrimination highlighted the need for a national action plan against racism and discrimination; the Government had initiated a Plan of Action on Radicalization and Extremism, which would have a negative impact on boys in terms of racial profiling. Minorities could not participate in the creation of policies which concerned them; for example, the recent long-term plan on higher education and research took as a point of departure the demographic make-up of Norway in 1970s, and not 2015 which showed that Norway was a multicultural and multiracial country. Discrimination did exist in the country, and the main task now was to shift the focus from a discussion on whether it existed, to what could be done about it.

Sami Council stressed the importance of the recognition of the rights of Sami in the Constitution, and the recognition of consultation rights. The Committee should ask the State party to immediately halt all forceful slaughter of reindeer in Finmark County, and compensate all Sami reindeer herders for damages caused, revise the Reindeer Herding Act to enhance the decision-making power of the Sami reindeer herders, including in the context of management of herds, and revise legislation that regulated industrial activities, including the Mining Act, in the Sami traditional territories, so that no such activities could be carried out without free, priori and informed consent.

Committee Experts asked whether it was the events of July 2011 that caused the upsurge in hate speech, and whether there was a need to make a distinction between Roma who considered themselves Norwegians and had been established in the country for a long time, and the Roma who came during summer from other European countries, primarily from the former eastern block. There were about 60,000 members of the Sami community living primarily in the Finmark County, which was rather large; why was it difficult to reconcile their rights, with the rights of others, for example in terms of mining and exploitation of natural resources in a vast territory? Which collective rights of the Sami people were already recognized, and which should be additionally recognized by the State party?

Non-governmental organizations were also asked about the concept of return agreements and their use in connection with children of asylum seekers, the application of the Anti-Discrimination Act on employers of less than 50 employees, Roma children in the foster system, the dimensions of the problem of homelessness, and whether the approach of the Government to address hate speech included the use of counter-argument to dispel racist beliefs. What was the current position of the Government concerning the forced assimilation of Roma and travellers, including through taking away of the children, which had taken place with full compliance of Norwegian social services in the 1970s? What specific issues with regards to migrant and refugee women and girls should the Government look into?

Responding to the questions raised by the Committee Experts, the Norwegian Centre against Racism said that there was a strong anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment rising in political discourse; this was a long-term process, but the 2011 attacks had pushed the boundaries for expressions of extremisms, making it more acceptable, because nothing could be as extremist as the perpetrators of the attack. High-level Government officials rarely used the counter-argument to counter hate speech, this was largely left to non-governmental organizations. In terms of concrete steps, Norway should adopt a definition of hate speech, the National Police needed to allocate people to work on issues of hate crimes, and right-wing extremist violence needed to be taken more seriously, including more research on the issue.

Another non-governmental organization representative said that there was a need to look into the issues affecting minority women in a holistic manner, from their arrival into the country, to their integration and participation in the society. One of the issues that needed to be looked into was violence against women, including the three-years requirement of residing with the resident permit holder, which put women victims of violence at risk of further violence. Racism was not addressed in Norway, many different terms - such as ethnic discrimination – were being used, which made African communities and other minorities in Norway invisible. Norwegian children of minority background were more likely to be discriminated against than radicalized. Non-governmental organizations further urged the Committee to recommend that Norway funded research on right-wing extremism, and to adopt a white paper on the impact of hate speech.

Roma Centre said that the visiting Roma were seen as tourists and they were not entitled to social services and support from the Government; the travelling Roma did not bring their children to Norway as they were afraid they might be taken away.

Representatives of Sami Centre and the Sami Parliament of Norway said that the use of land for mining was in conflict with the manner that the land was used for herding, and this was the problem. Duck hunting in spring was conducted in a traditional manner, before the breeding season; the quota for ducks should be increased, and Sami hunters should be allowed to hunt other kinds of ducks. The situation of Sami in the east was grave, and the Government should adopt special measures to preserve and revitalize the Sami culture, including the right to salmon fishing and other traditional industries.

Discussion with National Human Rights Institutions on Norway

Norwegian National Human Rights Institution said that the law on national human rights institutions had been approved in April this year; the institution had been officially established in July 2015 and the position of Director had been opened for recruitment. In June 2015, the government Commission had issued its final report on Norwegian policy towards Taters/Romani people from 1850 until today, and the main finding was that Norwegian authorities had been implementing a hard-handed assimilation policy, traceable as late as the 1980s, which included removal of children from parents, forced settlements and forced sterilizations, was failed and destructive. The Committee should urge the State party to provide adequate follow up to the findings of this report. Another issue the Committee should address with Norway was the issue of visiting or migrant Roma, and the criminalization of begging and sleeping rough, which in fact criminalized poverty at its core.

Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud said that the situation for ethnic minorities in Norway today was precarious and required effective equality policies. A climate of hate in the Norwegian discourse had worsened since the terror attack in 2011, while barriers to equality for ethnic minorities in access to jobs and public services remained high. The situation of the most vulnerable ethnic minorities had worsened, and access to justice for those who were discriminated against was inadequate and unfair. Dialogue between the authorities and impacted minority groups had worsened and there was a lack of a new and effective framework for dialogue. The authorities did not understand and acknowledged that discrimination and inequality were occurring; they did not listen to people experiencing discrimination, while the policy focused disproportionately on changing ethnic minorities and too little on combatting discrimination and inequality among employers, service providers and the rest of the majority society.

Another representative of the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud said that the focus of the Government in terms of addressing hate speech was on the border between criminal speech and speech protected by freedom of expression, and said that the Government should increase research on the extent and harmful effects of hate speech. There was lack of documentation and follow up of hate crime, and the Ombud recommended the adoption of a national standard which should give all police districts clear instructions on the registration of hate crime.

Committee Experts asked about the accreditation of the national human rights institutions under the Paris Principles, whether the practices such as the abduction of children and the forced sterilization of Romani were still practiced, the role of the church, and whether civil society, members of Parliament and political parties realized that the time was right to raise the issue of racial discrimination to the national level.

Responding, the representative of the National Human Rights Institution said that the institution had been accredited with A Status and in full compliance with the Paris Principles; this accreditation had been awarded at a time when the Principles were not being applied thoroughly and strictly. The institution had been established by a royal decree, not by the law which was a requirement of the Paris Principles, and this had been a hindrance. The atrocities such as the abduction of children and their removal from parents, and forced sterilization of Tater Romani had been extensively documented; removal of children from their parents was still taking place for Roma and Roma travellers. The role of the church had been very important in the implementation of the assimilation policy, and the most central apology that had been issued came from church-based organizations.

It was important for the Committee to address the problem of the Roma now, rather than the problems of the past, stressed a representative of the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud.

Statements on the Netherlands

Discussion with Non-Governmental Organizations

International Commission of Jurists said that ethnicity played a decisive role in police stop and search operations; the Government should acknowledge the systematic use of ethnic profiling in policing and develop effective policies to counter discrimination in policing. The position of ethnic minorities in labour market was alarming, and 70 per cent of Dutch temporary employment agencies, which were gate-keepers to the labour market, received requests by employers not to introduce candidates of certain origin, for example Turkish or Moroccan. Undocumented migrants and asylum-seekers were another group which was not acknowledged by the Government, which had no intention to guarantee the basic needs, the so-called “bed, bath and bread”, in law. The detention of migrants and asylum seekers was not being used as a measure of last resort, and was excessively long, 18 months. The Government’s assimilation policy violated the rights of Travellers, Roma and Sinti people.

National Association of Black, Migrants and Refugee Women expressed concern about the lack of political will on the part of the Government to implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the outcome of the Durban Review Conference. Demonizing of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was still going on and the Committee should urge the Government to adopt a national action plan in close consultation and cooperation with representatives of people of African descent. Another issue of concern was the lack of the recognition of people of African descent.

Committee Experts asked whether indigenous people, such as Arawaks, were still living in the Dutch Antilles, whether people of African descent were visible in the Dutch policies and society, and about the exercise of freedom of expression and evidence of discrimination in this point. The shadow report claimed that people of African descent were unable to use the services of the Anti-discrimination Bureau, simply for lack of knowledge, and Experts asked what other vehicles they had at their disposal.

Responding, the International Commission of Jurists said that the “mainstreaming or generic” approach meant that the Government did not have a specific policy to address the situation of those who were very disadvantaged. Only 16 out of 150 members of Parliament had a minority background, and none was an African background, which was an indication of their situation. What made monitoring of the situation of minorities difficult was that the Netherlands did not collect data on race or ethnicity, so the nationality was used as a proxy, which made it difficult to answer the questions on specific minorities, such as Jews. The generic policies had abolished the funding for civil society organizations which were active in providing a voice for minorities, including on issues of slavery and contemporary forms of racism, which was an issue completely brushed off in the public discourse. The Netherlands had a very long expression of fiercely protecting freedom of expression and opinion. Family reunification was governed by the Civic Integration Abroad Act; the Government had raised the criteria on the civic integration test last year, requiring higher levels of Dutch. The European Court of Justice had released a verdict against the Netherlands, saying that the test was too expensive and did not take into account specific situations; the authorities should allow individuals to travel to the Netherlands to take the test. Family reunification took years to complete.

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record