Europe, all different, all equal? A comparative study of the situation concerning racism and intolerance in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden and Hungary on the basis of the country-by-country approach of the European Commission against R

Europe has changed its shape completely during the last half century. From a continent of sameness, Europe was transformed into a continent of visible otherness.[2] Gradually Europeans did no longer belong to a society that was seen as unchanging, unvarying and uniform, but on the contrary to a society that was marked by distinct identities and in which an effort was made to include these different identities.

The background against which otherness became noticeable in Europe is - somewhat paradoxically - the introduction of a migration stop in 1973 – 1974.[3] This halt to migration, in itself a response of the separate European countries to the oil – crisis in the Middle East and the consequent economic crisis in the West, resulted de facto in a stabilisation of non – indigenous people in Europe instead of their desired decrease. For fear of not being allowed to come back once they would have left the country, migrants decided to base themselves permanently in their host countries henceforth. This end to the traditional “va – et – vien” between the country of origin and the country of destination caused migrants in Europe to become more present and more visible than ever. An additional factor to the stabilisation of migrants in the host countries is the failure of the return policies that a number of European governments had set up. Moreover, as a result of the higher birth rates of migrants and, of the various ways in which migrants continued to enter Europe, such as family reunification, the coming of foreign students and irregular migration, the number of non – indigenous people not only stabilised, but also increased.

In recent years, the acceleration and intensification of globalisation and the concurrent process of localisation reinforced the European shift towards otherness.[4] With the famous wordings of Martin McLuhan in his book “Understanding Media” (1964), globalisation can be defined as the fact that “the world becomes smaller each and every day” and that it is “turning into a global village”. Globalisation, in other words, means that people and places throughout the world become increasingly interlinked or interdependent, which is in itself the result of ever – quickening mobility and communication. As such, globalisation involves a number of far – reaching socio – economic, political and cultural changes. At society – level for example, practically all people in Europe become confronted with aspects of other cultures and societies. Political, ideological, religious or cultural trends that originally appeared to be connected with a specific place, are now being echoed in large parts of the word, including Europe. Here localisation - also referred to as creolisation, glocalisation or hybridisation - comes into play as the Janus – face of globalisation. As a reaction to the homogenizing tendencies of globalisation, a large number of people tend to adapt the global elements to their local traditions. At the same time, individuals and communities are likely to stress their distinct cultural identity vis - à - vis the others living around and amongst them more strongly than they have ever done before. It is this (re)assertion of particular ethnic and cultural identities and, the de facto “otherness” of European societies that is the focus of my treatise.

The actual cultural and ethnic diversity and the efforts of specific groups, both traditional indigenous and migration – linked (minority) groups, to affirm old and construct new boundaries comprise a great challenge for European societies. The major question at political level is how to create unity while at the same time acknowledging, respecting and even recognising diversity. How, in other words, can social cohesion be established without denying or disrespecting universal and cross – cultural values that are vital for the relations between individuals and groups within a society? How far can immigrant or non – immigrant minorities keep themselves separate and yet participate fully in society. How, further, to avoid that the assertion of particular identities is translated into antagonistic or even racist and discriminating attitudes towards other individuals and groups? It is particularly on this last question, namely the question of equality between all human beings and hence the non – discrimination of all human beings, that I will concentrate in this thesis. More concretely I will investigate the situation in different European countries with regard to racism and intolerance.

The comparative study of this and related issues, such as the integration of minorities in European societies, have been topics of increasing interest in recent years. Nevertheless, most of the attention in these studies has been given to the policies and measures that, in the distinct countries, were adopted at governmental level. My aim is, instead, to focus not only on policies and measures adopted, but also on what is happening ‘in the field’ (read : in everyday society). This approach does however not exclude the fact that I will pay considerable attention to the different political theories that were developed since the beginning of the 1990’s in response to the issue of unity and diversity by authors such as Iris Marion Young, Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka - to mention the most important and most influential ones. Nor does it exclude that I will try to interpret the concrete sources of my research in relation to these theories.

Basis of my research are the so – called country - by - country reports drawn up by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (hereafter : ECRI), an independent body set up in 1993 by the Council of Europe after the organisation’s first Summit of Heads of State and Government held in Vienna (8 – 9 September 1993).[5] In its country – by – country reports, ECRI examines the situation concerning racism and intolerance in each of the member States of the Council of Europe. In each report, the same criteria are scrutinized, such as the legal apparatus regarding racism and intolerance, the (non-) existence of specialised bodies and institutions, the level of education and awareness - raising and the quality of reception and status of non – citizens. Consequently, these reports are very suitable material to make a comparison between distinct European countries and to inquire not only into the policies and measures adopted by these countries, but also into what happens in every – day life.

On the basis of the above – mentioned debate about unity and diversity on the one hand and, on the basis of the ECRI country – by – country reports on the other hand, the main questions that I raise and will try to answer in this treatise are the following.

What picture can be drawn up with regard to racism and intolerance in distinct European states when studying the reports drafted by an independent human rights monitoring body? What are the fields in which the countries seem to fail and what are the fields in which they seem to be successful? What are the elements that are given particular attention and what are the elements that are - invariably - neglected? Is the policy of the distinct European countries very liberal or on the contrary very restrictive? And what about group rights, the accession of vulnerable groups to public services such as education and housing, and the monitoring of the situation in the country?

On a higher level, I will deal with the subsequent questions. Is it possible to distinguish between different traditions, different models in relation to the distinct member states? Or, is the situation concerning racism and intolerance de facto more or less the same in all the European countries and does the popular notion of national models nothing more than obscuring the similarities of approaches and concerns across the distinct states? If no, how important are the differences between the countries and how can these differences be explained. If yes, why then is the emphasis in the literature still so predominantly on the dissimilarities between European states?

To answer the above questions, I chose to study the situation concerning racism and intolerance and xenophobia in six distinct countries of Europe, namely Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain and Hungary.[6]

Rationale for the choice to study Sweden, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, is the fact that these countries represent the distinct “models” or “traditions”, that can be distinguished on the basis of the relevant literature, of how states respond to ethnic – cultural diversity. Since the classification made by Stephen Castles and Mark Miller in their book “The Age of Migration” (1993), it has become a common practice to point at Germany as the best representative of the so – called exclusion model, France of the republican model and Sweden of the multiculturalist model.[7] In short, the characteristic features of the exclusion model, that is tied to a definition of the nation in terms of jus sanguinis, are its restrictive naturalisation requirements and its ideology that the country is not an immigrant country. In the republican model on the contrary not blood rights but territorial rights or jus soli form the basis for the concept of the nation. Consequently, in the republican model every – one who desires to become a citizen can become so, at least when he or she is willing to “assimilate” with the nation, read : with the majority culture. The multiculturalist model then is based on the notion of tolerance. The main idea of this model is to respect and even to encourage cultural difference. Although Sweden is seen as the most typical of the multiculturalist model, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom are no bad examples either, be it in a somewhat distinct way. This is way I decided to include the UK in my research as well.

The incorporation of Spain in the list of countries that I will study can be accounted for by the fact that, contrary to the above Scandinavian and western European countries, Spain - as a representative of the southern European countries - has a very recent history when it comes to immigration.[8] It was only by the beginning of the 1980s that a cluster of economic, political and socio – economic factors caused a shift in the migratory trends in southern Europe and that these traditional sending countries transformed into new countries of destination. This diversion effect was, among other things, a result of the halt called to the recruitment of labour migrants in the West around the years 1973 – 74 and the fast economic and social development in the countries of southern Europe.

The ground to include Hungary in this study - as a representative of the central and eastern European countries - is the fact that the story of this part of Europe reads completely different from the one of western and southern Europe, not at least because of the influence the Soviet Union had on these countries until very recently.[9] Under Soviet rule, Central and Eastern Europe, for instance, never took fully part in the process of globalisation and hence localisation. With regard to migration, the number of immigrants is considerably less in the central and eastern European countries than in Northern and Western Europe. Moreover, immigrants in Central and Eastern Europe are usually transit immigrants who view their stay as temporary. Since the symbolic collapse of the Berlin wall and hence of the entire Soviet system and, since the recent incorporation of the central and eastern European countries in the European Union, migratory trends in Central and Eastern Europe might shift however. Nevertheless, it is still too early to assess such an evolution.

As to the timeframe of this treatise, I am somewhat confined by the scope of the sources that my research rests on. The country – by – country reports ECRI draws up are issued by rounds; each cycle lasting around four to five years, covering ten to twelve countries per year.[10] At the end of one round, ECRI has scrutinized the situation concerning racism and intolerance in all of the Council of Europe’s member States, formulated suggestions and proposals to the governments involved and, after consulting the member State concerned, issued a country – report containing ECRI’s analysis of the state of affairs in each of the member states. A first round was completed at the end of 1998, a second round at the end of the year 2002. A third round started in 2003 and is supposed to be completed by 2007.

My purpose is to inquire only into the latest version available of the country – by – country reports of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain and Hungary.[11] Since the third round is yet to be completed, the third round country – reports are only available for France, Hungary and Germany. Although the United Kingdom and Sweden were covered in 2004 and although their country – reports are due in the course of this year, their reports are at the moment not published yet. Spain on the other hand will only be covered in the run of 2005 and its country – report is due in the course of 2006. Consequently, for Sweden, the United Kingdom and Spain I will study the second country – reports.

This treatise is made up of five chapters. After this introductory chapter, I will deal with the integration debate at greater length since the issue of racism and intolerance in Europe cannot be dissociated from the question about unity and diversity. Apart from focussing on the notions of cultural diversity and integration, I will throw light on the concept of multiculturalism.

Chapter 3 focuses in general terms on racism and intolerance in Europe. After giving a dynamic, though integrated picture of contemporary racism in Europe, attention will be given to the activities with relevance to combating racism and intolerance at European level and, more precisely, at the level of the Council of Europe.

Chapter 4, the most elaborated chapter of this treatise, examines the situation concerning racism and intolerance in France, Hungary, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Spain. In this chapter I will scrutinize ECRI’s (second or third round) country – by – country reports on the selected countries.

The issue of racism and intolerance in Europe cannot be dissociated from the integration – debate. Therefore, in this chapter, I will deal with the integration – debate at greater length. At stake in the debate is the question of unity and diversity; of how policies should respond to the de facto cultural and ethnic varieties in the society in such a way to encourage the social cohesion that is needed to ensure harmonious relations between groups of people of different backgrounds, while at the same time recognising or even respecting such diversity. How far can immigrant and non – immigrant minority groups, for example, keep themselves separate and yet participate fully in society? Is it sufficient that all parts of society subscribe to the core values of the countries in which they live and that within the limits of these established norms everyone practices its own belief or continues its own customs? In other words: what should be the status, rights and obligations of minority cultures in European societies?

Today’s Europe is composed of culturally diversified societies, or, to use a trendy academic word, of multicultural societies. The notion of multicultural society, that replaces to a certain extend the now somewhat old – fashioned term of plural societies, denotes a society in which there exist several cultures and that is composed of people belonging to different cultures. The term multicultural society, in other words, is not about differences per se, but about those differences that are embedded in and sustained by culture, i.e. a body of beliefs and practices in terms of which a group of people understand themselves and the world and organise their individual and collective lives.

Cultural diversity in modern multicultural Europe takes many forms. In his book “Rethinking multiculturalism” Parekh for example distinguishes between three forms of cultural diversity, namely subcultural diversity, perspectival diversity and communal diversity.[12] Subcultural diversity concerns those members of society who either entertain different beliefs and practices with regard to particular areas of life or evolve relatively distinct ways of life of their own. Gays and lesbians are examples of the first category, fishermen and miners of the latter. Perspectival diversity relates to those members of society who are highly critical of some of the central principles or values of the prevailing culture and seek to reconstitute it along appropriate lines. Feminists for instance attack the highly patriarchal orientation of the present society whereas anti – globalists mind the basic neo – liberal assumptions of the current globalisation – process. Communal diversity then concerns several self – conscious and more or less well – organised communities entertaining and living by their own different systems of beliefs and practices, namely national minorities, immigrant minorities, religious groups and sui – generis groups. In this regard, Europe is also called to be composed of multi – ethnic, pluri – ethnic or multiracial societies.

Although the term multicultural society generally refers to a society that exhibits all the three above mentioned kinds of diversity, the debate on multiculturalism and hence of integration in Europe tends to focus especially on the last category of communal diversity and more particularly, though not exclusively, on migration – based minorities.[13] For the question of immigrants is a very topical one in Europe, since European societies have long assumed that they were composed of only one single national culture in which all their citizens should assimilate. By the second half of the twentieth century, however, European societies found that they effectively did include groups who would not or whom they could not assimilate. The presence of these groups made Europe shift from a continent of sameness towards a continent of otherness or, from a cluster of societies that were seen as unchanging, unvarying and uniform towards a cluster of societies that were marked by distinct identities and in which an effort was made to include these different identities and to integrate them.[14]

Integration is a relatively vague and broad – ranging concept that covers several different dimensions. So, although in all cases the notion of integration includes some measure of cultural diversity and mutual respect, the actual meaning of the notion integration varies from country to country, depending both on the objective sought and the method used.

A first distinction that can be made with regard to integration is between structural integration and sociocultural integration.[15] Structural integration relates to the political and economic dimension and can be described as the full and equitable participation in the institutions of a society. Sociocultural integration on the other hand is more concerned about the establishment of social relations with the surrounding society and the adaptation to some extent to the culture of that society. It is, in other words, a search for the ideal balance between diversity and consensus about some core values. Clear examples of structural integration are the acquisition of nationality, the entrance in the labour market and the acquisition of voting rights. Clear examples of sociocultural integration are access to public institutions, housing and education. A further discernment that can be made is between general policies and specific or targeted policies, where the latter refers to policies that are addressed to or, more precisely, targeted to specific groups or categories of people.

From an ideological perspective, Castles and Miller introduced a popular classification of how European states try to respond to ethno – cultural diversity in their book “The Age of Migration”. Although Castles and Miles focus on the integration of immigrants in society, their classification can be interpreted more broadly and applied to the whole integration – debate. Castles and Miller identify three distinct models of immigrant policies, namely the exclusion model or model of differential exclusion, the republican or assimilationist model and the multicultural or pluralistic model. Germany is judged to be the clearest example of the first model, France of the second one and Sweden of the third one.

The model of differential exclusion and the assimilationist model are based on two opposite conceptions of nation following, respectively the principle of jus sanguinis and the principle of jus soli. The first concept of nation based on terms of descent and blood, is often referred to as the ethnic conception of nation, while the second concept of nation based on terms of territory is often referred to as the civic conception of nation.[16] The idea is that every country chooses between one of these two conceptions of nation and that this choice reflects such deeply rooted ways of thinking that all aspects of the policy and legislation of that country are influenced by it. A well – known expression of this view is Brubaker’s “Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany”.[17]

Turning back to the classification made by Castles and Miller with regard to different integration – policy models, the characteristic features of the model of differential exclusion are the restrictive naturalisation requirements and the basic idea that the country is no immigrant country. This does not mean that the countries following this model want to prevent immigration at any costs, they are just hesitant to accept the presence of immigrants. The distinguishing feature of the republican model on the other hand is mainly the fact that per definition everyone who desires to, can become a citizen of the country, at least when he or she is willing to “assimilate” with the (majority) culture of that country. The underlying idea in the first model is that one has to prove first that he or she wants to integrate and only thereafter citizenship is granted. In the second model, citizenship is granted quite easily and rapidly because it is considered as an aid to integrate. For when one has citizenship he or she is already in some way or another seen as forming ‘part of the club’.

Note that because of the recent phenomenon of transnationalism or immigration beyond the confines of one single country, the traditional notions of citizenship, be it on the basis of jus sanguinis or on the basis of jus soli, are currently under discussion as becoming largely irrelevant.[18] Legitimised by an international human rights discourse, transnationals increasingly claim nationality rights that transgress the borders. In this context, the new notion of postnational citizenship or the decoupling of rights and identities from national citizenship has been launched. In the postnational view, anyone who resides legally for a certain period of time within the territory of a state or settles there legally is granted equal rights. Neither a certain cultural identity, nor the belonging to a certain territory is necessitated.

The third model in Castles and Miller’s classification is the multicultural model. The characteristic feature of this model is the notion of tolerance and even recognition. Cultural differences are encouraged while everyone is required to accept some core values of society.

As the term itself indicates, multiculturalism refers to cultures in the plural. However, as it is clear from the above paragraph, the word multiculturalism can be applied both in a descriptive and in a prescriptive way. On the one hand, multiculturalism can refer to a state of affairs and mean the existence of culturally diverse segments in the population of a society or a state. On the other hand, multiculturalism can refer to an ideological, philosophical or political programme that desires to respond to cultural diversity in a specific way. Multiculturalism then means in broad lines the idea or the initiative to urge the recognition and tolerance of cultural differences and sometimes even to stimulate actively cultural diversity. In order to avoid confusion between these two different usages of the same term, Parekh proposes to speak of multicultural and multiculturalist societies instead.[19] The term multicultural society then refers to a society in which different cultures exist, whereas the term multiculturalist society refers to a society in which different cultures do not only exist but are also recognised. In other words, multicultural society refers to the fact of cultural diversity, while multiculturalist society refers to a way to respond to that fact.

As a word or thing, multiculturalism first appeared in Canada, where Prime Minister Trudeau used it as a central concept in his 1971 government programme in response to the Quebec question.[20] The term soon made its entry into Australia. In Canada as well as in Australia, the idea of multiculturalism was launched in an attempt to reconcile the seemingly incompatible claims of defeated homeland minorities, old European immigrants and newly entering immigrant – groups. The term was thus originally used normatively. As a comment in the margin, it should be noted that both Canada and Australia could at that time be characterised as post – colonial societies that lacked independent nation –founding myths as well as clear breaks with the colonial past. Hence, the two countries conceived of themselves as multiple cultures coexisting under the roof of a neutral state. The next country where the concept of multiculturalism set foot ashore was the United States. As the idea of a melting pot, i.e. one single common culture into which all develop through a process of gradually abandoning the culture of origin and assimilating into the one and only national culture, was firmly in place in the United States, the concept of multiculturalism adopted an oppositional and anti – institutional stance in this country.[21] Multiculturalism retained this stance in its further march towards Europe, final destination until now.

The essence of the multiculturalist model (read : multiculturalism in its normative sense) lies in the simultaneous concern for political integration, social and economic participation and the recognition of other cultures as equal in principle.[22] Consequently, a first priority in the multiculturalist model is to make all people into citizens without too many delays. The next step after granting formal citizenship, is granting substantive citizenship, that is actual equality. It is seen as partly a task of the government to put an end to differential treatment between culturally diverse groups and to drive away forces such as racism and intolerance that cause or perpetuate inequality. Moreover, the state and society have to respect and even to recognise that some individuals and groups are different. Group rights, the right to differential treatment and collective cultural rights are therefore core elements of multiculturalism. This accounts also for the accommodation of some rules to minority cultures, since multiculturalists claim that the prevailing rules in society have been laid down by the dominant group and hence are not neutral or, above all cultures.

It could be inferred that multiculturalism is closely related to targeted policies. These two types of policies do however not coincide necessarily. Since, in the case of frictions between the minority culture and the dominant culture, the granting of special rights is just one option. The other one is the adaptation of the dominant culture to the new range of cultural diversity in society. And, of course, a combination of both options is also possible.

The remark is sometimes made that multiculturalism is in essence not as new as the word implies. Is multiculturalism not the same thing as pluralism, be it in another guise? The answer is no. Multiculturalism differs fundamentally from the pluralism or imperial model that was characteristic for such societies as the pre-industrial Habsburg or Ottoman empires, or else the colonial societies. Where the focus of multiculturalism is on equality, the preservation of cultural differences in the imperial model went hand in hand with social inequality and differential civil rights. Consequently, in contrast with the imperial model, anti – discrimination legislation and positive action tend to be regarded as very important aspects in the multiculturalist model.

The debate about multiculturalism derives in essence from an academic discourse questioning the key tenets of the liberal democratic tradition. A small detour highlighting the foundations and principles of traditional liberalism is therefore appropriate, before dealing with the critique on and the proposed alternatives for traditional liberalism.[24]

Traditional liberalism, in the tradition stretching from Miles to Rawls, is a priori a creed of individual tolerance and freedom. The emphasis on the individual is very strong. Individuals are seen to be the basic components of society, the carriers of human rights. Group rights are out of question in traditional liberalism, for they are seen as incompatible with the liberal principles of individual freedom (of speech, worship, equality before law, etc.), social justice and national unity. The only role for the government, which is seen as neutral, is to guarantee that individuals can enjoy their individual rights.

The basic critique on traditional liberalism is its stance of neutrality. This stance, in relation to non – Western cultures in particular, appears to reach its culmination in the so – called principle of cultural relativism or universalism; the belief that no single culture is better than any other and that there are no transcendent criteria to which one can appeal for justifying the imposition of one culture’s norms on another. The problem, or even the paradox is that if there are no transcendent values, then liberal values are themselves not transcendent and that hence there is no reason why one should accept the principle of cultural relativism. Hence, universalism is disentangled as ethnocentrism of the dominant group, as the invisible subjugation of the Rest by the West. Liberalism is thus said to fail to understand how deeply it is influenced by Western values and how it is actually not as neutral as it claims to be.

Another critique on traditional liberalism is what Iris Marion Young calls difference – blindness.[25] Traditional liberalism, the critique goes, promotes the idea that everyone is equal, but de facto it does nothing more than hiding the differences. Inequality, under the form of oppression, is still present in everyday life. Traditional liberalism is thus seen not to suffice in terms of democracy, at least not in outcome, as it fails to deliver either liberty or equal treatment. Consequently, according to Young, doing justice is to recognise that varieties dó exist within society and this can only be done through what Young calls “the politics of difference”. In short, this implies the recognition of group identity and the granting of group rights by the state and by society and further the fostering of legal ánd real equality. Remains the difficult question of how to define a group and which groups should be recognised. Young sees a group as more than the aggregation of its members. A group is both something an sich, distinguishing itself from the rest of society, and für sich, considering itself as a group.

One alternative for traditional liberalism developed in the field of political theory is communitarism. An important author in this respect is Charles Taylor.[26] In principle Taylor agrees with the importance of individual rights. However, Taylor puts stronger emphasis on the community, which in his opinion is the basis element of society. In effect, Taylor values both the protection of the basic rights of individuals and the acknowledging of particular needs of individuals as members of specific cultural groups. This is the central idea of what Taylor calls “the politics of recognition”. With regard to the state, Taylor views its role not as neutral, but instead as guaranteeing a minimum level of consensus in society by upholding specific common norms and recognising group rights. Since, according to Taylor, recognising and treating all members of society as equals requires public institutions to acknowledge rather than to ignore cultural particularities. It should be noted that the content and the scope of the term recognition goes far beyond that of toleration, for recognition is about the acceptance, respect and affirmation of differences within society. Mere changes in the legal arrangements of society are not sufficient; changes in the society’s attitudes and ways of thought are required as well. The background premise is that recognition forges identity, both individual and group identity.

Communitarism did not meet without response. A few years ago, some individuals and organisations, with Amitai Etzioi as a key figure, set up the Communitarian Network fostering the Diversity within Unity project.[27] The basic approach is “that all members of a given society will fully respect and adhere to those basic values and institutions that are considered part of the basic shared framework of the society. At the same time, every group in society is free to maintain its distinct subculture - those policies, habits, and institutions that do not conflict with the shared core - and a strong measure of loyalty to its country of origin, as long as this does not trump loyalty to the society in which it lives if these loyalties come into conflict”.[28] In short, the basic rights must be respected by one and all, while everyone is free to do whatever he or she wants with respect to all the other rights. Remains to be discussed what these basic rights are.

Another alternative for traditional liberalism thought up in the field of political theory is multiculturalism; the strongest scholarly defence of which has been delivered by Will Kymlicka in his book “Multicultural Citizenship”.[29] The question at the centre of Kymlicka’s book is how liberalism should deal with increasing diversity while human rights are individual rights. Thus, even more than the Communitarians, Kymlicka is not against liberalism tout court. After all, as is clear from the subtitle “A liberal theory of minority rights”, the aim of Kymlicka’s book is to reconcile the idea of collective rights for minority cultures with the core principles and values of the liberal tradition. One could argue that Kymlicka is a liberal with communitarian influence. Kymlicka’s plea is that the protection of group rights is necessary to protect and guarantee individual rights. Group rights and individual rights are not seen as conflicting, but as compatible and even as supplementary. The idea is that group rights supplement and enable individual human rights, they do nót (as the communitarians claim) replace them. This statement needs to be refined, as Kymlicka actually distinguishes between two meanings of collective rights, namely internal restrictions and external protections. In Kymlicka’s words “collective rights could refer to the right of a group to limit the liberty of its own individual members in the name of group solidarity or cultural purity (internal restriction); or it could refer to the right of a group to limit the economic or political power exercised by the larger society over the group to ensure that the resources and institutions on which the minority depends are not vulnerable to majority decisions (external restrictions)”. It is only the latter meaning of collective rights that does not (need to) conflict with individual rights. Essential in Kymlicka’s work is further the distinction between national minorities and ethnic groups. The different sorts of minority rights that both ethnic and national groups may demand, according to Kymlicka, are self – government rights or the delegation of powers to national minorities, poly – ethnic rights or the financial support and legal protection for certain practices associated with particular ethnic or religious groups and, special representation rights or the guaranteed seats for ethnic or national groups within the central institutions of the larger state.

In academic circles Kymlicka’s work and more broadly the model of multiculturalism has been criticised on different points.[30] The strongest critique concerns the word ‘culture’ in the term ‘multiculturalism’. Kymlicka’s defence of multicultural citizenship is said to be limited both in its scope and implications as it is based on a narrow definition of culture. With a reference to Parekh one can object that Kymlicka only focuses on communal diversity and leaves subcultural diversity and perspectival diversity aside. More broadly, there lurks a potential danger in that the word culture could be understood too naively, failing to see culture as a dynamic process of the constant adaptation of people to the circumstances which require them to engage with new ways of understanding the world and responding to it. Further, some argue that the focus on culture takes the attention away from other, perhaps more important sources of minority discrimination, such as socio – economic inequities.

Another point at issue is multiculturalism’s negation of monoculture. This would result in the disuniting or fragmenting of national societies, since multiculturalism denies the nation as the (only) focus of an individual’s ultimate loyalties.[31] Some of the more technical remarks are whether special representation rights can be called democratic, whether the granting of group rights may eventually not provoke a backlash by the majority society and, whether the distinction between national minorities and national groups is not in a way irrelevant (how far for instance, should one go back into the past to catalogue a group as a national minority instead of an ethnic group). A final question is when does a group qualify for membership in the multicultural group (what to do for instance with non – democratic groups who claim groups rights) and which rights precisely are to be accorded to minority groups. Where the problem of the first question consists of the likely proliferation of claimants, the problem of the second question consists in the possible escalation of the claims.

In more practical terms, criticism on multiculturalism has mounted sharply as well and, consequently, the retreat of official multicultural policies is sound in most European countries that had been prominently committed to a version of it.^{^[32]} A number of causes is responsible for this retreat of multiculturalism, some of them reflecting the above mentioned theoretical critique on multiculturalism. First of all, there is a lack of public support for multicultural policies. Closely related to this is the argument that multiculturalism would play into the hands of (extreme) right – wing political parties as, for example, measures targeting minorities extremists would give people the idea that minorities are barely receiving preferential treatment. Further, multicultural policies have not proven to be effective in overcoming some pressing socio – economic issues such as the large – scale unemployment of minorities. The critique even goes that multicultural policies would intensify marginalisation and self – segregation of migrants and their children. Finally, there is a new assertiveness of the liberal state in imposing the liberal minimum on its dissenters. As a result, the new policies that are to replace the scaling back multicultural policies are viewed by some scholars as a return to (moderate) assimilationism.[33]

Racism and intolerance are phenomena that Europe has been faced with for a long time, however not always in the same guise. At the same time, racism and intolerance are clearly opposed to the core principles and common values that, at present, underpin the different European states. In this regard, this chapter will firstly focus on the current face of racism and intolerance in Europe. Then, attention will be given to the way in which the problem of racism and intolerance is dealt with at the European level and more precisely at the level of the Council of Europe.

Racism and intolerance are no new phenomena, let alone typically European phenomena. However, adapting themselves to the contemporary fashions, racism and intolerance continuously take on new shapes. As Michael Head, Chairman of ECRI puts it “Racism is a demon that changes according to context” [35] and “Racism and its expressions, segregation, violence and all such ills continue to be essentially the same filthy creature in different visible forms. Racism still remains the belief that a person or group are superior to others for reasons of race, language or national identity, etc. … But the creature sheds its skin and evolves”. [36]

In his article “Racism in Europe : unity and diversity” Michel Wieviorka aims to give an integrated picture of contemporary racism accounting for most racist experiences throughout Europe. [37] Wievriorka thereby tries to include the various forms that racism can take on, to move beyond the national differences and to seek for a certain European ‘unity’. Starting point of the author is the idea that racism is inseparable from modernity. In his view, racism significantly gained momentum since modern times when Europe was faced with huge migrations, an extension of its trading relationships, industrialisation of society and colonisation. In its link with modernity, racism can however not be reduced to one logic. On the contrary, Wieviorka distinguishes between at least four different lines of argument that cross the space of racism in its relation to modernity, namely (1) modernity against identity, (2) modernity against modernity, (3) identity against modernity and (4) and identity against identity.

In the first instance, racism is linked to a positive valorisation of modernity, the rise of which must be ensured. Hence this form of racism is universalist and despises different identities, which is expressed by denouncing so – called ‘inferior races’ as an obstacle to expansion, especially colonial expansion. At the same time, the so – called ‘inferior races’ are labelled to be destined to exploitation. In the second instance, racism is linked to the refusal to be excluded from modernity. In this regard, racism appears when an actor who positively values modernity is afraid to be exposed to a form of expulsion leading to marginalisation. Especially in the context of an economic crisis or retraction from the labour market the actor typically imputes his or her misfortune to migrants, even if these share the same experience. In the third instance, racism is linked to an identity or tradition opposed to modernity. Racism then attacks those who are seen as the vectors of this detested modernity. In the fourth instance, finally, racism is linked to an identity or tradition as well, but in this case it does not oppose groups incarnating modernity, but groups defined by an identity without any reference to modernity. Racism then appears as an expression of intercultural tensions.

The significance of Wieviorka’s model is that his space of racism around four cardinal points enables to read the European experience and its recent evolutions in a dynamic way, taking into account the changing forms of racism. In Europe racism has long been dominated on the one hand by a universalist and colonial type (1) and on the other hand by oppositions to modernity, particularly in the form of anti – Semitism (3). In this guise, racism was overall a spectacular and massive phenomenon. Today, however, racism is much more than previously directed on the one hand by the fear of downward social mobility (2) and on the other hand by tensions around identity and nation (4).

Indeed, at present, in the context of increasing unemployment, social exclusion and downward mobility and, in the context of a state, which encounters increasing difficulties in acting as a welfare state, chiefly migrants are perceived in racist terms. Migrants and people of migration background are accused of causing the social misfortune of those who lost their job or are afraid of losing their job and further, of taking advantage of the social security system, of using the social security institutions to their own ends and of benefiting too much attention from the state. In addition to this, debates about nation, nationality and citizenship are currently very activated, particularly as a response to the growth of other identities among different religious, ethnic, national and regional groups. As a self – strengthening spiral, the presence of more and more visible immigration nurtures a stronger feeling of national identity which, for its part, is to an increasing extend loaded with racist ideas. External phenomena, such as the current globalisation, only further intensify this tendency of racist affirmations of identity.

To resume, today racism mainly emerges when social problems such as exclusion and downward mobility grow and when anxiety in regard to national identities develops. The latter statement, on growing anxiety, can be enforced with a reference to the post 9/11 atmosphere whereby an increased risk of intercultural conflict is feared and to some extend also affirmed. The former statement, on downward mobility, can be enforced with a reference to the results of the Eurobarometer opinion poll dating from the end of 1997 indicating that “Dissatisfaction with their life circumstances, fear of unemployment, insecurity about the future and low confidence in the way public authorities and the political establishment worked in their county were the main characteristics of those who put themselves at the top of the racist scale and who were more likely to agree with negative stereotypes on immigrants and minorities”.[38]

The protection of human rights versus the fight against racism and intolerance [39]

The Council of Europe was set up in Strasbourg in 1949 to prevent Europe from a return of the horrors of the Second World War. Hence, since its creation, one of the prime fields of competence of the Council of Europe has been the protection, promotion and prevention of human rights.[40] The Council of Europe aims to achieve this goal in four main areas, namely in supervising and protecting effectively the fundamental rights and freedoms, identifying new threats to human rights and human dignity, developing public awareness of the importance of human rights and promoting human rights education and professional training. The most significant treaties set up by the Council of Europe in the field of human rights are the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (1989) and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1994).

With regard to the issue of racism and intolerance, the European Convention on Human Rights, undoubtedly the Council of Europe’s most significant achievement, is particularly important as it links the issue of racism and intolerance to the issue of human rights. Article 14 of the Convention states that “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”.[41] In terms of enforcement, the Human Rights Convention is rather strong given the fact that it is provided with its own binding protection machinery, namely the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg). To this court all member States of the Council of Europe are party and any person may address a petition after all national remedies have been exhausted. However, the protection provided by the Human Rights Convention’s provision relating to non – discrimination was originally limited in scope because discrimination was only prohibited when it applied to one of the rights set forth in the Convention. The new Protocol 12 signed in November 2000 does away with this restriction and states that “no – one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any of the above – mentioned ground”. [42]

It is worth noting that, from a legal point of view, other international mechanisms exist in order to combat racism and intolerance in Europe. The most forceful international legal instrument in this regard it the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.[43] This Convention has strongly influenced the national anti – discrimination legislation and policies of many European ratifying states. On the other hand, the European Union itself is equipped with important legislation in the field of non – discrimination and equality, including racial equality. More concretely, with the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 an anti – discrimination clause was incorporated in EU law. Article 13 TEC states “Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty, and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council […] may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”. [44] In order to implement article 13 TEC, the Union adopted the so – called anti – discrimination package in 1999 resulting, among other things, in the Council Directive 2000/43/EC, also referred to as the “Race Directive” or the “Racial Equality Directive”. [45] This directive prohibits discrimination on the ground of race or ethnic origin in the field of employment, goods and services. Observe that, although the European Union and the Council of Europe are two quite distinct organisations, no country ever joined the European Union before first joining the Council of Europe. In this regard the Council of Europe is sometimes giggly referred to as the ‘crèche’ of Europe. This indicates nevertheless that the role of the Council of Europe in the field of human rights, including in the field of racism and intolerance, is not to be underestimated.

In order to reinforce its approach to the fight against racism and intolerance, the 1993 Vienna Summit of the Council of Europe established the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). The reason behind the establishment of ECRI is the fact that the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe’s member States realised during this first Summit that one of the prime goals of the Council of Europe was not yet achieved, namely preventing that the atrocities of the Second World War would never happen again. Racism, xenophobia, anti – Semitism and intolerance were among the main causes of this great tragedy. Forty – four years after the establishment of the organisation, the Council of Europe was however alarmed by “the present resurgence of racism, xenophobia and anti - Semitism, the development of a climate of intolerance, the increase in acts of violence, notably against migrants and people of immigrant origin, and the degrading treatment and discriminatory practices accompanying them”.[47] The Summit consequently devised a Europe – wide strategy and Plan of Action to tackle the problems of racism and intolerance at pan – European level, resulting among other things in the creation of the independent monitoring body “ECRI”.

As an institution, ECRI was reinforced by the second Summit of Heads of State and Government held in Strasbourg in October 1997 and by the European Conference against Racism also held in Strasbourg in October 2000. As a following – up of this Conference, a new Statute for ECRI was adopted on 13 June 2002, thereby consolidating its role as an independent human rights monitoring body on issues related to racism and racial discrimination. [48]

Since its creation, ECRI is given the mandate to combat racism, xenophobia, anti – Semitism and intolerance in all Council of Europe member States from the perspective of the protection of human rights. In this regard, ECRI’s action covers all necessary measures to combat violence, discrimination and prejudice faces by persons or groups of persons on grounds of race, colour, language, religion, nationality and national or ethnic origin. ECRI’s programme of activities comprises three aspects, namely the county – by – county approach, the work on general themes and the activities in relation to civil society.

In the framework of its county – by – country approach, ECRI draws up reports which contain an analysis of the situation in each Council of Europe member State with regard to the instances of racism and racial discrimination.[49] In its reports ECRI gives also practical proposals in order to help the governments tackle any identified problems. As part of its work on general themes, ECRI has adopted nine general policy recommendations so far, addressed to the governments of all member States. These general policy recommendations cover the main areas of racism and intolerance and provide basic guidelines which policy – makers are invited to use when drawing up national strategies and policies.[50] Another aspect of ECRI’s work on general themes involves the collection of examples of ‘goof practices’ in the fight against racism and intolerance and, disseminating them widely in relevant circles.[51] As part of its work on general themes, ECRI has furthermore been widely involved in the European preparations for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance organised by the United Nations in Durban, 31 August to 8 September 2001.[52] ECRI contributed in particular to the organisation of the regional counterpart of this World Conference, namely the European Conference against Racism entitled “All different, all equal : from principle to practice” held in Strasbourg, 11 – 13 October 2000.[53] Finally, the third aspect of ECRI’s programme of activities, the relations with civil society, works to fully involve civil society in the fight against racism and intolerance, to promote intercultural dialogue and mutual respect and, to organise awareness – raising and information activities. For, a successful strategy against racism and intolerance depends to a large extend on ensuring that the general public becomes conscious of these phenomena and that the anti – racist message filters down to all levels of society. The relation between ECRI and civil society is, among other things, established through the organisation of national rounds tables in the member States and through the organisation of seminars with national specialised bodies to combat racism and racial discrimination.

As ECRI acts as an independent monitoring mechanism, the members of ECRI are as independent and impartial as possible in fulfilling their job. ECRI’s members are appointed by the government of the different member States on the basis of their ‘high moral authority’ and ‘recognised expertise’ in dealing with racism, xenophobia, anti – Semitism and intolerance. Besides, ECRI’s members are forbidden to receive any instructions from their governments.

ECRI’s approach for work on and research into racist phenomena has singled it out from other institutions working in the same field, namely the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the European Union’s independent monitoring body on issues related to racism and racial discrimination, namely the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).[54] In the United Nations, the different governments themselves present annual reports in Geneva on the situation in their counties, while the European Monitoring Centre only conducts thematic inquiries. ECRI on the other hand addresses a whole range of issues involved in racism and intolerance in all the Council of Europe’s member States and it does this by way of a contact visits.[55]

In implementing its activities, ECRI cooperates however closely with the EUMC. Both agencies are established in such a way as not to be opposed to or superimposed on each other but, on the contrary, to engage in mutually complementary actions. Apart from the different procedure referred to above, the main differences between the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance are on the one hand that ECRI has a far broader geographical perspective than the EUMC since it covers all the Council of Europe member States of ‘greater’ Europe and on the other hand that ECRI’s action is founded on the European Convention on Human Rights thus being basically a human rights monitoring commission.[56] On 10 February 1997, the Council of Europe and the European Community signed an agreement providing for a specific legal basis for the development of cooperation between ECRI and the EUMC. In this respect, the Management Board of the Monitoring Centre includes a member appointed by the Council of Europe and since the adoption of ECRI’s new Statute (June 2002) a member of the EUMC Management Board is also invited as an observer to all ECRI plenary meetings. Furthermore, in the framework of joint Bureau meetings, ECRI and the EUMC discuss and identify cooperation activities for each year, such as the organisation of a joint round table held in Strasbourg on 21 March 2001 on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination entitled “Local Solutions to Combat Discrimination”.

The issue of racism and intolerance is examined in the country-by-country reports of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. The picture that can be drawn up with regard to racism and intolerance in different Council of Europe member States on the basis of the reports drafted by this independent monitoring body, is the focus of this chapter. After a brief explanation of what the country-by-country approach precisely contains, I will take a detailed look at the second or third round country-by-country report of respectively Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and France, Hungary and Germany.

The country-by-country approach constitutes, as mentioned earlier, one of the three pillars of ECRI’s work programme.[58] In the framework of this approach ECRI monitors permanently the phenomena of racism and intolerance by closely examining the situation in each member States of the Council of Europe. After its examination ECRI draws up country reports containing its analysis of the situation in the country concerned as well as suggestions and proposals as to how to tackle the problems identified.

The approach is positive in essence and not negative, meaning that the aim of the approach is not to point fingers at a particular country but rather to stimulate the countries in question to follow those adopting best practices. In this regard, in its country-by-country approach, ECRI makes every effort to deal with all of the 46 member States of the Council of Europe on an equal footing. At the same time, ECRI attempts to take up a position as neutral as possible as well as not to exceed its authority as an independent human rights monitoring agency[59].

The work of the country-by-country approach takes place in rounds, each round lasting around four or five years, covering nine or ten countries per year. The reports of the first round were completed at the end of 1998; those of the second round at the end of 2002. Work on the third round reports started in January 2003 and is due to be completed in 2007.[60] Aim of the later rounds is to follow – up if the main recommendations in previous report(s) have been followed and implemented, to update the information contained therein and also to provide a more in – depth analysis of certain “issues of particular interest” in the relevant countries.

The working methods for the preparation of the country reports initially involved only documentary analyses, i.e. national and international written literature. As the result of the first round was however considered to be far too theoretical and rather weak as it was based only on secondary information, a new procedure on top of the documentary analysis was initiated since the second round, namely the so - called ‘contact visit’. This procedure involves that rapporteurs pay a visit to the country in question and meet with the representatives of the various ministries and public administrations responsible for issues relating tot ECRI’s mandate, as well as with the representatives of the concerned (international) non – governmental organisations. In order to guarantee the full independence of these NGOs, the government is never informed about which NGOs ECRI will consult, since the NGOs are also inquired after their opinion about the official version of the facts.

After finishing the documentary analysis and the contact visit, ECRI formulates a first draft, which is transmitted to the country in question through the ECRI representative of this country. ECRI then engages in a confidential dialogue with the national authorities of this country. During this process the national authorities can propose amendments to the draft report, if they deem this necessary. Next, ECRI reviews the content of the first draft in the light of the confidential dialogue, without however being obliged to correct any ‘errors’ that the national authorities might want to see rectified. In a plenary session, the - likely - revised version of the first draft is then adopted, after which this ‘second draft’ is again transmitted to the country concerned, this time via an intermediary national officer who forwards the draft to the government and vice versa forwards the comments of the government to ECRI. The content of this second draft is then a second time reviewed in the light of the comments of the government in question, without, this time too, ECRI being obliged to change anything. Next, in a second plenary session the report is adopted in its final version. If the national government however still disagrees on some points, it can request to append its differing viewpoints to the final version of the report. Yet, these amendments do not form part of ECRI’s analysis and proposals concerning the country in question. Finally, the report is made public, unless the government in question is expressly against its publication. In conclusion, the country-by-country approach is a slow procedure, almost one year passing by as from the first draft of the report until the adoption of the final version. At the same moment, it is however a politically very correct process, guaranteeing ECRI’s - full - independence.

In each round, ECRI examines the situation with regard to racism and intolerance in the different Council of Europe member States according to the same structure. This does however not exclude the possibility of new accents or the incorporation of new elements in the reports. The section on ‘specific issues’ was for instance introduced during the second round.

In general terms, the country reports are broken up into two main sections, namely a first section giving an overview of the situation in the country under review as well as a follow – up of the previous report(s) and, a second section focussing on issues of particular interest or concern in the country in question. While the second section varies from one round to another and from one country to another[61], the first section inquires roughly into the following criteria : legislation (international legal instruments, constitutional provisions and other basis provisions, criminal law provisions and, civil and administrative law provisions); administration of justice; specialised bodies and other institutions; education, training and awareness – raising; reception and status of non – citizens (refugees and asylum seekers); access to public services (education, housing, employment); vulnerable groups (Roma’s and Gypsies, Jewish community, Muslim community); media; conduct of law enforcement officials and monitoring of the situation in the country (data and statistics).

The country reports drawn up by ECRI do not only reflect the analysis of the situation in the countries concerned, but they also contain suggestions and proposals, following this analysis, as to how the problems of racism and intolerance identified in each country might be overcome. The aim of this exercise is to formulate recommendations, which may assist the national governments in taking practical and precise steps to counter racism and intolerance. Hereby, ECRI very regularly refers to its General Policy Recommendations. As mentioned earlier, these documents are addressed to the governments of all Council of Europe member States and cover the main areas of current concern in the fight against racism and intolerance.[62] They are intended to serve as guidelines that policy – makers are invited to use when drawing up national strategies and policies to combat racism and intolerance.

As justified in the introductory chapter, I have chosen to study the country-by-country reports of Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain and Hungary.[64] Rationale for this choice is the fact that Sweden and the United Kingdom are seen as the most typical examples of the multiculturalist model, Germany of the exclusion model and France of the republican model; whereas Spain for its part is a recent immigration country and Hungary is one of the new accession countries of the European Union who were only recently freed from the yoke of communism. As to the timeframe, I have chosen to study only the latest version of the country reports available for each of the six selected states. In concrete term, this means that I examined the second round country reports of Sweden, the United Kingdom and Spain and, the third round country reports of Germany, France and Hungary.

In order to make the information contained in the country-by-country reports of ECRI readable, I transferred the data of the reports to a frame (see annex). [65] In this way, not only does the situation in one particular country become clear at a single glance, but also the differences and similarities between the six different countries examined. The frame drawn up is broken down in three sections, namely “Overview of the situations”, “Specific issues in the country in question” and “Assessment by ECRI”. The first section follows as much as possible the structure and criteria applied by ECRI in its country-by-country approach. The second section fits, to a certain extend, in with the section on “specific issues” in the country reports. However, I also added some additional information in this section that I found in other parts of the country reports. The third section represents ECRI’s assessment of the situation in the country concerned, which can be derived from reading the country reports.

The most elaborated section in the frame is the first section which, more or less in line with ECRI’s reports, pays attention to the following criteria : international law provisions;, constitutional provisions and other basis provisions, criminal law provisions (including whether racist acts are treated as specific offences and a racist motivation is taken into account as an aggravating circumstance; whether criminal law is effectively applied and enforced and, whether incitement to racial hatred is categorised as a criminal offence), civil and administrative law provisions, shift of the burden of proof [66], notion of indirect discrimination [67], specialised bodies and other institutions, monitoring of the situation in the country through data and statistics of racist offences, the role of the media as a promoter of diversity, reception and status of non – citizens (refugees and asylum seekers), vulnerable groups (Roma’s and Gypsies, Jewish community, Muslim community), education, training and awareness – raising, access to public services (education, housing, health care, employment) and conduct of law enforcement officials (training courses, equal treatment by law enforcement officials, independent inquiry for incidents and mixed recruitment). Per country, I investigated the presence or the absence of these criteria held back. I represented the result of this inquiry in the frames by a “Yes”, “No” or “+/-” (more or less).

I am aware of the restrictions of my examination. First of all, I am limited to those criteria that belong to ECRI’s country-by-country reports. Secondly, as ECRI’s work on the country-by-country approach takes place in rounds, each round lasting approximately four or five years, the situation represented in the different countries is not completely synchronic. The latest country report of the United Kingdom that I examined goes for instance back to April 2001, whereas the report examined for France dates from February 2005. Thirdly, I admit it was not always straightforward to classify the data of the reports under one of the three criteria (yes, no, +/-). The country reports are very dry and summarized reflections of the facts. For this reason, I have limited my research as much as possible to objectifyible elements. Since ECRI wants to treat every country on an equal footing it is namely almost out of question to assess the full importance of the situation in the countries in question.

In this regard, I would like to stress my reservations with respect to the section “Assessment by ECRI”. Although ECRI is in essence an independent monitoring body, it is clear that ECRI prefers at the same time not to give any country a good dressing down. ECRI is after all a permanent monitoring body, thus it pays careful attention to use tact when dealing with countries that might have a rather poor record with regard to racism and intolerance. So, in the executive summary of each new country report, one can read the following diplomatic statements : “Country x or y has taken important steps to combat racism and intolerance and has achieved progress in a number of areas”, … “However, some problems of racism and intolerance persist and the progress in a number of respects remains limited”… “Therefore, ECRI recommends country x or y to take further action in a number of fields regarding racism and intolerance”.

On the basis of its country report, France’s official integration policy seems to be strongly influenced by the constitutional principles of the indivisibility of the Republic, equality before the law and unity of the French people.[70] From a legal point of view, these principles are construed as contrary to the recognition of minority groups and hence of collective rights. As a result, France is not inclined to sign or ratify some international legal instruments which do recognise the identity and rights of specific groups in society, such as the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. France has furthermore reservations concerning Art. 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. From a practical point of view, the Republican egalitarian ideal that sees every national as a citizen, entails for instance, that there is officially no categorisation of ethnic or racial groups in the statistics. Consequently, in France the monitoring of discrimination on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin hardly exists.

De facto, it is nevertheless clear that France has taken some special measure in order to aid the integration of persons of immigrant background as well as newly arrived non – citizens, some of which remarkably resemble a rather multiculturalist approach instead of a republican approach. Very concretely, students of indigenous minority groups have for instance more and more opportunities to study regional languages such as Breton, Basque and Alsatian in French schools. Persons of immigrant background for their part can have lessons in the languages and cultures of their origin under the so –called “ELCO – project”. As a comment in the margin, it should however be noted that these lessons are in a need of redefinition as they are still founded on the initial presumption of the pupil’s eventual return. With regard to newly arrived non – citizens France recently launched a reception and integration contract. This contract is, to be sure, drafted in the official Republican spirit and follows a logic of rights and mutual obligations. Signature of the document confers eligibility on the non – citizen for a series of benefits such as language training, referral to the vocational training system and civic instruction. With respect to the recognition of religious rights - apart from language rights probably the most important claim for group rights - the situation in France reads differently and even somewhat paradoxically. In France, the idea of “laicité” is strongly embraced. Laicité means secularity in the public sphere and implies that religion should be a private ‘thing’, With the adoption of a law stipulating that the wearing of signs or apparel whereby pupils openly display a religious allegiance is forbidden in state schools in March 2004, this idea of laicité was again emphasised. On the other hand, un Conceil français du Culte Musulman (French Council for Muslim Worship) was elected in 2003 as an organisation representing Muslims in France and in particular with regard to relations with the authorities.

The country report of Germany indicates that, in spite of the considerable number of non-citizens who have been living in the country for a long time or even from birth, there is reluctance by Germany to consider itself as a country of immigration.[71] Consequently, integration measures have never been a priority in Germany and to a large extend they have shaped by a guest – work approach. Consequently immigrants were primarily perceived in terms of their utility value. In this respect, the duty of immigration into German society has rested mainly on the immigrant population itself and not so much on the government.

Recently a gradual shift in perception is noticeable in Germany. More and more, immigration is accepted as a natural phenomenon, forming part of German society. A reflection of this shift in perception is the relaxation of the naturalisation requirements that came about with the entry into force of the amendments to the citizenship legislation on 1 January 2000. These amendments notably reduced the lengths of residence necessary to apply for naturalisation and established that children born in Germany to foreign parents become German citizens automatically if at least one parent has been living legally in Germany for while. In academic terms this means a move away from the jus sanguinis principle -considered to be so typical for Germany - and, at the same time, a step in the direction of the jus soli principle. Another illustration of Germany’s shift in perception is the, apparently first, adoption of a real integration policy by the German authorities. The so - called “Bill to Control and Restrict Immigration and to Regulate the Residence and Integration of EU citizens and Foreigners” recognises, among other things, the role of immigration in German society and the duty and responsibility of the State to promote integration. In order to develop this idea, the “Immigration Bill” provides for obligatory integration course for newly arrived non – citizens who cannot provide basic knowledge of the German language. Although the primary focus of these courses is on the German language, they also include other aspects such as German culture and history.

In its country report, Sweden proves to have become a country in which persons from many cultures and backgrounds life.[72] Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that Sweden is told to embrace multicultural policies officially, many members of minority groups and particularly persons of immigrant origin are de facto still faced with difficulties to feel fully part of the Swedish society. There are moreover indications that increasing segregation in areas such as housing, education and employment are taking place. Besides, the Swedish society appears to be very ‘closed’, which is reflected in a certain mental resistance to mixing with persons from other background and cultures. With respect to the Swedish integration policy, the focus seems to be actually rather on the ‘shortfalls’ of immigrants and persons of immigrant background, such as a lack of knowledge of the Swedish language or of suitable qualifications. The benefits brought to society by people of immigrant origin are apparently not really emphasised, neither is the duty and need for mainstream society to accept and adapt to persons of different cultures and backgrounds.

United Kingdom’s integration policy can hardly be inferred from its country-by-country approach.[73] The only thing that is very clear on the basis of this report, is that the United Kingdom is faced with a very negative climate surrounding asylum seekers and refugees.[74] This is reflected in the xenophobic and intolerant coverage of these groups in the media, but also in the tone of the discourse resorted by politicians in support of the adoption and enforcement of restrictive asylum and immigration laws. The frequent changes in immigration and asylum policies designed to increasingly deter these categories of persons from coming to the United Kingdom have probably played an important role in this respect.

Spain’s country report indicates that Spain is a recent immigration country with - still - a relatively low percentage of immigrants, namely around 3,2 % of the population being foreigners with a legal permit to stay.[75] It appears that Spain has, so far, not been very active in adopting integration policies. The fact that the Spanish constitution still states that all Spaniard are equal before law and not that all individuals are equal before law might even point in the direction that Spain does not really consider itself as an immigrant country yet. In the public opinion, immigration is in every way negatively perceived. In spite of the relatively low number of foreigners residing in Spain, the level of foreigners is seen as being detrimental to security, the availability of employment opportunities and national or local identity. The idea, for instance, that immigrants come to Spain in “avalanches” and invade the country by boats is very vivid.

A first decisive step in the direction of an integration policy was seemingly only taken in the year 2001, when the Spanish Government approved its “Global Programme to Regulate and Coordinate Foreign Residents’ Affairs and Immigration in Spain” or shortly “plan GRECO”. This programme identified actions to be taken and institutions responsible for four different sectors, namely overall organisation of immigration as a desirable phenomenon for Spain, integration of foreign residents and their families, regulation of migration flows so as to ensure peaceful coexistence within Spanish society, and management of the system of protection of refugees and displaced persons.

In its country report, Hungary, like Spain, appears to be a very recent immigration country that has not yet adopted a comprehensive and targeted integration strategy ensuring that everyone becomes fully part of the Hungarian society.[76] An exception in this respect form the recognised minority communities in Hungary, whose situation is relatively satisfying, save the Roma Community that is. In spite of some shortcomings, these recognised minority communities enjoy for instance the possibility of education in minority languages and the right of self – government. Nevertheless, the Hungarian authorities seem to have started to reflect on an integration policy and to set up pilot projects in this field, though still relatively limited in scope.

The frames drawn up on the basis of ECRI’s country-by-country approach on France, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain and Hungary permit to identify easily what the similarities and differences between the six countries examined are.[78] To be precise, when speaking about similarities and differences between countries, a distinction should be made between similarities and differences with regard to the problems where the countries are faced with on the one hand and, with regard to the solutions the countries think out and apply in order to tackle these problems on the other hand.

The frames clearly indicate that the number of similarities in terms of problems is relatively high with respect to the countries examined, especially when taking into account the “national model’s rhetoric”.[79] France as well as Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain and Hungary are faced with problems concerning : legislation relevant to fighting racism and intolerance; monitoring racist incidents; ensuring non – discrimination and effective integration of minority groups; putting a stop to the rise of extreme – right wing political parties and organisations; persuading the media to promote cultural diversity and guaranteeing well behaviour by law enforcement officials when having contact with persons of minority groups.

With regard to legislation, most countries have difficulties with fine – tuning. Different forms of discrimination are for instance based on a wide range of legal grounds, instead of all being covered by one and the same ground. Moreover, effective implementation of the legal provisions in place is a problem in all the six countries, both with respect to criminal law and, administrative and civil law.

When it comes to monitoring the problem of racism and intolerance, most countries do not dispose of statistics broken down by ethnic origin or other grounds on which one could be discriminated against. The raison for this is that specific legislation in the different countries prohibits, or in the case of Spain and Hungary, allegedly prohibits such statistics. The lack of data broken down by specific criteria makes it very difficult to assess the situation of various minority groups in different fields of life and hence to elaborate policies against racism and racial discrimination, let alone to evaluate the effectiveness of these policies.

In all countries there appears to be a problem with regard to the conduct of some law enforcement officials in terms of ill – treatment and excessive use of force against immigrants or persons of immigrant origin. Furthermore, a number of countries, and very concretely Sweden, France and Germany, is faced with the rise of extreme right – wing political parties and organisations, which enhance xenophobic ideologies.

In respect of the media, in the six countries examined, some channels and newspapers tend to promote negative stereotypes and prejudices about individuals of immigrant and ethnic minority groups, thereby contributing to a climate that is hostile to these individuals instead of promoting cultural diversity. Another problem related to the media is the propagation of racist and especially anti – Semitic views through the internet and satellite television.

The most serious problems, however, that all countries are confronted with seems to be ensuring the non – discrimination and integration of vulnerable minority groups. Very concretely, this relates to the equal treatment of the Jewish community, the Islam community, Roma, Gypsy, Travellers, asylum seekers and refugees, as well as to and the access of these groups to fundamental areas of life, such as housing, education and employment. Regarding access to housing the problem is not only the denial of some landlords to lent or sell a house to persons from particular minority groups, but also the de facto residential segregation of persons of minority groups. With regard to access to education, there is a higher drop – out rate and absenteeism among immigrant pupils or pupils of immigrant background. Moreover, there is an overrepresentation of these children in special schools (read : schools for the mentally retarded) and a problem of concentration schools, i.e. schools where the number of pupils of immigrant origin is disproportionately high. Next to this, a large number of foreign pupils have insufficient language skills. Regarding access to employment, the problems are the very high unemployment rate for people of immigrant background as well as the relatively high number of low – pay and low status jobs. Explanations for the considerably weak labour market position of immigrants include the dramatic deterioration of the labour market, the impact of structural changes within those sectors that traditionally offered employment to immigrants, new requirements in working life such as communication skills and, individual factors among immigrants such as language difficulties.

It is worth noting that the different problems identified cannot be seen as completely isolated. On the contrary, a number of the above mentioned problems are not only linked to each other; they also tend to reinforce each other. The lack of education of an immigrant or a person of immigrant background, in itself the possible result of difficult access to the educational system or of training in concentration schools, can for instance have a negative impact on this person’s employment opportunities. In case that the potential employer of this persons would be influenced by prejudices on grounds such as race or ethnic origin, the possibilities for this person to enter the labour market are further reduced. Moreover, difficulties encountered by this person in the sphere of employment might result in identity – based withdrawal and even in a form of ‘communautarism’, i.e. the affiliation with one specific community, preferably ethnic or religious in nature and, simultaneously the rejection of other communities.

In addition to this, it should be noticed that the focus of the different countries in question on the issue of racism and intolerance is strongly influenced by the events or non – events of the moment. In the United Kingdom for example the publication of the results of the Stephan Lawrence Inquiry prompted unprecedented debate on racism at national level, as well as the adoption of wide – ranging recommendations for improving the situation with regard to racism and intolerance.[80] In Spain, mutatis mutandis, the El Ejido events lead to the formulation of a package of measures concerning appropriate accommodation for immigrants in the country.[81]

Furthermore, the fact that the six countries examined are mainly confronted with the same problems, does not exclude that the precise characteristics and extend of these problems might vary from region to region and from country to country. The fact that ECRI treats all the countries on an equal footing, makes it however nearly impossible to assess the precise value of the problems each single country is confronted with and hence to judge whether a specific problem is more serious in one country than in another. Implicitly, it is sometimes nevertheless clear what problems towers above everything, for instance when a problem is mentioned in the section ‘specific issues’, or else, when a problem is the main issue of the executive summary. Drafting a scale on which one can identify the most and the least serious problems, is however impossible if relying only on ECRI’s country-by-country approach. So, to be able to really assess this, additional information is needed.

The reason why so many similarities appear with respect to the problems that the distinct countries are faced with seems to be primary historical in nature. One should not forget that most of the countries in question have faced comparable problems in the past as well, think alone of the labour – migration after the Second World War and the increased visibility of otherness after the introduction of a migration stop in response to the oil – crisis in the Middle East in the beginning of the 1970s.

Next to this, the similarities between the countries examined in terms of problems can more and more be explained by making a reference to globalisation, which implies that people and places throughout the world become increasingly interlinked or independent. This can be exemplified with a reference to anti – Semitism and “anti – Muslimism” that tend to rise as a reaction to certain international events such as the flare – up of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, the terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe and consequently the Western war against terrorism and the conflict in Iraq. The strong increase of anti – Semitism has become apparent at the end of the year 2000, when the second intifada started. This increase seems to result mainly from acts committed by youth from difficult neighbourhoods, of Arab origin and Muslim religion, who also engage in delinquent activities against everything which stands for law and order, as reaction to the social exclusion from which they suffer. It is thought that these young people tend to seek self – identification with the Palestinians and are attempting to reproduce the Israeli – Palestinian confrontations on European territory by attacking the Jewish community. The strong increase of anti – Muslim feeling on the other hand has become apparent after 9/11 (2001). Before this attack, racism was mainly anti – immigrant, anti – Arab or anti – North African in origin; after this attack and the consequent war against terrorism it shifted into anti – Muslim. Since then, some persons apparently tend to draw (inaccurate) parallels between terrorists, religious extremists and the Muslim population as a whole. The population targeted before and after this shift remains though substantially the same.

Apart from the many similarities in problems, some differences between the countries can also be inferred from the frames drawn up on the basis of ECRI’s country-by-country approach.[82] In these frames, the differences are clearly classified under the section ‘Issues of particular interest in the country in question’.[83] By way of an example, it suffices to mention the strong migration pressure in the oversee – territories of France, the discrimination of travellers in the United Kingdom (and especially in Northern Ireland), the presence of neo – Nazi in Germany, the racist White Power music in Sweden, the aggressive nationalism of ETA in Spain and the lamentable situation of Roma in Hungary. Different historical roots appear to be the main reason for these differences.

In line with the “national model rhetoric”, one might expect that if the differences between the countries in question are not so much on the level of the problems the countries are faced with, there must at least be differences on the level of the remedies adopted in order to tackle the substantially similar problems. For, in line with this rhetoric, the different countries might take different measures according to the different models they allegedly adhere to. It is however almost impossible to gather this conclusion only on the basis of ECRI’s country reports. I have done the exercise to make a list of the measures taken by the governments of the six different countries examined in order to tackle the common problems, trying to identify possible differences, yes or no reflecting different national models. The information contained in the country reports is however too limited to come to any conclusion that might go in this direction.

The opposite might even be argued, namely that also with regard to the solutions thought up the similarities between the different countries are remarkably and even increasing. In other words, the differences tend to decrease. Whether the Council of Europe and very concretely the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance has a share in this, for instance trough the very country-by-country approach, is very hard to say only on the basis of these reports. What is nevertheless clear is the role of the European Union in this regard. After all, the countries six examined are not only member of the Council of Europe, but also of the European Union. It is obvious that the competence of the European Union in the field of discrimination on the ground of racial or ethnic origin, for example, pushed for more harmonisation in the anti – racism legislation of the countries under discussion, and very concretely through the adoption of the Race Equality Directive that introduced for instance the shift of burden of proof in all of the European Union member States.[84]

It is worth noting, moreover, that the measures taken in the different countries relate mainly, if not exclusively, to ensuring better access to employment and education. A possible explanation for this is the fact that racism is nowadays particularly directed by the fear of downward social mobility on the one hand and by tensions surrounding identity and nation on the other hand.[85] Hence, employment and education are undoubtedly issues at the centre of the public debate. As the problem of employment relates mainly to the high unemployment rate among persons of immigrant background, measures taken in this field are above all focussed on improving the access to working life for these persons, by way of a sponsorship system (France), a special programme to secure employment for persons from disadvantaged groups (Acceder in Spain, Xenos in Germany) and labour market training courses, work experience placements and encouragement on part of the State for immigrants to set up small businesses (Sweden). The problem of in the field education relates to persons of immigrant origin as well and is twofold. There is namely a lack of sufficient language skills for foreign pupils on the one hand and the phenomenon of concentration schools, high drop – out rates and overrepresentation in special schools on the other hands. In order to tackle the first problem, some countries such as France and Spain, provide special language classes and mother tongue education for peoples of immigrant origin. In order to tackle the second problem, France for instance adopted further legislation reiterating the conditions of enrolment and instruction for pupils of foreign origin, together with the creation of areas with special educational needs (ZEP or Zones d’ Education Prioritaire).

Some other measures adopted by the countries examined to tackle the problems they have in common, merit special attention as well. In order to counter the negative stereotypes and prejudices promoted by some media, for instance codes of self – regulation, ethical agreements or charters were adopted in France, Germany, Sweden and Spain, aiming at countering racism and intolerance. These documents are also intended to promote cultural pluralism and equal opportunities, for instance through a more balanced representation of cultural diversity. Besides with a view on tackling the propagation of racist view through the internet and satellite television, codes of self – regulation are adopted as well in some countries such as Germany, in this case among internet providers. The possibilities to take action in this field are nevertheless limited because of the legal obstacles when it comes to the extraterritorial origin of the transmission. Furthermore, it is worth nothing that with regard to Roma and Gypsy, both Hungary and Spain have adopted a large range of measures aimed at improving the quality of life as well as the social integration of Roma in the areas of protection, employment, housing, health and culture. In the case of Spain, these measures are incorporated in the Roma Development Programme Furthermore, it is remarkable that, although seemingly a very serious problem, the only step taken in all the countries with regard to asylum – seekers and refugees seems to be further (read : more restrictive) legislation.

Finally, the fact that the six countries in question have a number of very substantial problems in common, despite the fact that some of them officially adhere to different models, might point in the direction of the very unpleasant conclusion that for some problems no proper solution exists.

As a result of the conclusion that the number of similarities between the six countries is relatively high, both in terms of problems and solutions regarding the issue of racism and intolerance, the question presents itself whether the literature that focuses mainly on the differences instead of the similarities between countries is still tenable. The same question accounts for the whole “national model rhetoric”.

De facto, a few number of scholars previously attacked the idea of national models. In the conclusion of his book “Immigration policy for a multicultural society. A comparable study of integration, language and religious policy in five western European countries”, Hans Vermeulen states that many studies comparing the policies that national authorities pursue towards their immigrant populations, are still heavily focused on differences.[86] These studies often relate the differences identified to distinct notions of citizenship and nationhood which they claim have characterized the respective nation states for a long time. According to Vermeulen, such an approach does nothing else but reinforcing the belief that national differences stem from deeply rooted cultural and ideological notions that will be slow and difficult to change, a beliefs that in his opinion is a misconception. In their book “Toward assimilation and citizenship. Immigrants in liberal nation – states” Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska go even a step further, while stating in the introduction of this book that “The popular notion of national models of immigrant integration has obscured the similarities of integration approaches and assimilation concerns across liberal states” and that “There is not much substance in this line of reasoning, in which academics have simply become captive of political surface rhetoric”.[87]

The basic assumption of the academics subverting the “national model talk” can be illustrated with a few examples taken from their publications.[88] First of all, at the local level it is clear that finding solutions to specific problems is the thing that matters, not ideological positions. So, in allegedly “assimilationist” France, for instance, local politicians became involved in a de facto politics of multicultural recognition, driven by the need to find ethnic interlocutors and sounding – boards for its policies. In other words the practical interest of incorporating -(and controlling) the immigrant population causes the hollowing – out of the “Republicanism” attributed to the French model and hence the hollowing – out of the French model an sich.[89]

When moving to the national, governmental level, the ideological positions seem to be much more present. However, although indeed slow, these positions tend to change. To stick to the example of France, in the new “Republican” consensus emerging in the 1990s, the very notion of assimilation has been replaced by that of integration. According to Joppke and Morawsky, in doing so, France embraces the mainstream approach of the Western liberal states towards immigrant integration, namely to tolerate cultural difference in private and associational life, but refuse to give it public status.[90] So, when in its country report ECRI suggests the French national authorities to “initiate debate within public institutions as well as the general public as to whether – and to what extend - it is possible to recognise rights connected with the identity of minority groups without encroaching on the fundamental principles of the French Republic”, one could argue that this debate got actually already going.[91]

Another case in point of shifting ideological positions is Sweden, which officially entrenched multiculturalism. For a good understanding, official multiculturalism goes beyond de facto multiculturalism, in that the state must engage actively in the recognition and protection of immigrants as distinct ethnic groups. However, the few number of countries that entrenched multiculturalism officially, including Sweden, are currently faced with huge pressure to move away from this policy and, as a result of this, these countries actually also do move in the direction of other policies.[92] Note that one might however question whether Sweden has überhaupt ever been as multicultural as it officially claimed to be.[93]

Interestingly, at the same time that multiculturalism is disappearing from the political arena in most countries that officially adhered to it, de facto multiculturalism is firmly in place in virtually all European countries, even at the national level. In contrast with official multiculturalism, de facto multiculturalism rests on an understanding of multiculturalism as a social fact, rather than as a goal to be achieved by means of state policy.[94] To come back to France, which is a very thankful example, the offering of mother tongue education and instruction in French as a second language for pupils of immigrant background and, the recognition and engagement of a Council for Muslim Worship as a sounding – board for grievances in need of correction by the state, are clear illustrations of how the French State resorts to de facto multiculturalism in the pursuit of its own interests.

On the basis of the above examples, it is clear that the scope of official policies and programmes seems indeed to be exaggerated in the public and academic perception. When assessing what is really going on in the field, the approaches of the different countries are in fact to a large extent only nominally distinguishable form each other. I came at least to the same conclusion, as the scholars attacking the idea of national models, when examining and evaluation the country-by-country reports of ECRI.

With Vermeulen, I would even like to go a step further and assume that “in all probability differences in integration policy will continue to narrow down in the future.” [95] Vermeulen speaks in this regard of convergence, indicating that the number of similarities between the countries is not only high, but also increasing. In fact, convergence is already taking place. This can be exemplified by the case of Germany, where a gradual move away from the jus sanguinis principle in favour of the jus soli principle is taking place.[96] At the same time, this shift is another indication of the fact that ideological positions do not always remain unchangeable. Apart from more general processes such as globalisation, the main cause for convergence in the future will very probably be ongoing European integration. With regard to racism, for instance, recent European legislation is on the moment pushing for more ‘harmonisation’, as this is called in EU terms.[97] Concerning immigration policy, some observers already speak of a European migration regime. The European pressure is nevertheless not equally strong in every field of life; think about policies on language and religion for instance. These policies are closely bound up with issues of national identity and hence a very sensitive topic for the member States when it comes to transferring more competences to the European level.

As notified several times, the information contained in the country reports of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance is too limited for a complete understanding of the situation with regard to racism and intolerance in the Council of Europe member States. The fact that ECRI chooses to be politically as correct as possible does not make things easier in this regard. ECRI prefers after all not to name and blame those countries that have a poor record in the field of racism and intolerance, but, instead, to treat each country ‘on an equal footing’, officially in the conviction that “ECRI is not a political body” and that “all Council of Europe member States have problems at one level or another”.[98]

Consequently the information represented in ECRI’s country reports should ideally be completed with additional knowledge, for instance of key persons familiar with the situation in the field. Only then it is possible to assess the precise value of the data provided in ECRI’s reports. A few examples help to illustrate this. Firstly, the establishment of a specialised body or simply the more effective implementation of relevant legislation may result in a higher number of complaints lodged with regard to racism and intolerance. However, does this mean that the country in question is in a worse or, just the other way round, in a better situation than countries with a low record of reported charges? For, a limited number of racial attacks and harassment reported can indeed reflect that the situation with regard to racism and intolerance in that particular country is positive, but it can as well reflect a reluctance on the side of the victims to file complaints (because they do not expect to receive redress) or an inability of the prosecutors. Furthermore, how to interpret the fact that in some member States a national specialised body to combat racism was ‘suddenly’ set up and that the burden of proof in criminal law shifted, when knowing that the European Union, of which all the examined countries are at the same time member as well, adopted a Racial Equality Directive in 2000, precisely obliging the member States to shift the burden of proof and to establish national specialised bodies.[99] The same accounts for the notion of indirect discrimination that was already introduced in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam signed in 1997.[100] Finally, what to say about the reported lack of integration in society with regard to persons of immigrant origin in both France and Sweden, when taking into account that the proportion of allochtonous people in France is much higher than in Sweden? The same question accounts mutatis mutandis with regard to the discrimination experienced by the Roma community in Hungary as well as in, for instance, the United Kingdom, when the Roma population people is obviously much higher and historically more present in Hungary than in the UK. To be precise, I have to acknowledge that the country-by-country reports of ECRI are more elaborated and detailed each and every round, facilitating to view the presented information in its proper context. This is especially true for the section “specific issues”. Altogether, it is nevertheless clear that additional information could at least nuance the picture as represented by the ECRI with regard to racism and intolerance in the different Council of Europe member States.

To come back to the issue of ‘political correctness’ I would argue against ECRI’s official standpoint and claim that ECRI is of course a political body, politically correct though it is. ECRI’s position with regard to the issue of racism and intolerance is after all (in)directly revealed through the General Policy Recommendations of ECRI, as well as through the proposals and suggestions made in its country-by-country approach. Basic assumption of ECRI is clearly that cultural diversity brings richness to society. In this regard, ECRI very strongly believes, among other things, in the role that the media and the schools can play in enhancing the appreciation of this cultural diversity. ECRI is furthermore a clear proponent of certain group rights, such as the granting of voting right in local elections to long – term resident non – citizens and mother tongue instruction in schools, in the conviction that this will improve integration and participation in society.

In this regard, one might claim that ECRI strikes as a somewhat naïve or at least idealistic institution. For, to name just one example, the media could indeed play an active role in favouring tolerance and mutual respect and, in increasing the visibility of the real role of minority communities, thereby fighting racism and intolerance. However, the media and especially the audiovisual media do currently not really play this role, and it is very unlikely that in the near future they will. Nevertheless, it is probably better that ECRI acts as a rather passionate rider pursuing its ideals, than that it would depart from a maybe more realistic minimum scenario in advance. Even so, ECRI is faced with a problem of enforcement. Although ECRI prefers action to words, it is not competent to command strict compliance of its recommendations and proposals. For, as an independent monitoring body, ECRI has only soft power.

After these critical remarks, I want to add a positive note. In spite of its restrictions, I believe that the role of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance is not insignificant, namely for two reasons.

Firstly, ECRI’s very existence reflects the acknowledgement by the Council of Europe member States that the problem of racism and intolerance is real, which in itself is already an important step and even the essential precondition for combating these problems. One should not forget that not only countries such as France, Germany, the UK, Sweden, Spain and Hungary, the countries that were examined in this research, form part of the Council of Europe, but also countries such as Turkey, Russia, Georgia and Armenia, which have a far less better record when it comes to combating racism and intolerance. With its country-by-country approach, ECRI goes even a step further than only recognising that the problems of racism and intolerance exist in the different member States, namely by also identifying these problems as well as their possible solution. The fact that the country reports swell up every new round and that as from the third round ECRI’s recommendations as to how to overcome the difficulties identified are repeated in separate frames, plainly demonstrates that ECRI takes this task to heart.

Secondly, ECRI plays an important role in making the issue of racism and intolerance an issue of permanent discussion in the Council of Europe member States. For, through its country reports ECRI establishes an active and on – going dialogue with the different member States. The fact that the countries in question are willing to make the situation in their country known to a European organisation indicates the clear political will of these countries to take concrete measures together against racism, xenophobia, anti – Semitism and intolerance. ECRI, in other words, got the ball rolling and keeps it rolling. The fact that ECRI’s country-by-country approach is a permanent monitoring system implies after all that the member States are obliged to fulfil the promises made sooner or later. And, ECRI does not refrain from remembering the member States to do so. In the third round reports, the focus is even very explicitly on implementation. For each and every single criterion ECRI clearly indicates what its recommendations were in the second round and whether the country in question has followed and implemented these, and if so, with what degree of success and effectiveness. Besides, ECRI is constantly on its guard not to give the impression to a particular country that it could rest on its laurels. ECRI is always of the opinion that one country or another could perform still better in one field or another. When ECRI states, for instance, that it welcomes the recent measure that a country might have adopted to reinforce its fight against racism and intolerance, it will stress at the same time that at the present stage it is nevertheless too early to assess the implementation of this measure. In conclusion, the enforcement of ECRI’s suggestions and proposals is probably stronger than it might look at first sight.

The purpose of this research on racism and intolerance in Europe, based on the country-by-country approach of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, was twofold. Firstly, I wanted to investigate which picture can be drawn up when studying the situation with regard to racism and intolerance in six distinct European states, namely France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden and Hungary, as reported by an independent human rights monitoring body. Secondly I wanted to know whether de facto it is possible to distinguish between different national models of how the distinct countries held back respond to racism and intolerance. In this chapter I will try to give an answer to these two clusters of questions.

In response to the first question, the most important conclusion of this research is that all of the six countries examined are faced with a high number of similar problems. According to ECRI’s country reports, the most challenging difficulties that all countries are confronted with relate evidently to ensuring the non – discrimination and integration of vulnerable minority groups. In France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden and Hungary the Jewish community, the Islam community, Roma’s, Gypsies and Travellers, asylum – seekers and refugees are the most substantial victims of racism and intolerance. Especially in the field of employment, education and housing these groups encounter huge difficulties in terms of access.

In this respect, the measures taken in the different countries appear to focus chiefly, if not exclusively, on facilitating better employment and education to immigrants or persons of immigrant origin. A possible explanation for this is the fact that these two areas are undoubtedly at the centre of the public debate, for racism is nowadays particularly directed by the fear of downward social mobility as well as by tensions surrounding identity and nation.

The main causes for the high number of similarities identified between the different countries in terms of problems seems to be on the one hand historical in origin and on the other hand linked to current phenomena and processes such as international events and globalisation.

In response to the second question, the most important conclusion of this research is that the tenability of the “national model rhetoric” cannot be proven, at least not on the basis of ECRI’s country reports. De facto the situation with regard to racism and intolerance apparently looks pretty much the same in the different countries, also when it comes to the policies and measures adopted in order to tackle the substantially similar problems.

Actually, the country reports point even in the opposite direction, namely of convergence, principally as the result of ongoing European integration. After all, the six countries in question are not only member of the Council of Europe, but also of the European Union. Consequently, it seems to be that the popular notion of national models does indeed nothing more than obscuring the similarities of approaches and concern across the distinct countries. Or, in the words of Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska : Once we abandon the misleading “national model” talk, we discover only the rather thin and uniform “integration” requisites of liberal states, plus a plethora of context – specific ad hoc policies, utterly devoid of an underlying “philosophy of integration”.[101]

As an unpleasant comment in the margin, it should be noted that the fact that the six countries examined have a considerable number of very challenging problems in common, despite the fact that these countries officially adhere to different models, might indicate that for some troubles, no proper solution exists.

An important additional conclusion concerns the very country-by-country approach of ECRI. The country reports are after all only to a limited extend suitable to answer the assumed questions. ECRI’s reports involve namely a number of restrictions. The most considerable restriction arises from the positive approach ECRI adopts in its reports, meaning that ECRI prefers to treat all the countries on an equal footing. This approach makes it nearly impossible to assess the precise value of a specific problem in a specific country, let alone to asses whether a specific problem is more serious in one country than in another. This does however not prevent the country-by-country approach of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance from being a valuable tool in respect of racism and intolerance in Europe.

In the frame, the abbreviation “CBC” stands for country-by-country approach.

* Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), Article 14 (1950)

* Protocol n^o 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (2000)

* Resolution Res(2002)8 on the statute of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (2002)

* International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)

* Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principles of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2000)

* Interview d.d. 01/03/2005 with Mr. François Sant’Angelo (Deputy member of ECRI in respect of Belgium)

└ Interviews (‘other interviews’) http://www.coe.int/t/e/com/files/interviews/ racisme.asp

. Interview with Michael Head “Racism is a perpetually evolving unclean beast”, d.d. 17.02.2001

. Interview with Michael Head “Racism is a demon that changes according to context”, d.d. 6.03.2004

. Activities of the Council of Europe with relevance to combating racism and intolerance - CRI(2004)7 - February 2004

└ Vienna Summit, Declaration and Plan of Action on combating racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance

└ European Commission (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities)

. Anti – discrimination and relations with civil society : www.europa.eu.int/ comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/

. Eurobarometer Special Surveys, Racism and Xenophobia : Human rights and immigration in the European Union, EB47 [survey 3-4/97, report 12/97]

* Website of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Intolerance (EUMC) : eumc.eu.int

* Website of the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) : www.ohchr.org

* Website of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance : www.un.org/WCAR

[1] Václav (Havel), Preface in : Niessen (Jan), Diversity and cohesion, new challenges for the integration of immigrants and minorities, 2000.

[2] Leman (Johan), North – Western Continental Europe : From Emigration and Sameness to Otherness and Mediated Globalisation, s.d.

[3] Country - reports – European ASEM member Countries, ASEM Seminar on Human Rights: “International migration and human rights”, 2004.

[4] Dijkstra (Steven), Geuijen (Karin), De Ruijter (Arie), Multiculturalism and Social Integration in Europe, 2001. / Leman (Johan), The dynamics of emerging ethnicities, 2000.

[5] “Council of Europe activities concerning racism” : www.coe.int

[6] Given the fact that the scope of this research is limited in time, it was not feasible to study the situation in all 46 Council of Europe member States.

[7] Vermeulen (Hans), Immigration Policy for a Multicultural Society, 1997.

[8] King (Russell), The troubled passage : migration and cultural encounters in southern Europe, s.d.

[9] Niessen (Jan), Diversity and cohesion, new challenges for the integration of immigrants and minorities, 2000.

[10] “ECRI’s programme of activities” : www.coe.int (presentation of ECRI)

[11] Given the fact that the scope of this research is limited in time, it was not feasible to study the three different rounds of country – by – country reports for the countries selected.

[12] Parekh (Bhikhu), Rethinking multiculturalism. Cultural diversity and political theory, 2000.

[13] Joppke (Christian), The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy, 2004

[14] Leman (Johan), North – Western Continental Europe : From Emigration and Sameness to Otherness and Mediated Globalisation, s.d.

[15] Vermeulen (Hans), Immigration Policy for a Multicultural Society, 1997.

[16] Penrose (Jan), Voluntarism and the organic nation? Ehtnic and civic nations, precarious illusions of difference, 2002 / Hutchington (John), A profile of Cultural Nationalism. The dynamics of cultural nationalism. The Gaelic revival and the creation of the Irish Nation State, 1987.

[17] Brubarker (Rogers), Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany, 1992.

[18] Schmitter Heisler (Barbara), The sociology of immigration, from assimilation to segmented integration, from the American experience to the global arena, 2000 / Dijkstra (Steven), Geuijen (Karin), De Ruijter (Arie), Multiculturalism and Social Integration in Europe, 2001.

[19] Parekh (Bhikhu), Rethinking multiculturalism. Cultural diversity and political theory, 2000.

[20] Joppke (Christian) and Lukes (Steven), Multicultural questions, 1999.

[21] The notion of melting pot was invented by the Anglo – Jewish writer Israel Zang-Will in his play of the same name, produced in New York 1908. See : Watson(C.W.) Concepts in the social sciences. Multiculturalism, 2000.

[22] Vermeulen (Hans), Immigration Policy for a Multicultural Society, 1997

[23] I received a general introduction into the theory related to traditional liberalism, communautarism and multiculturalism in Marc Hooghe’s course ‘Political problem solving in culturally divided societies’ (KULeuven).

[24] Watson(C.W.) Concepts in the social sciences. Multiculturalism, 2000. / Joppke (Christian) and Lukes (Steven), Multicultural questions, 1999.

[25] Young (Iris Marion), Justice and the politics of difference, 1990.

[26] Gutman (Amy), Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition : an essay, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1992, 112p. / Parekh (Bhikhu), Rethinking multiculturalism. Cultural diversity and political theory, 2000.

[27] Diversity Within Unity, a communitarian network position paper : http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/dwu_ positionpaper.html / Amitai Etzioni is the author of the book The spirit of community, Rights, responsibilities and the communitarian agenda (1993).

[28] Diversity Within Unity, a communitarian network position paper : http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/dwu_ positionpaper.html

[29] Kymlicka (Will), Multicultural Citizenship. A liberal theory of minority rights, 1995.

[30] See : Joppke (Christian) and Lukes (Steven), Multicultural questions, 1999. / Barry (B.), Culture and equality, an egalitarian critique of multiculturalism, 2001. / Joppke (Christian), The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy, 2004

[31] Kymlicka beliefs in the possibility of overarching loyalties.

[32] Vermeulen (Hans), Immigration Policy for a Multicultural Society, 1997. / Watson(C.W.) Concepts in the social sciences. Multiculturalism, 2000. / Joppke (Christian), The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy, 2004

[33] E.g. : Brubaker (Roger), The return of Assimilation? Changing perspectives on Immigration and its Sequels in France, Germany and the United States, in: Joppke (Christian) and Morawska (Ewa), Toward assimilation and citizenship. Immigrants in liberal nation – states, 2003.

[34] In an interview d.d. 17.02.2001 the president of ECRI, Michael Head described racism in these terms. www.coe.int, The interviews of the Council of Europe.

[35] Interview with Michael Head d.d. 16.03.2004 - www.coe.int, The interviews of the Council of Europe.

[36] Interview with Michael Head d.d. 17.02.2001 - www.coe.int, The interviews of the Council of Europe.

[37] Wieviorka (Michel), Racism in Europe : unity and diversity, in : Guiberneau (Montserrat) and Rex (John), The ethnicity reader, 1997.

[38] Eurobarometer Special Surveys, Racism and Xenophobia : Human rights and immigration in the European Union, EB47 [survey 3-4/97, report 12/97] http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ eb_special_en.htm

[39] The Council of Europe, 800 million Europeans, October 2004 / The Council of Europe in brief, www.coe.int / Council of Europe’s activities concerning racism, www.coe.int / The Council of Europe against Racism : http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/Themes/racism/default.asp / Lecture "the role of the Council of Europe in the European Political landscape" during personal visit to the Council of Europe / Niessen (Jan), Diversity and cohesion, new challenges for the integration of immigrants and minorities, 2000.

[40] The other basic goals of the Council of Europe being the defence of a parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, the development of continent – wide agreements to standardise member countries’ social and legal practices and, the awareness – raising of a European identity based on shared values and cutting across different cultures.

[41] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, article 14 (1950)

[42] Protocol n^o 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (2000)

[43] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)

[44] Treaty of Amsterdam, article 13 (1997)

[45] Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principles of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2000)

[46] The Council of Europe, 800 million Europeans, October 2004 / Council of Europe’sactivities concerning racism : www.coe.int / ECRI’s programme of activities : www.coe.int / Interview with Michael Head d.d. 16.03.2004 - www.coe.int, The interviews of the Council of Europe. / Interview with Michael Head d.d. 17.02.2001 - www.coe.int, The interviews of the Council of Europe.

[47] Vienna Summit, Declaration and Plan of Action on combating racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance, Vienna, 9 October 1993: www.coe.int (archives)

[48] Resolution Res(2002)8 on the statute of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 June 2002 at the 799th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

[49] Cfr. infra, Chapter 4, for more detailed information on ECRI’s county-by-county approach.

[50] See for example : General Policy Recommendation N^o 2 concerning specialised bodies to combat racism, xenophobia, anti – Semitism and intolerance at national level or General Policy Recommendation N^o6 concerning the dissemination of racist material via the internet.

[51] See for example : Good practices to combat racism and intolerance in the media and Practical examples in combating racism and intolerance against Roma/Gypsies.

[52] http://www.un.org/WCAR/

[53] The title of this thesis is a direct reference to this European Conference against Racism.

[54] Respectively : www.ohchr.org and eumc.eu.int

[55] Cfr. infra, Chapter 4, for more detailed information about the procedure of the county – by – country approach.

[56] Note that in December 2003 the European Council decided to extend the remit of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in order to convert it into a European Agency for Fundamental Rights.

[57] Annual report on ECRI’s activities CRI(2004)36 : www.coe.int / ECRI’s programme of activities : www.coe.int / Interview d.d. 01/03/2005 with Mr. François Sant’Angelo (Deputy member of ECRI in respect of Belgium)

[58] Cfr. supra, Chapter 3, for an overview of the three pillars of ECRI’s work programme.

[59] During our interview, Mr. François Sant’Angelo stressed for example that one of ECRI’s discussions concerns the issue of migration policy. As such, migration policy is outside the competence of ECRI. Whenever there is a link between a case or racism or intolerance and the migration policy of a particular country, ECRI judges nevertheless to be competent in the matter.

[60] Some of the third round country reports are already published and more precisely those of Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Slovakia, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.

[61] Compare for instance: “Discrimination in employment” and “Young people of immigrant background” in the second report on France versus “The necessity of moving towards an integrated society” in the third report on France versus” The discrimination against Roma in the field of education” in the third report on Hungary.

[62] Cfr. supra, Chapter 3 / See bibliography for an overview of ECRI’s General Policy Recommendations

[63] This paragraph is entirely based on the following documents : Third report on France [CRI(2005)3 -15/02/2005], Third report on Germany [CRI(2004)23 - 08/06/2004], Third report on Hungary [CRI(2004)25 - 08/06/2004], Second report on Spain [CRI(2003)40 - 08/07/2003], Second report on Sweden [CRI(2003)7 -15/04/2003], Second report on the UK [CRI(2001)6 - 03/04/2001], www.coe.int.

[64] Cfr. supra, Chapter 1, Functioning of the research.

[65] Annex : Frame country-by-country approach : countries examined.

[66] The shift of the burden of proof means that it is not the victim of racism who must to prove that discrimination has occurred, but, instead, the alleged perpetrator of racism who must to prove that discrimination has not occurred.

[67] Indirect discrimination pertains to seemingly neutral factors, such as provisions, criteria or practices that can not as easily complied with by or disadvantages persons belonging to a group designated by a ground such as ‘race’, colour, language, religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin, unless this factor has an objective and reasonable justification.

[68] This part is in essence a confrontation between myself, ECRI’s country-by-country approach for the countries examined (see frames annex) and the literature consulted (see Chapter 2).

[69] Aim of this section is not so much to give a detailed overview of the situation with regard to racism and intolerance in terms of legislation, monitoring, education and awareness – raising, etc. in the countries examined. This information can after all be found in the very country-by-country approach of ECRI, as well as in the frames that I drew up to make these reports more readable and that, in my opinion, go without saying in this respect (see annex). In this section I want to focus instead on the underlying drift of ECRI’s country-by-country approach, as a result of what the integration policy pursued by the different countries examined will be at the centre here. Note, nevertheless, that the information contained in the country reports is rather limited in this regard, which implies that the following overview might not always be exhaustive.

[70] Third report on France [CRI(2005)3 -15/02/2005], www.coe.int

[71] Third report on Germany [CRI(2004)23 - 08/06/2004], www.coe.int

[72] Second report on Sweden [CRI(2003)7 -15/04/2003], www.coe.int

[73] Second report on the United Kingdom [CRI(2001)6 - 03/04/2001], www.coe.int

[74] Undoubtedly, this negative climate is not characteristic for the United Kingdom alone; the intenseness of the climate might however be so.

[75] Second report on Spain [CRI(2003)40 - 08/07/2003], www.coe.int

[76] Third report on Hungary [CRI(2004)25 - 08/06/2004], www.coe.int

[77] In this part, I have not taken down the suggestions and proposals made by ECRI with a view on tackling the problems identified. I refer, in this respect, to ECRI’s General Policy Recommendations, which exceed the immediate scope and intention of this treatise (see Bibliography for an overview of these recommendations).

[78] See annex.

[79] For a good understanding, the “national model rhetoric” refers to the common practice to distinguish between different national models when comparing the situation in distinct countries with regard to integration. Germany is said to be the classical example of the exclusion model, France of the republican model and Sweden and the United Kingdom of the multiculturalist model.

[80] Stephen Lawrence was a young black man who was murdered in Greenwich in April 1993. The policy officers failed to recognise the murder as a racially motivated crime and did not treat the family of the victim properly. On 31 July 1997 the Home Secretary announced a judicial inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. On 24 February 1999 the results of this inquiry were published.

[81] In Eljido North African immigrants were the subjects of violent attacks in February 2000, following tensions between the immigrants and the rest of the local population.

[82] See annex.

[83] See annex.

[84] Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principles of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2000)

[85] Cfr. supra, Chapter 3.

[86] Vermeulen (Hans), Immigrant policy for a multicultural society. A comparative study of integration, language and religious policy in five European countries, 1997.

[87] Joppke (Christian) and Morawska (Ewa), Toward assimilation and citizenship. Immigrants in liberal nation – states, 2003.

[88] Vermeulen (Hans), Immigrant policy for a multicultural society. A comparative study of integration, language and religious policy in five European countries, 1997 / Joppke (Christian) and Morawska (Ewa), Toward assimilation and citizenship. Immigrants in liberal nation – states, 2003.

[89] In this regard see also : Glazer (Nathan), Multiculturalism and American Exceptionalism, in: Joppke (Christian) and Lukes (Steven), Multicultural questions, 2003.

[90] The recently adopted law prohibiting the display of visible sings of religious belief in French states schools (March 2004), surely fits in this statement.

[91] Third report on France [CRI(2005)3 - 15/02/2005], www.coe.int

[92] Another country that is in the same position as Sweden are the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, official multiculturalism is on its way to disappear, after an escalation of criticism against this policy. In this regard, see also : Joppke (Christian), The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy, 2004.

[93] The country report on Sweden does at least give the impression that Sweden is faced with a lack of integration into Swedish society with regard to persons of immigrant origin. The report indicates moreover that increasing segregation in areas such as housing, education and employment might take place, which implies that segregation is actually already taking place.

[94] Note that, according to Hans Vermeulen, “various policy areas tend to have their own logic and their own particular histories and institutional arrangement in each country. This means that within one and the same country, the policies in one area might be described as multicultural, while those in other areas would qualify as assimilationist.” in: Vermeulen (Hans), Immigrant policy for a multicultural society. A comparative study of integration, language and religious policy in five European countries, 1997

[95] Vermeulen (Hans), Immigrant policy for a multicultural society. A comparative study of integration, language and religious policy in five European countries, 1997

[96] This is for instance clear when examining the amendments to the citizenship legislation that entered into force on 1 January 2000.

[97] Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principles of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2000). To be precise, a directive is not such a strong instrument for harmonization as, for instance, a regulation. For, a directive needs to be transposed into national legislation, thereby de facto leaving some margin of appreciation for the member States.

[98] Interview with Michael Head d.d. 16.03.2004 - www.coe.int, The interviews of the Council of Europe.

[99] Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principles of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2000)

[100] Treaty of Amsterdam, Article 13 (1997)

[101] Joppke (Christian) and Morawska (Ewa), Toward assimilation and citizenship. Immigrants in liberal nation – states, 2003.

Criteria	France (CBC3 – February 2005)	UK (CBC2 – April 2001)	Germany (CBC3 – June 2004)
Overview of the situation
International law provisions	Yes, but no signing or unlikely ratification of - EU Charter Regional and Minority languages (against constitutional principle) - EU Convention Nationality (against constitutional principle) - Art. 27 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (against constitutional principle) - EU Convention on Participation of Foreigners in Public Life, local level - Protocol n^o 12 ECHR - UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families	Yes, but no signing of - EU Convention on Nationality - ILO Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation - EU Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers - Art. 14 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination	Yes, but no signing of - Revised EU Social Charter - EU Convention on Participation of Foreigners in Public Life, local level - UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
Constitutional law provisions or other basic law provisions	Yes (but construed as contrary to group rights)	*+/- (adoption of Human Rights Act giving effect to ECHR in domestic law, but only* prohibition against discrimination through ECHR)**	Yes
Criminal law provisions	Yes	Yes, (incl. multi – agency approach for racial incidents = close cooperation between different public levels)	Yes
- Racist acts as specific offence and / or racist motivation as aggravating circumstance	Yes	Yes	No
- Application / enforcement of criminal law (criminal prosecution of offences of racist origin) = administration of justice	+/- (not always effectively applied)	+/- (not always effectively applied / overrepresentation of ethnic minorities in prison population)	+/- (not always effectively applied)
- Incitement to racial hatred (incl. production, distribution) categorised as criminal offence	Yes	Yes, but not always effectively ensured	Yes

Criteria	France (CBC3 – February 2005)	UK (CBC2 – April 2001)	Germany (CBC3 – June 2004)
Civil and administrative law provisions	Yes	+/- (not always effectively countering racism and intolerance / not fine – tuned BUT legislation in pipeline to take legal sanctions for discrimination on racial grounds by some public authorities, incl. positive duty)	No (constitutional provision is seen as sufficient)
Shift burden of proof	+/-, (shared burden of proof and ‘testing’ as an admissible form of proof)	No	/
Notion indirect discrimination	Yes	No (but in pipeline)	/

Specialised body and other institutions	+/- (Groupe d’étude et de lutte contre la discrimination, commissions départementales pour l’accès à la citoyennetè, telephone hotline, National Consultative Commission on Human Rights)	Yes (Commission for Racial Equality)	+/- (Federal Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration at national level / foreigner’s councils at level of Länder and municipalities)

Monitoring through data and statistics of racist offences	No, (categorisation of ethnic or racial groups in statistics / ethnic monitoring is unlawful)	+/-, (monitoring can better, gap between n^o of incidents occurring and reported)	No (collection of data broken down by ethnic origin is seen as conflicting with international agreements binding on Germany and non in conformity with post WWII policy)

Media (promotion of diversity)	+/- (Joint initiative between Supreme Council for Integration and audiovisual authority)	No (even appearance of racist or racially inflammatory material in printed and electronic media)	No (some media promote negative stereotypes and prejudices)

Criteria	France (CBC3 – February 2005)	UK (CBC2 – April 2001)	Germany (CBC3 – June 2004)
Non – citizens (‘third country nationals’)
- Acquisition of citizenship	Jus soli	/	Jus sanguinis, but amended (in terms of jus soli à facilitated acquisition of citizenship / strict approach to dual nationality
Refugees / asylum seekers
- Right of asylum	Restrictive (new law primarily intended to limit the n^o of asylum requests)	Restrictive (adopted and presented as a means to make the UK less attractive for ‘economic migrants”)	Restrictive (No right of asylum for prosecution from non – State agents and gender prosecution < Geneva)
- Treatment according to human right standards	/	+/-	+/-

Vulnerable groups
- Jewish community tolerance	+/- (events in the Middle East)	+/- (no legal protection against religious discrimination)	No (Nazi-past / events in the Middle East)
- Roma / Gypsy / travellers tolerance	+/-	+/-	+/-
- Muslim community tolerance	+/- (shift from anti-immigrant, anti-Arab/North African racism towards anti-Muslim racism)	+/- (no legal protection against religious discrimination)	+/- (sudden rise of Islamophobia after 9/11)

Education, training and awareness raising (promotion diversity e.g. in history books)	Yes	+/- , ( increased ~ Lauwrence case)	+/-
Access to education	+/- (problem of concentration schools)	+/-	+/- (overrepresentation in schools for underachievers)
Access to housing	No	/	+/-
Access to health care	/	/
Access to employment	+/- (very high unemployment rate among young people of immigrant background)	+/- (higher unemployment rate for some - young - ethnic minority persons BUT introduction of Race Equality Employment targets)	+/-
Criteria	France (CBC3 – February 2005)	UK (CBC2 – April 2001)	Germany (CBC3 – June 2004)
Law-enforcement officials
- Training courses (awareness-raising, promotion, knowledge of cultural diversity)	+/-	+/-	+/-
- Equal treatment by law-enforcement officials	+/-	+/- (Lawrence case)	+/-
- Independent inquiry for incidents	+/-	No (but in pipline)	No
- Mixed recruitment	+/-	+/- (but targets recently set up)	+/-

Specific issues in the country in question	- Strong migration pressure in DOM (oversee-territories) - Negative trend in public opinion with regard to Roma and Travellers, Muslims and Jewish community (rise in anti – Semitism) - Extreme-right wing political party Front National - High unemployment of youth of immigrant background - Problem of urban ghetto phenomenon - Laicité : prohibition of display of visible signs of religious belief in state schools	- Political momentum created by the Stephan Lawrence case (July 1997) / inquiry report (Febr. 1999)à Action Plan and Steering Group set up to implement the recommendations of the inquiry in order to handle racist crimes. (e.g. better monitoring of racist incidents / valuing cultural diversity in school curriculum) - Negative climate surrounding asylum seekers and refugees (negative discourse in the media and by politicians who are in favour of increasingly restrictive legislation) - Northern Ireland : problem of discrimination vis-à-vis travellers	- Historical roots of Anti-Semitism (cfr. Nazi-past) - Negative climate surrounding asylum seekers and refugees - Racist, xenophobic and anti – Semitic violence, especially by right-wing extremist groups (incl. neo-Nazis and skinheads)
Assessment by ECRI	Constitutional principle of equality of citizens before law - no recognition of group rights - no ratification of some international legal instruments - no ethnic monitoring		Germany is (finally) shifting gradually towards the recognition of the role of immigration in German society and the recognition of the duty and responsibility of the State to promote integration.

Criteria	Sweden (CBC2 - April 2003)	Spain (CBC2 – July 2003)	Hungary (CBC3 – June 2004)
Overview of the situation
International law provisions	Yes	Yes, but no signing of - Protocol n^o 12 ECHR - European Convention on Nationality - Convention for the participation of Foreigners in Public Life, local level	Yes, but no signing of - Convention for the participation of Foreigners in Public Life, local level - Additional protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime - UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their family
Constitutional law provisions or other basic law provisions	+/- (no constitutional provision BUT some provisions in the Instrument of Government)	+/- (only equality before constitution as regards Spaniards, not all individuals)	Yes (incl. right of establishment of local and national self-government for national and ethnic minorities)
Criminal law provisions	Yes	+/- (no comprehensive provisions)	+/- (limited in scope)
- Racist acts as specific offence and / or racist motivation as aggravating circumstance	+/-	No (racist dimension of offences tends to be overlooked systematically, cfr. El Ejido event)	No
- Application / enforcement of criminal law (criminal prosecution of offences of racist origin) = administration of justice	+/-	No (criminal law provisions are rarely implemented / overrepresentation of foreigners in detainee)	+/- (provisions are not sufficiently implemented)
- Incitement to racial hatred (incl. production, distribution) categorised as criminal offence	Yes (but statute of limitation in time for disseminated material)	Yes	Yes (but not covering all instances of racial expression)

Criteria	Sweden (CBC2 - April 2003)	Spain (CBC2 – July 2003)	Hungary (CBC3 – June 2004)
Civil and administrative law provisions	Yes (but only in field of employment)	Yes (but not always effectively implemented / no comprehensive provisions)	Yes (but not always effectively implemented / no comprehensive provisions)
Shift burden of proof	Yes (in civil and administrative law)	/	+/- (shared burden of proof)
Notion indirect discrimination	/	/	Yes

Specialised body and other institutions	Yes (different bodies : Ombudsman against ethnic discrimination, Swedish integration board, Council for Ethnic Equality and Integration)	No (but National and Regional Ombudsman)	Yes (incl. bodies dealing with Roma issues and Office for Equal Opportunities)

Monitoring through data and statistics of racist offences	+/- (no record of which groups are vulnerable / no record of racist motive of ordinary crimes / a n^o of racist crimes still unreported)	No (collection of data broken down according to categories such as race, religion, ethnic and origin is unlawful / underreporting of racially – motivated violence)	No (collection of data broken down according to categories such as race, religion, ethnic and origin is unlawful)

Media (promotion of diversity)	+/- (n^o of good practices ó tendency to focus mainly on negative contexts)	No (tendency to focus mainly on negative contexts)	No (prejudices and negative stereotypes against certain minority groups )