1. Introduction

If ever Europe had been united and divided at the same time,

it is precisely now. [1]

Status questionis

General background

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.

Research questions

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? 

Functioning of the research

Delineation in space

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. 

Delineation in time

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.

Structure

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.

In the final chapter, I will draw my final conclusions.

2. Unity and diversity : the integration – debate in Europe

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?

Cultural diversity and integration

Cultural diversity

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

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.

Multiculturalism

The term

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 model

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 theory [23]

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]

3. Europe and the problem of racism and intolerance

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 as perpetually evolving unclean beasts [34]

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]

Council of Europe’s commitment against racism and intolerance

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. 

European Council against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) [46]

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”.

4. ECRI’s country-by-country approach

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.

ECRI’s country-by-country approach : a word of explanation [57]

Aim and purpose

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].

Procedure

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.

Monitoring criteria and recommendations

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.

ECRI’s country-by-country approach : an analysis [63]

Examination

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”.

Discussion [68]

      General overview