discrimination in key areas of social life, such as employment, education, health and housing. These phenomena are intrinsically linked to the racism and intolerance against Roma in many communities across the EU. Anti-Roma prejudice and racism undermine social inclusion efforts and community cohesion, and must be tackled decisively alongside efforts to improve their socio-economic conditions’
(European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2015b).
A second reason mentioned was the NEBs’ lack of ability to tackle discrimination against Roma. The NEBs’ inability to tackle discrimination is due to several issues. Firstly, the exclusion of Roma is often due to multiple discrimination with a strong intersection of ethnicity and economic status/social status – multiple discrimination is judicially difficult to deal with in practice and/or because many national legislation do not cover the economic and social status. Secondly, some NEBs are not independent enough to strike the balance between combating discrimination and the promotion of rights. Thirdly, NEBs simply do not have the structural and economic capacity or manpower to take up cases, have little or no powers to litigate cases, and have little or no power to address institutional discrimination.
Fourthly, NEBs suffer from not being visible to those who need them. Finally, a fifth barrier is the political interference in NEBs’ work – which also is a question of some of the NEBs’ lack of independence in reality. NEBs are key institutions for victims of discrimination to access justice and as catalysts for social change. NEBs’ inability to function as intended challenges the promotion and protection of human rights of people vulnerable to discrimination such as the Roma.
discrimination in key areas of social life, such as employment, education, health and housing. These phenomena are intrinsically linked to the racism and intolerance against Roma in many communities across the EU. Anti-Roma prejudice and racism undermine social inclusion efforts and community cohesion, and must be tackled decisively alongside efforts to improve their socio-economic conditions’
(European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2015b).
A second reason mentioned was the NEBs’ lack of ability to tackle discrimination against Roma. The NEBs’ inability to tackle discrimination is due to several issues. Firstly, the exclusion of Roma is often due to multiple discrimination with a strong intersection of ethnicity and economic status/social status – multiple discrimination is judicially difficult to deal with in practice and/or because many national legislation do not cover the economic and social status. Secondly, some NEBs are not independent enough to strike the balance between combating discrimination and the promotion of rights. Thirdly, NEBs simply do not have the structural and economic capacity or manpower to take up cases, have little or no powers to litigate cases, and have little or no power to address institutional discrimination.
Fourthly, NEBs suffer from not being visible to those who need them. Finally, a fifth barrier is the political interference in NEBs’ work – which also is a question of some of the NEBs’ lack of independence in reality. NEBs are key institutions for victims of discrimination to access justice and as catalysts for social change. NEBs’ inability to function as intended challenges the promotion and protection of human rights of people vulnerable to discrimination such as the Roma.
G. Conclusion
This chapter attempted to answer whether the core values of non-discrimination and equal treatment implemented by the anti-discrimination directives had the desired impact internally in the EU to protect and promote human rights of ethnic minorities on a Member State level and to explore which factors are drivers and barriers to the promotion and protection of human rights irrespective of race and ethnic origin.
EU’s core values of non-discrimination and equal treatment on grounds of race and ethnic origin are challenged by the Member States political and economic dispositions. Public awareness and political will are deeply values based. The ideological shift in politics and the rise of the far right indicates that there is a gap in mainstreaming and implementation of the core values. These were the values that gave rise to the antidiscrimination directives, values that are today heard largely in celebration speeches on EU level. They do not get articulated politically, neither expressed nor promoted by the Member States on national level and therefore not enjoy much popular traction. It is necessary to revisit these values and reiterate them to close the implementation gap. There is a need for stronger communication strategies at EU level on values, stronger leadership on values from the EU Commission. This has already started with the hearings of the new EU Commission where many candidates articulated the need to reassert EU’s core values. But there needs to be a testing of economic and social policy for the manner in which they give expression to these values. This could be assisted by the requirement to implement equality and non-discrimination mainstreaming.
The adoption of the Race Directive was prompted by events in Austria seem harmless by today’s levels of racist and xenophobic politics and rhetoric among EU Member States. Today, anti-migrant rhetoric
influences policies that hinder ethnic minorities in accessing their rights, without much protest from other states and renders the EU commission powerless and ineffective in implementing its legislation and policies to uphold its core values and promote the human rights of all EU citizens.
Lack of implementation of equality mainstreaming and the need to pursue implementation of this at EU and Member State level must be addressed. This could include further developing methodologies, guidance and support tools, investment and funding, good practice exemplars etc. The structural funds and their implementation might be a good arena for this to be progressed given the EU leverage in this field. There is a need for a leverage which catalyses a value based approach and mainstreaming of non-discrimination and equality to promote and protect human rights.
There are potentially strong drivers for the promotion and protection of ethnic minorities’ rights in the EU and among the EU Member States. The very existence of anti-discrimination legislation, for instance, marks recognition of the need to combat racism and discrimination based on ethnic origin and a recognition that ethnic facts can hinder people in accessing their fundamental rights and freedoms.
Unfortunately, the initial excitement over the adoption and transposition of the anti-discrimination directives and the eagerness of the candidate countries during accession process to comply with EU legislation was replaced by Member States’ reluctance or by some resistance to take measures to effectively realise substantive equality in rights of ethnic minorities.
An amalgamation of historical, legal, economic and political factors contribute to Member States’
reluctance to further develop and mainstream the core values of non-discrimination and equal treatment on a national level compounding in effect the ethnic factors. On an EU level, these factors challenge efforts to mainstream non-discrimination into policies and directives and into a common Union approach to addressing the economic crisis or the accelerated globalisation, we experience with large numbers of people risking their lives to reach the shores of Europe.
While fully aware that there is not appetite for legislative reform in this field, it could however be asserted that there is a need for a new generation of legislation and establish an agenda that would stimulate more proactive approaches to equality, diversity and non-discrimination. The agenda could address the ambiguities in regards to the definition of race and ethnicity and the inclusion of nationality as an illegal ground of discrimination. It could raise the need to require a reasonable accommodation of cultural diversity in employment and service provision. It could raise the need to implement duties on the public sector to have due regard to equality and non-discrimination in carrying on their functions and on the private sector to be planned and systematic in their approach to equality.
The chapter identified serious institutional issues in relation to implementing the legislation, specifically in regards to the NEB’s. There needs to be European standards set and enforced to protect, enable and ensure the conditions necessary for NEB’s to function effectively and independently and should be tailored to the functions and potential of equality bodies.
Underreporting of discrimination illustrated the lack of impact of the anti-discrimination legislation on national level and there is a need for action or the legislation becomes redundant. Underreporting is not only about lack of awareness among the right holders but also about culture. There is a need to
encourage a culture of rights where people feel confident in exercising their rights and are celebrated for doing so. The NEB’s need to be central to this ensuring sufficient cases are brought forward. The civil society also need to be involved in taking and being supported to take the challenge to make rights real and support their individuals in their communities to use the legislation. Leadership from the EU Commission in reassertion of values of equality and human rights as core EU values will also be greatly valuable.
encourage a culture of rights where people feel confident in exercising their rights and are celebrated for doing so. The NEB’s need to be central to this ensuring sufficient cases are brought forward. The civil society also need to be involved in taking and being supported to take the challenge to make rights real and support their individuals in their communities to use the legislation. Leadership from the EU Commission in reassertion of values of equality and human rights as core EU values will also be greatly valuable.