COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF THE NETHERLANDS

The Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined seventeenth and eighteenth reports of the Netherlands on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Marilyn Haimé, Director at the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment of the Netherlands, introducing the report, said the Government gave a high priority to combating discrimination, and had made efforts to tackle discrimination as a spearhead of its policy. The focus on combating racial discrimination was in line with the Government's broader approach to integrating newcomers, which was a challenge, as insufficient integration had led to serious social problems. The Dutch Government took those problems very seriously, aiming for a society in which everybody felt at home and no one had any reason to feel discriminated against or at a disadvantage.

Measures were taken to achieve closer cooperation between the Police, the Public Prosecution Service and the anti-discrimination bureaux and to provide a more rapid disposal of incidents involving discrimination, as well as a more targeted approach to discrimination at the regional level on the basis of policy information, Ms. Haimé said. Moreover, in July 2009, the Municipal Anti-Discrimination Services Act had entered into force, under which everyone in the Netherlands had ready access to an anti-discrimination service. To mark the Act's entry into force, the Government had launched a national campaign to increase people’s readiness to report discrimination, and to make it clear that people in the Netherlands were free to be themselves. The Service had been a great success, and the number of people reporting discrimination had tripled.

In some preliminary concluding observations, Mr. Lahiri said there was much for the Committee to congratulate the Netherlands for: for the nation-wide anti-discrimination bureaux; the Internet Hotline; for instructions to the Police and Public Prosecutor's Service to keep a record of every complaint; and for broadening the National Human Rights Institution to encompass the Paris Principles. Among issues of concern there would probably one that over-ruled all – that the situation with regard to racial discrimination had deteriorated in the Netherlands, and quite possibly had deteriorated more than in neighbouring countries. The Committee would also express some discomfort on what it perceived as a policy change in the Government, from one where the State was principally responsible for promoting integration and non-discrimination, to a situation where the main responsibility was put on the minority communities themselves. Perhaps the pendulum had swung too far in that regard.

Among the questions and concerns raised by Experts over the course of the two meetings were the views expressed by two political parties on the right and extreme right; the need to take measures against terrorism that did not punish whole peoples at the same time (i.e. such as new scanning technology in airports which would offend Muslim sensibilities); what special measures or affirmative action policies had been taken to address groups which suffered from discrimination; and whether laws had effectively promoted the employment of ethnic minorities. Experts also asked for details on how the integration process concretely impacted on minorities and on how the two-way process (rights vs. responsibilities) was actually enunciated to them in a way that encouraged national participation.

Also among the delegation of the Netherlands were representatives of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands in Geneva.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m., when it will begin its review of the combined third to sixth periodic reports of Japan (CERD/C/JPN/3-6).

Report of the Netherlands

The combined seventeenth and eighteenth reports of the Netherlands (CERD/C/NLD/18) notes that, in the aftermath of the murder of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh on 2 November 2004, social tensions arose between the indigenous Dutch population and ethnic minority groups, resulting in a rise in racist and xenophobic incidents. Many policy measures have been taken to address this situation and improve mutual understanding between the groups. The Dutch Government believes that a national network of easily accessible and professional Anti-discrimination Bureaux is necessary to combat discrimination properly and has therefore taken a number of measures in recent years. These include draft legislation, due to enter into force on 1 January 2009, which will make central and local government jointly responsible for anti-discrimination efforts and will oblige all local authorities to provide readily accessible anti-discrimination services for local residents.

The Dutch Government believes that in order to combat racism and discrimination, it is necessary to have a good understanding of the issue. A proper national registration and monitoring system is essential. Rapid progress is being made in this area. The period shortly after Van Gogh’s murder in November 2004 saw a wave of hate utterances on the Internet. These were posted both by those who felt that the rise of Islam should be halted, and those who expressed joy at the murder and were glad that the jihad in the Netherlands had begun. The Government is continuing efforts to tackle online discrimination. In addition, the Dutch Government believes that an international approach is needed to combat racism on the Internet.

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment is undertaking various activities aimed at improving the labour market status of ethnic minorities. These include generic activities from which ethnic minorities - like other groups - benefit proportionally, as well as activities specifically tailored to ethnic minorities. An effort is being made to combat negative perceptions and discrimination in relation to ethnic minority job-seekers, with supplementary policies of a specific nature implemented on a temporary basis where necessary. The Dutch Government frequently consults the many bodies representing ethnic minority groups, brought together in the National Ethnic Minorities Consultative Committee. Between 2005 and 2007, it has also financed a programme encouraging minority organizations to promote mutual understanding between the indigenous Dutch population and ethnic minority groups.

Introduction of the Report

MARILYIN HAIMÉ, Director at the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment of the Netherlands, introducing the report, said the current debate in the Netherlands on immigration and integration had not gone unnoticed in other countries. At times, it had been conducted with a fierceness not usually associated with the Netherlands. However, democracy in the Netherlands was a lively affair, in which debate played a prominent role. The fact was that many people were trying to find common ground through debate, despite their differences of opinion.

In its recent report on the social state of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Institute for Social Research had concluded that there had been a clear shift in Dutch people's attitudes, which had mellowed in recent years. The Netherlands also had an extensive network of agencies to combat discrimination, with a nationwide system of local anti-discrimination bureaux, an Equal Treatment Commission, and a National Ombudsman. The Government gave a high priority to combating discrimination, and had made efforts to tackle discrimination as a spearhead of its policy.

Ms. Haimé said the focus on combating racial discrimination was in line with the Government's broader approach to integrating newcomers, which was a challenge, as insufficient integration had led to serious social problems. Many of the problems linked to integration and immigration tended now to be concentrated in city neighbourhoods, where large numbers of migrants had found a home. Cultural diversity in its everyday manifestations, combined with deprivation, nuisance and crime, had led to dissatisfaction among many residents. The Dutch Government took those problems very seriously, aiming for a society in which everybody felt at home and no one had any reason to feel discriminated against or at a disadvantage.

Immigrants were expected to orient themselves to Dutch society, and make a contribution towards it, Ms. Haimé underscored. The moral obligation to make an extra effort had been formalized in a compulsory civic integration procedure. The Government also acknowledged that a lot of migrants did well. Although progress had been made, the Netherlands was still in the phase of giving the problems it faced a name. Steady progress was being made. Efforts to combat discrimination had absolute priority – discrimination prevented integration.

The Government rejected every form of discrimination in equal measure, Ms. Haimé stressed. The Netherlands was a democracy governed by the rule of law, in which everyone was equal: men and women, gays and heterosexuals, established citizens and newcomers.

The present report showed that the Government had worked hard to tackle discrimination on grounds of race. A number of measures had been taken which aimed to set up an infrastructure to counter discrimination, and measures had been taken to improve every step in the process. Individuals now had easier access to agencies to which they could turn if they felt they had been the victims of discrimination. Measures were also taken to achieve closer cooperation between the Police, the Public Prosecution Service and the anti-discrimination bureaux and to provide a more rapid disposal of incidents involving discrimination, as well as a more targeted approach to discrimination at the regional level on the basis of policy information, Ms. Haimé said.

The Government had also invested in improving information provision, as to fight racism and discrimination effectively reliable information was needed, Ms. Haimé observed. In July 2009, the Municipal Anti-Discrimination Services Act had entered into force, under which everyone in the Netherlands had ready access to an anti-discrimination service. To mark the Act's entry into force, the Government had launched a national campaign to increase people’s readiness to report discrimination, and to make it clear that people in the Netherlands were free to be themselves. The Service had been a great success, and the number of people reporting discrimination had tripled.

Moreover, since June 2009, it had been possible to report hate crimes online, or to make an appointment with the police to lodge a complaint, Ms. Haimé added. There was also a new provision of the Working Conditions Act under which employers were required to pursue anti-discrimination policies. The Government had facilitated a project aiming to make young people aware that discrimination on the Internet could have a devastating impact on its victims, and that it was also an offence.

With regard to the position of the Roma and the Sinti in Dutch society, local authorities were responsible for the integration of those groups, Ms. Haimé noted.

Ms. Haimé explained that the Government found it so important for everyone to take part in Dutch society that civic integration had been made compulsory for all newcomers. It was compulsory, as otherwise cultural and religious beliefs prevalent in some people’s communities could form a barrier to their taking the courses and later participating in society.

Both in policy and legislation, the Netherlands had taken some big steps in fighting racism and racial discrimination, and major steps had been taken since the last reporting period in terms of infrastructure, information provision, and prevention, Ms. Haimé emphasized. To ensure success, the central Government now needed the support of many other players, including local authorities, the police, anti-discrimination bureaux and non-governmental organizations.

The Government was fully aware that a polarized debate was a risk for social relations. However, while the Government could create the statutory frameworks and policy instruments to prevent discrimination, earmark funds, publish guidelines and launch campaigns, ultimately, the Dutch public was the key. The way people treated each other determined whether everyone truly counted and everyone could truly participate, and the Netherlands was slowly but surely coming closer to achieving that goal, Ms. Haimé concluded.

Questions by Committee Experts

DILIP LAHIRI, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Netherlands, said the present report dealt principally with developments during 2005 and 2006, but its coverage of earlier years was rather sketchy. It was also regretted that, despite Committee requests, the report covered only the European Kingdom of the Netherlands and contained no information on the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba. Moreover, while the disadvantaged situation of the minority communities in the fields of education, housing and employment was described in considerable detail, the treatment was principally anecdotal, and it would have been helpful for more data and statistics to have been received which would have explained the reasons for the change of direction of Dutch policy, which non-governmental organizations had questioned as being contrary to the traditionally leading position of the Netherlands in combating manifestations of race discrimination.

For a country whose emigrants and dominant church provided the inspiration and ideology for the apartheid system in South Africa, it was quite extraordinary that the Dutch managed to avoid that path, and instead played a leading role among European countries in opposing racial discrimination internationally and domestically. Their proactive efforts to establish a comprehensive legal and administrative infrastructure to combat racial discrimination and to monitor its implementation had made them a role model in Europe.

Mr. Lahiri observed that, as elsewhere in Europe, the situation relating to racial discrimination had deteriorated in Holland over recent years, with heightened tension between the native Dutch population and immigrants of foreign descent and other ethnic minorities. That had happened in parallel with a progressive shift in Dutch policy in their approach to the socio-economic integration of immigrant and minority ethnic communities. That shift in policy focus had given rise to increasing anti-immigrant sentiment and polarization between minorities and the native Dutch. Controversial policies, which had caused alarm and consternation among ethnic minorities, had been proposed and debated, even if not always finally adopted, resulting in a dramatic increase of Islamophobia since 2000.

The Rapporteur drew attention to the following problematical areas: restrictions on the free movement of Dutch citizens under the proposed Kingdom Act, and its likely disproportionate impact on persons of Antilles or Aruba origin; the system of "urban marines", which seemed designed to target Antilleans; the absence of the promised new National Action Plans against Racism after 2007; persistent segregation in urban schools and housing and the apparent reluctance to take firm special measures to correct or at least ameliorate the situation; and the absence of any mechanism for systematic collection of data and statistics to measure the effectiveness and impact of measures to promote greater representation of ethnic minorities in employment.

Mr. Lahiri hoped that his detailed critical analysis of the Dutch report did not obscure the major advances made by the Government during the reporting period, such as the comprehensive national institutional framework, as well as the Netherland’s overall commitment and achievements in combating manifestations of racial discrimination. Several recommendations of the Committee's report of 2004 had been effectively addressed. Major progress had also been achieved in establishing a network of anti-discrimination measures with national coverage. The Government was congratulated for its hard and conscientious work in those areas.

Among the questions and issues raised by Committee Experts was a concern about two political parties on the right and extreme right; the need to take measures against terrorism that did not punish whole peoples at the same time (i.e. such as new scanning technology in airports which would offend Muslim sensibilities); information on the Friesian minority; what special measures or affirmative action policies had been taken to address groups which suffered from discrimination; and whether laws had effectively promoted the employment of ethnic minorities.

Experts further observed that, if the Netherlands were to follow its current pattern, the new coalition Government would also not be ethnically diverse. There was a need to remedy that situation and consider the true advancement of those people who were now Dutch, regardless where they came from. In that connection, it was asked when a person stopped being considered as a non-Western immigrant and was considered as Dutch. In other questions it was asked if there were any figures broken down by ethnic group so as to know what sort of level of integration they had achieved in the country; whether agreements with social partners were effective and whether they were intended to replace the principle of proportionality; what efforts were undertaken to remove discrimination in access to public places; and what was being done to prepare people for elections from the moderate point of view.

Response by Delegation

Responding to questions just put, Ms. Haimé said the questions and contributions made were all relevant; even more, they were all proof of the dilemmas faced in fostering integration and combating discrimination in a country with an open democracy, as there was in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands had brought a letter to Parliament about integration instead of a national action plan as it had to address three topics at the same time: a policy on combating racism; a new vision on integration; and a policy tackling increasing segregation. Those three topics were inter-related and slightly overlapped. An annex to the letter contained the Government measures and actions planned on combating racism and racial discrimination.

With regard to the point of registration, research methods, specific groups and definitions of the term "migrant", Ms. Haimé explained that the definition of the latter had been developed by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research for research purposes. At that time, very little had been known about the economic, social and cultural situation of ethnic minorities. There was a strong need for such information, as there were signals that some of those groups faced serious problems. By no means was the definition and research work meant to be used as a measure of comparison between the groups or as a measure to rank individuals. The matter of registration of ethnicity was even more delicate than research; the privacy aspect was extremely important in the Netherlands. It meant that the collection of data on individuals had to be motivated, and was only allowed if there were no other means to reach the objective of the registration.

On the Employment of Minorities (Protection) Act, Ms. Haimé said there were doubts as to whether it had any effect on the intake and throughput of ethnic minorities on the labour market or had reduced job loss rates among that group or improved their position on the labour market. Of course, that had been a disappointment, and the lack of effectiveness raised questions about the proportionality of the registration. In 2004 the Act had been repealed.

In general, Dutch Government policies were not aimed at specific groups, Ms. Haimé noted. Labour market and education policies, for instance, were general. Scientific data helped to assess the effectiveness of those policies for ethnic minorities. Additional measures aimed at specific groups would only be considered when general policies failed to reach those groups, or when interventions were not effective for the problems. That was the case for the Roma and Sinti in the Netherlands, who faced problems like unemployment and extremely high truancy rates, as well as a disproportionally high involvement in criminal activity.

On the request for more information on the Friesians, Ms. Ms. Haimé observed that they were the only national minority in the Netherlands with a national, home-grown language. All other ethnic minorities in the country were not seen as national minorities, but were unmistakably target groups of integration policy. However, the Friesians were not a target group, as they did not have a disadvantaged position in Dutch Society.

Several remarks were made on the political debate in the Netherlands, Ms. Haimé said. A fierce or vigorous debate only existed when there were strongly opposing views. Without making any political statements, it could be concluded that the views of the right-wing parties, especially on Muslims and Islam, were strongly rejected by other parties, left-wing as well as centre. The image of the Netherlands was strongly determined by the extreme positions in the debate, but it should be taken into account that the vast majority of the Dutch people rejected those extreme positions. The Netherlands wished to remain a hospitable country, but also had to consider the suspicion and friction between population groups. It was not easy to be tolerant when living in a neighbourhood that faced deprivation, nuisance and crime.

There was a chain of integration of immigrants in the Netherlands. The Starting point was integration abroad. The next step was integration in the Netherlands, where a higher command of the Dutch language and knowledge of Dutch society was needed. The crown on integration was Dutch citizenship after five years legal stay, and passing the integration test successfully. Tests abroad only applied to migrants who wanted to come to the Netherlands for family forming and family reunification – they did not apply to migrants who came on a labour permit.

Ms. Ms. Haimé observed that integration was a two way process, and was not only the responsibility of the migrant. Civic integration helped people to learn about the Dutch language, norms, values and customs, but were not aimed at all at assimilation but rather at helping people prepare for life in the Netherlands. People could bring their own culture, their own religion and their own customs to the Netherlands, as long as they did not conflict with the rule of law.

Measures aimed at countering terrorism should be aimed at terrorists, and not at one particular group of people, Ms. Haimé agreed. Border guards and criminal investigators at borders had, in the performance of their duties, to fully respect human dignity, and refrain from discriminatory treatment on the basis of sex, race, religion, or ethnicity. Training was provided to police and border guards to that effect, teaching them to comply with the European Handbook for Border Guards provisions.

The Government actively encouraged employers to respect diversity and figures showed that participation of non-Dutch minorities in the labour market had increased. Non-Western minorities benefited three times more than Dutch persons from policies on employment. The labour market policy was monitored every two years, and research was done in between those periods, including on non-Western minorities.

There was also a diversity policy in action in the public sector, with a target set for the participation of ethnic minorities, which had shown positive results. The Government was using a range of tools for that, including positive action, development agencies, and action plans for the recruitment, development and employment of persons from ethnic minorities. The Government also used positive action measures, such as giving preference to a person from an ethnic minority in cases where candidates possessed equal abilities. However, that instrument was used carefully so as not to offend, Ms. said. As a result of those policies, one could see were more and more ethnic minorities in leadership positions in Dutch society.

Housing policy aimed to achieve a mixed composition of the population in different communities. The Government saw the importance of education for the integration of migrants, and the problem of segregated schools had its full attention. The Government took several measures to prevent schools from becoming segregated, and aimed to stimulate integration. The Netherlands was also combating segregation through the school curriculum, which was geared to promoting social integration and active citizenship through, inter alia, awareness of diversity.

For reasons of public safety, the authorities were entitled to bar Dutch nationals from entering or residing in a specific country, but that was not designed to impede Dutch Caribbean nationals from entering the European area of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Government’s policy was that placement of minors in alien detention centres should wherever possible be avoided, Ms. Haimé said. Indeed, detention of aliens in all instances was a measure of last resort. Special policies had been implemented to avoid as much as possible that families with minors were detained, and they could only be held in immigration detention for relatively short periods. The detention procedure could only be continued for a maximum of four weeks after an asylum application was considered. Alternatives to detention were used whenever possible, and if it was necessary for a family to be under observation before their return, they could be placed in a centre where their freedom of movement was not taken away, but was restricted, and there were special facilities for children in those centres. Another means was the detention of only one member of the family.

The Police had added a code to their new computer systems to identify all crimes motivated by discrimination, and each Police Force had an officer tasked to issues of discrimination. The Government was also working to make the Regional Forums on Discrimination more professional.

Many of the Committee Members had stated that the way migrants were seen and treated was not only a Dutch problem, but a European one, and Ms. Haimé agreed. The real challenge of Western and European countries was that they needed migrants, especially labour migrants for their economy, and, at the same time, they had to face the effects of the presence of migrants for the receiving society, especially those who lived in poor neighbourhoods and cheap houses where migrants tended to congregate.

If a Government wanted to keep or get support in society for migrants, it could not deny those social effects and problems. In order to get and keep support, efforts had to be made to handle problems of overcrowded housing, nuisance and alienation, when migrants could not speak with their neighbours. At the same time, the Government had to be fierce in maintaining the rule of law and achievements of a democratic society, as laid down in the Constitution and international treaties on human rights. Looking away from behaviour that did not comply with those fundamental norms and values was the worst thing that could be done. That was the lesson the Netherlands had learned in the past: indifference, looking away from problems, political correctness out of fear for stigmatization – those were in fact the so-called Dutch tolerance. But tolerance had its limits.

Further Questions and Comments by Experts

In a further series of questions and comments, Experts asked, among other things, whether the Netherlands authorities considered the members of the Council of Europe to be Europeans or not, as the Council of Europe had 47 members, and the European Union had 27, and whether members of the Council of Europe were subject to integration tests; whether there had been any research on non-Dutch and non-citizens who had been successful and had no examples to cite of being discriminated against; and the need to balance tolerance of minorities with tolerance of right-wing political parties.

Experts also asked how the Netherlands took into account an individual’s labour contribution when assessing the compulsory test for citizenship; how the integration process concretely impacted on minorities and how the two-way process (rights vs. responsibilities) was actually enunciated to them; and how national leadership articulated the two-way integration process in a way that encouraged national participation.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, Ms. Haimé said that the Netherlands considered "Europeans" to be members of the European Union. The Netherlands also had bilateral treaties with a range of other countries, thus ensuring that there was no need for integration tests.

With regard to the hierarchy of human rights, and the tension in a democracy between freedom of speech and anti-discrimination and equal treatment, that was an utter dilemma. It was a dilemma of democracy: whether to be seen as a free market for the opinions of all, or whether democracy needed protection to the extent that it needed to limit individual rights, such as the right to speak out on some matters. Ms. Haimé said she had confidence in an open democracy, and more work needed to be done to make it more resilient, while keeping in mind the limits of tolerance.

Human rights were indeed individual rights, and the Government made no policies for specific groups; it only made policies to deal with specific problems. Thus, racist violence and other forms of discrimination were punished. The Netherlands did not aim to assimilate people. The specific integration policy aimed just at the Dutch language, which was focused on so that people could participate fully in society. It was not always due to policy that progress was made, but there was some good progress being made, such as in education, where the number of students of Turkish and Moroccan origin going to higher education had doubled over the past years.

The Government had held experiments aiming to encourage people to meet each other spontaneously all over the country, subsidizing projects for up to three years, and holding a conference on the results of those initiatives. That showed that there was a readiness in society to maintain such efforts. The Government would continue to work through the municipalities to allow people to continue to meet.

The issue of the glass ceiling was a difficult one to discuss, but there had been an increase in political participation of migrants in Parliament and in municipalities. On the future of what political coalition might be possible in the Netherlands and whether that could be a right-wing coalition that might withdraw from international treaties, Ms. Haimé said that the previous right-wing coalition had only lasted 87 days, and that could be a lesson for the future. To withdraw from a treaty, there was a need for a Parliamentary majority, and the extreme right would always be in a minority. She therefore trusted to democracy on this matter.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

DILIP LAHIRI, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Netherlands, in provisional concluding observations, said this had been a wonderful, frank, open and cordial dialogue. Positions might not have changed, but both sides had engaged with each other with an open mind and heart.

On Aruba and the Antilles, since it was the responsibility of the Netherlands Government to provide those reports, whatever the procedure by which they were prepared, it would help the Committee if the Government provided funds and technical advice so that those reports came at the same time as the European report.

There was much for the Committee to congratulate the Government for: for the nation-wide anti-discrimination bureaux; the Internet Hotline, and for ensuring that the Optional Protocol on Cyber-Crime had gone to the Senate; for instructions to the Police and Public Prosecutor's Service to keep a record of every complaint; and for broadening the National Human Rights Institution to encompass the Paris Principles. There was a lot for the Committee to be satisfied with.

Among issues of concern, there would probably one that over-ruled all – that the situation with regard to racial discrimination had deteriorated in the Netherlands, and quite possibly had deteriorated more than in neighbouring countries. It would also express some discomfort on what it perceived as a policy change in the Government, from one where the State was principally responsible for promoting integration and non-discrimination, to a situation where the integration of minorities took place through a kind of process where the main responsibility was put on the minority communities themselves. The feeling in the Committee was that perhaps the pendulum had swung too far in that regard. The Government could look carefully at where that swing should stop.

The Committee was also somewhat concerned about the Government's focus or at least repetition of the fact that it focused only on policies, and not on groups, Mr. Lahiri said. The Committee's theology was somewhat different, believing that equal treatment in unequal situations amounted to discrimination. There were some groups for which it was the Government's duty to concentrate on, and provide recourse for their problems. It was the Government's responsibility to not flow with the tide.

There were a number of other issues, such as "urban marines", the absence of data and statistics, and the Kingdom Act which would be reflected in the report, but the Committee would express and did express its appreciation for the dialogue on all the subjects of interest to it, and that, too, would be reflected in the way the report was framed.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD10/009E