HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND RACISM
The Human Rights Council this morning held a panel discussion on the incompatibility between democracy and racism.
The panel discussion offered an opportunity to identify challenges and good practices, with a focus on challenges to democratic values posed by extremist political parties, movements and groups; the role of governments, public authorities and political leaders in the effective prevention and elimination of racism and racial discrimination and in the protection of groups in a vulnerable situation; and transparent and accountable governance for the prevention and elimination of racism and racial discrimination.
In her opening statement Kate Gilmore, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned of a resurgence of movements expressing racial, religious, national or ethnic hatred, finding their echo in political voices publicly advocating xenophobia. States should take all opportunities, including on the Internet, to counter the dissemination of racism and hatred, as well as to ensure effective judicial protection and remedies for victims of racial discrimination. Political parties had a responsibility in taking decisive action against racist discourse through internal disciplinary measures.
Yvette Stevens, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations Office at Geneva and moderator of the panel, noted that the problem of racism was getting worse. The Human Rights Council could not ignore it and had to remain seized of the matter. The panel would discuss how preserving and consolidating democracy was essential in order to prevent and combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
Ronaldo Crispim Sena Barros, Special Secretary for the Promotion of Racial Equality Policies of Brazil, presented some of the challenges that Brazil had experienced in fighting racism. He noted that any form of discrimination was not compatible with democracy, adding that in Brazil there had been some important achievements in that respect. People insisted that Brazil was not a racist country and that racism did not exist there. However that myth was revisited in the 1960s during the dictatorship, when differences between the white, black and indigenous peoples were drawn. There was a need to address the fact that race did form part of some grave inequalities.
Jerome Jamin, Professor at the Law Faculty of Liège University, Belgium, spoke about the incompatibility of extremist political parties and democracy. In general, when there was a question of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and incitement to discrimination, the groups were found on the extreme right. He outlined two ways of reasoning about the problem. The first concerned the problem of the definition of democracy. The second dealt with the fight between traditional parties and extreme right parties for democratic legitimacy.
Emine Bozkurt, Member of the Board of Advisers of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and former Member of the European Parliament (2004-2014), said that the refugee crisis had normalized public racist discourse and the extreme right. Some Member States, such as Germany, had shown courage, while others only wanted to receive Christian refugees. Extreme right parties were covering up racism behind the need to protect national traditional values. Rhetoric from mainstream parties had gotten closer to those of the far right in order to attract voters.
In the ensuing discussion speakers condemned platforms and political organizations based on doctrines of racism and racial superiority, noting that the rule of law and education were key in the fight against racial discrimination. Some speakers warned that the increase in religious and racial profiling in Western societies today threatened the democratic order, urging States to ensure that their political and legal systems reflected the multicultural diversity within their societies through promoting diversity.
Speaking were Uruguay on behalf of MERCOSUR, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, South Africa on behalf of the African Group, European Union, Council of Europe, Egypt, United States, Belgium, Georgia, Paraguay, Venezuela, Algeria, France, Colombia, Iran, Russian Federation, Portugal, Cuba, China, Nigeria, Panama, Spain, Chile, Morocco, Germany, Greece, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Italy, Mexico and Dominican Republic on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.
Also taking the floor were the following civil society organizations: Friends World Committee for Consultation, International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development, United Nations Watch, Arab Commission for Human Rights, Iraqi Development Organization, and International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations.
The Council will next meet at noon to consider the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Sao Tome and Principe, followed by a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review.
Panel Discussion on the Incompatibility between Democracy and Racism
Opening Statement
KATE GILMORE, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that there was a resurgence of movements expressing racial, religious, national or ethnic hatred, finding their echo in political voices publicly advocating xenophobia. National newspapers had indulged in stigmatising refugees and migrants, Parliamentarians had blogged against Jews, and campaigners had devised political posters depicting a black sheep being kicked out by a white one. In the wake of the migration crisis, leaders had declared that only people from a certain religion needed apply for residency, hence fuelling Islamophobia. Some States continued to refuse citizenship to members of certain ethnic minorities, while some others allocated access to social protection and legal redress in such a manner that one religious or ethnic group was consistently disadvantaged. Some would even manipulate their country’s population census so as to prevent the identification of certain ethnic or religious groups. These heinous claims to racial superiority were deeply and fundamentally contrary to every principle of human rights. This corroded the foundations of democracy and was the opponent of the rule of law. Moreover, racism was profoundly dangerous and could prepare the ground for bloodshed.
Human rights principles stated that limitation of any kind of speech or expression had to remain an exception, she said. But where speech became incitement to hatred or violence, human rights principles offered strong policy solutions. The Rabat Plan of Action offered guidance on this threshold. Human rights education and awareness-raising could play a strong role to promote equality for all. States should take all opportunities, including on the Internet, to counter the dissemination of racism and hatred. Effective judicial protection and remedies for victims of racial discrimination was also fundamental. States had the obligation to duly prosecute and sanction those responsible for racist and xenophobic violence, and should consider this as an aggravating circumstance resulting in heavier sanction. All racial, national and ethnic groups, and women in particular, should be represented in all local and national institutions. Political parties had a responsibility in taking decisive action against racist discourse through internal disciplinary measures.
Statements by the Moderator and Panellists
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations Office at Geneva, moderating the panel, said the problem of racism was getting worse. The Human Rights Council could not ignore it and had to remain seized of the matter. The panel would discuss how preserving and consolidating democracy was essential in order to prevent and combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. It would also aim to identify challenges and good practices, including on the human rights challenges to democratic values posed by extremist political parties, movements and groups. It would analyse the role of Governments, public authorities and political leaders in the effective prevention and elimination of racism and racial discrimination and in the protection of groups in a vulnerable situation. It would look at the importance of transparent and accountable governance for the prevention and elimination of racism and racial discrimination. She asked the first panellist to elaborate on the role of governments, public authorities and political leaders in the effective prevention and elimination of racism and racial discrimination and in the protection of groups in a vulnerable situation.
RONALDO CRISPIM SENA BARROS, Special Secretary for the Promotion of Racial Equality Policies of Brazil, presented challenges in fighting racism in Brazil. He noted that any form of discrimination was not compatible with democracy, adding that in Brazil there had been some important achievements in that respect. People insisted that Brazil was not a racist country and that racism did not exist there. However that myth was revisited in the 1960s during the dictatorship, when differences between the white, black and indigenous peoples were drawn. There was a need to address the fact that race did form part of some grave inequalities. In the post-dictatorship period, the new national Constitution ensured that racism would be rooted out and that racist crimes would not be subject to statutory limitation. It also recognized the land and property rights of disadvantaged groups. The black movement protested and as a result a Secretariat for Racial Equality was established. Some 53 per cent of Brazil’s population was made up of people of African descent and there was a need to include them into decision-making through quotas for the public administration. Brazil was one of the countries that had made most achievements in the promotion of racial equality, as well as the rights of minorities in general, Mr. Barros concluded.
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations Office at Geneva and moderator of the panel, introduced the next panellist, Mr. Jerome Jamin, and noted that his research covered the dynamics of democracy and cultural diversity, nationalism and the extreme right in Europe and the United States.
JEROME JAMIN, Professor at the Law Faculty of Liège University, Belgium, spoke about the incompatibility of extremist political parties and democracy. In general, when there was a question of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and incitement to discrimination, the groups were found on the extreme right. He outlined two ways of reasoning about the problem. The first concerned the problem of the definition of democracy. The second dealt with the fight between traditional parties and extreme right parties for democratic legitimacy. For far-right parties, what they thought counted in defining them as democratic parties was respecting the rules before and during elections, as well as the legitimacy they obtained from elections. Abiding by those two criteria allowed the extreme right to take part in coalition governments. Traditional parties believed those two criteria to be the minimum, but to the pillar of respect for electoral procedures they believed a pillar of values and respect for human rights had to be added. Traditional parties believed that the second pillar was necessary to keep a check on the first pillar, in order to avoid abuse. The tension between the pillars, between electoral legitimacy and the importance of values, was seen when Jörg Haider in the 1990s had entered parliament in Austria, and was asked to condemn Nazism. He had been forced to reassure the political classes from the standpoint of the second pillar. Mr. Jamin’s recommendation was that the international community needed to talk more about the second pillar. Very frequently, official statements could be heard alleging that democracy boiled down to elections. But there were two pillars.
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations Office at Geneva and moderator, agreed that democracy was not just about elections. Values were equally important. Moving on, she asked the next panellist to share her views on the fight against racism from a European perspective.
EMINE BOZKURT, Member of the Board of Advisers of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and former Member of the European Parliament (2004-2014), said that the refugee crisis had normalized public racist discourse and the extreme right. Some Member States, such as Germany, had shown courage, while others only wanted to receive Christian refugees. Extreme right parties were covering up racism behind the need to protect national traditional values. Rhetoric from mainstream parties had gotten closer to those of the far-right in order to attract voters. The European Union had the moral responsibility to ring the alarm bell and to take a strong stand against emerging racism. Concluding, Ms. Bozkurt referred to efforts made to tackle racism in football, with campaigns involving professional players speaking out loud. The fight against racism needed more leaders and heroes speaking out to condemn all forms of intolerance, including hate speech and intolerance.
Discussion
Uruguay, speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR, condemned platforms and political organizations based on doctrines of racism and racial superiority, noting that the rule of law and education were key in the fight against racial discrimination. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, warned that the increase in religious and racial profiling in Western societies today threatened the democratic order, and asked the panellists whether the current rise of racism in Europe was caused by the economic downturn. South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African Group, urged States to ensure that their political and legal systems reflected the multicultural diversity within their societies through promoting diversity. European Union deplored the current trend of growing incidence of racist and xenophobic acts throughout the world, including those acts targeting migrants and refugees, noting that promoting inclusive tolerance, integration and shared values were guarantees against the rise of racism. Council of Europe underlined that the unjustified assumption that a person or group were superior to others incited acts of violence or discrimination, and thus undermined self-respect of vulnerable groups and damaged social cohesion. Egypt stated that most State institutions were based on the rule of law, but the terrible evil of racism and racial discrimination still remained a serious challenge which created discord and broke up societies.
United States said civil society and peaceful protests had recently put a spotlight on allegations of racial discrimination nationally, including in law enforcement and in the entertainment industry, asking the panellists to give examples of positive steps taken in other nations to address police accountability? Belgium spoke about domestic initiatives combatting racism, and asked the panellists to elaborate on whether interventions to effectively fight racism were needed at the level of the judiciary, institutions or through political debates? Georgia elaborated on national measures taken, and asked the panellists at what stage of education a curriculum on fighting racial intolerance should be introduced? Paraguay welcomed the debate and drew attention to the importance of the Durban Declaration in combatting racism and xenophobia, and spoke about the country’s multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. Venezuela noted with concern the increasing number of neo-Nazi movements motivated by different reasons, and drew attention to the importance of inclusive education to neutralize extremist parties. Algeria said a democratic system by definition was inclusive, adding that it was up to States to protect democratic values, such as freedom of expression, which had to be reconciled with other rights such as the right to be protected against racism.
Friends World Committee for Consultation referred to the impact of disenfranchisement legislation on the voting rights of particular racial and ethnic groups, and asked the panel to comment on the impact on democratic participation of racial discrimination and racism in the criminal justice system. International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism said that States should punish incitement to hatred and racial prohibition, prohibit racist organizations and condemn hateful messages by public authorities, and regretted that many States had made reservations to Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development said that today, supposed democratic States were using legislative frameworks which in many respects were inconsistent with the concept that democracy and racism are incompatible.
Responses by the Panellists
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, said that many of the questions raised related to the link between freedom of expression and hate speech. She also referred to a question by Pakistan on whether the current surge of racism in Europe had resulted from the economic crisis, and to a question by the United States on examples of good practices to address police accountability. Belgium had also asked about the levels of intervention to combat racial discrimination. Ms. Stevens also echoed questions relating to education and awareness-raising measures to prevent hate speech.
EMINE BOZKURT, Member of the Board of Advisers of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and former Member of the European Parliament (2004-2014), said that racism had existed before the economic crisis in Europe. This crisis had however fuelled exclusion and discrimination. There was a lot of racism on the Internet. The online community was a reflection of the real world, and if States took effective measures to combat racism, this would have an impact on the Internet as well. She stressed the importance of accountability of police forces, and called for a better representation of minorities within the police forces.
JEROME JAMIN, Professor at the Law Faculty of Liège University, Belgium, responded to a question on freedom of expression. That question was not dealt in the way it should be dealt with. Some 30 years ago racist speech was nothing like the racist speech today. Moderate speeches today were made by extremists. It was necessary to be able to talk about religion and race without being labelled as a racist. When far-right leaders talked about religion and race they used anti-fascist speech. They demanded their legitimate rights of freedom of expression. It was therefore difficult to discern whether it was a racist who was making a speech on race, culture and religion, or just someone who demanded the legitimate right to freedom of expression.
RONALDO CRISPIM SENA BARROS, Special Secretary for the Promotion of Racial Equality Policies of Brazil, noted that his Ministry had drafted policies to promote equality in terms of education, which was obligatory for all citizens. It was mandatory to teach African history in Brazil. The State also created quotas (50 per cent) for persons of African descent and the poor. The aim was to give more access to persons of African descent. There was also a toll free telephone line for reporting racist crimes, as well as a unit that fought cyber racist crimes. Racial issues also had to be taken into account in all budget drafting. There were also rural policies to guarantee access to land. All those arrangements allowed for substantial change in access to services and decision-making for different communities.
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations Office at Geneva, asked the panellists to elaborate on general recommendations on how to combat online and offline hate speech.
EMINE BOZKURT, Member of the Board of Advisers of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and former Member of the European Parliament (2004-2014), noted that it was important to keep in mind that a lot of hate speech was not recognized as such. Registration of complaints with the police was very important. Many people did not know where and to whom to complain and thus they remained invisible. Special policies were therefore also difficult to draft when hate speech was not registered as such. Solidarity was needed for making relevant hate speech policies. Whether online or not, hate speech was a very ugly phenomenon.
Discussion
France was committed to combatting racism and had adopted a new action plan which contained priorities, including protecting Internet users from the spread of hatred. Colombia drew attention to the right to education and spoke about the incorporation of a national development plan containing measures to protect the population. Iran said that the injection of a certain sort of Western democracy into the Middle East had led to social clashes, the displacement of people, foreign intervention and finally extremism, and that some Western values that could exacerbate the expansion of racism and extremism should be reconsidered. Russian Federation observed that recently, some neo-Nazi parties had been attaining alarming popularity, and that protecting rhetoric of hatred as freedom of speech was inadmissible. Portugal said xenophobic speech was forbidden under its Constitution, as were political parties based on the promotion of racist or fascist ideologies, and asked the panellists how intercultural education could address racism and related intolerance. Cuba quoted their national poet José Martí, who had said the soul emanated, equal and eternal, from bodies of different form and colour, adding also that in the Durban Declaration the incompatibility between racism and democracy was recognised.
China said that racism and xenophobia were among the root causes for the rise of extremism and terrorism in certain countries. China was deeply concerned that the way some European countries dealt with migrants exposed double standards, while black people in the United States also faced discrimination. Nigeria stressed that democracy was supposed to cut across race, gender and religious divides, and was not expected to confer certain privileges to one race over another. The right to vote should exist irrespective of race or gender. Panama believed that education and sensibilization against discrimination had to start with the acknowledgment that discrimination existed. Panama had a number of institutions and mechanisms in place to combat discrimination. Spain said that democracy was the very expression of diversity and should allow for an expression of the majority as well as the minority. Democratic systems should protect the rights of all, including those vulnerable to discrimination and intolerance. Tolerant societies began with education. Chile stated that democracy required the participation of all, and it was only with inclusive participation that racial discrimination could be combatted. Chile was working to ensure the broad participation of indigenous peoples in resolving issues which affected them. Morocco noted that the migratory crisis and terrorist actions by criminal groups had given rise to hatred and xenophobia, which were incompatible with democracy. Morocco reminded of the relevance of the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of national, religious and racial hatred.
United Nations Watch urged the United Nations to take responsibility to combat the worst form of racism – genocide, reminding that ISIS had captured and enslaved thousands of Yezidis, Christians and Shia Muslims. Arab Commission for Human Rights drew attention to the situation of the Palestinian people in Israel, which had pursued a policy of apartheid and refused to give citizenship to Arabs. Arab citizens in Israel were also prohibited from carrying out political activities. Iraqi Development Organization, in a joint statement with Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain Inc, condemned discrimination in Bahrain against religious and racial groups, such as the Shia. The police had been oppressing citizens as they tried to protest in December 2015. Germany noted that in many countries migrants and their descendants had been particularly affected by racial discrimination, and to that end the German Government had formed a broad “Forum against Racism” with a wide range of civil society representatives. Greece noted that it had a strong legal framework against racism and intolerance, with the participation of independent bodies and civil society stakeholders. United Kingdom stated that when a society discriminated against a section of its own population, it limited its capacity to grow, noting that more decisive actions were needed to fully implement human rights obligations and to address the ignorance that underpinned such behaviour and attitudes.
Pakistan said democracy was under threat as xenophobic political discourse, ideologically motivated free speech and hate speech inciting religious and racial hatred was being practiced vigorously in the garb of democracy and the promotion of democratic values. Italy spoke about national regulations around discrimination and asked the panellists how effective policies could contribute to the construction of pluralistic and inclusive societies? Mexico said that given the current political context of political parties and platforms that condoned racism and xenophobia, the view of the panel was welcomed on which legislative and awareness-raising measures were most effective in preventing the adoption of rhetoric that would polarize societies? Dominican Republic, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said that the Community believed in strengthening international cooperation to strengthen all human rights in line with principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, adding that the Community’s vision of Latin America and the Caribbean was as a region of opportunity for all where inclusion prevailed.
International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations said that to be credible, the Human Rights Council had to address the matter of good faith implementation of resolutions combatting racism; to do otherwise set a dangerous pretext for United Nations norms and standards to remain non-implemented at the national and local level.
Concluding Remarks
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations Office at Geneva and moderator, asked how States could better boost education in fighting racism and xenophobia. If indeed genocide was happening in Syria and Iraq, why would the Human Rights Council not act in that regard? Ms. Stevens emphasized the importance of sharing best practices. What role could the international community play to prevent States from using racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia in State policies?
JEROME JAMIN, Professor at the Law Faculty of Liege University, Belgium, said that in a number of countries there were provisions for prohibiting political parties which spread racial intolerance and hatred. However, such rules were difficult to apply and could lead to frustration among part of the population. Young people especially were reluctant to support the banning of political parties, even if those were racist. Racist parties easily adapted to the threats of their funding being cut. Bringing traditional and democratic parties together to oppose extremists was also not easy. Anti-racist legislation was still seen as breaking political careers of party leaders who used racist discourse.
RONALDO CRISPIM SENA BARROS, Special Secretary for the Promotion of Racial Equality Policies of Brazil, stated that recognizing the need for justice and more support and protection was necessary in the fight against racism. In Brazil, there were measures in place, from early childhood education all the way to the university, which provided necessary elements to combat racism and intolerance. There was a system for identifying and flagging racist occurrences. In Brazil, police officers would undergo specific training which would raise their awareness in the framework of racism. A national system for the promotion of racial equality had also been put in place in Brazil.
EMINE BOZKURT, Member of the Board of Advisers of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, stated that inclusive education was clearly important, which would put universal values and anti-discrimination attitudes to the foreground. Countries would also need to get on terms with their histories, and include those lessons in schoolbooks. Pupils, for example, would need to learn about colonial or slave histories of their countries. Ms. Bozkurt suggested that bad practices also ought to be shared. While racism was present in most countries and could not be eradicated completely, self-reflection was needed to see what went well and what could be improved. Countries should practice what they preached. All layers of society, including the Government, should be more reflective of how the society was really looking.
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations Office at Geneva, noted that racism still persisted. Sharing both good and bad practices was useful. The needs of refugees and asylum seekers, who were particularly vulnerable, needed to be especially addressed. Experiences addressed in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be analysed and put to the best use by Member States.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC16/040E