COUNCIL DISCUSSES RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED FORMS OF INTOLERANCE
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with Mutuma Ruteere, the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, followed by a general debate on racism and racial discrimination.
In the presentation of his reports, Mr. Ruteere said that his thematic report focused on xenophobia, its trends and manifestations, especially in the context of the current migration crisis. Strategies for countering xenophobic discrimination must be context-specific and carefully adapted to domestic realities, in which the role of local actors was paramount in designing and implementing tailored, local administrative and other measures to overcome local barriers to integration and peaceful cohabitation. Mr. Ruteere presented his second report on combatting the glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism, and referred to reports of violence perpetrated against Roma, Muslims, Jews and other minorities and vulnerable groups, in which he expressed concerns about cyber-racism and hate propaganda through social media platforms, as well as about the proliferation of extremist groups in sports. The Special Rapporteur also presented the report on his country visit to Greece.
Greece spoke as a concerned country. The Greek National Commission for Human Rights also spoke.
During the interactive dialogue, delegations expressed concern that many of the issues raised in the report showed no signs of improvement and noted the continued threat to human rights and democracy of extremist political parties and movements, whose influence had increased in several areas of the world, particularly in Europe, where extremist parties occupied seats in national and regional parliaments. Speakers stressed the need for strong government response to racism and hate speech, including against refugees and migrants, and called for comprehensive strategies that would incorporate legal, educational and capacity building measures. Speakers stressed the crucial role that civil society could play in addressing xenophobia at the community level and said that their initiatives should be supported and not supressed by state authorities.
Speaking in the interactive discussion were the European Union, Cuba, Bolivia, Russia, Germany, Georgia, Mexico, Nigeria, Kyrgyzstan, Fiji, Israel, Namibia, Croatia, Switzerland, South Africa on behalf of the African Group, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Senegal, Armenia, Thailand, Ghana, Belgium, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, and Azerbaijan.
Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, United Nations Watch, Arab Commission for Human Rights, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Comimission Africaine des promoteurs de la santé et des droits de l’homme, and Minority Rights Group.
The Council then started a general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, in which speakers said that all societies were confronted with this scourge which caused countless suffering. They noted the important strides in confronting the phenomenon since World War II, including the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, but expressed concern about new ugly forms of racism which were expanding in Western societies, such as racism, xenophobia and ridiculing of other religions, particularly Arabs and Muslims. Speakers urged the United Nations General Assembly to convene the Fourth World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance, and also urged the Human Rights Council to consider measures to increase the effectiveness of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action follow-up mechanism, and to focus on fighting neo-Nazism and xenophobia.
Speaking in the general debate were the Netherlands on behalf of the European Union, Qatar on behalf of the Arab Group, Dominican Republic on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Cuba, Ecuador, and Russia,
Turkey, Armenia, Latvia, and Azerbaijan spoke in right of reply.
The Council will meet at 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 28 June to conclude its general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. It will then hold separate interactive dialogues with the Independent Experts on the Central African Republic and on Côte d’Ivoire.
Documentation
The Council has before it a Panel discussion on the incompatibility between democracy and racism - Summary report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/32/29).
The Council has before it Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance - Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/32/49).
The Council has before it a corrigendum to Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance - Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/32/49/Corr.1).
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/32/50).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance – mission to Greece (A/HRC/32/50/Add.1).
Presentation of Report by the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism
MUTUMA RUTEERE, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, presented three reports to the Council. The first was a thematic report on xenophobia, its trends and manifestations, especially in the context of the current migration crisis. In the current era of increased mobility, widespread forms of overt physical violence, hate speech, and discrimination were rooted in xenophobia, he said. He recommended that Governments and stakeholders give due attention to a set of key elements in designing and implementing strategies with improved effectiveness. These included a local diagnosis of the situation, implementing preventive actions, promoting social solidarity, identifying the appropriate scale of intervention, the complementarity of strategies, and review and assessment. Strategies for countering xenophobic discrimination must be context-specific and carefully adapted to domestic realities, he stressed, adding that addressing xenophobia necessitated shifting the institutional, political and economic incentives that supported, continued or heightened xenophobic practices. The role of local actors, including local government, was paramount in designing and implementing tailored, local administrative and other measures to overcome local barriers to integration and peaceful cohabitation.
Mr. Ruteere then presented his second report on combatting glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism, and referred to reports of violence perpetrated against Roma, Muslims, Jews and other minorities and vulnerable groups. He strongly condemned the denial of the Holocaust, and expressed concerns about cyber-racism and hate propaganda through social media platforms, as well as about the proliferation of extremist groups in sports. He called upon States to provide for heavier sanctions regarding offences with racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic or homophobic motivations, and to collect disaggregated data and statistics on racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic crimes. He insisted that education remained the most effective means of countering the negative influence of extremist movements.
Turning to his third report on his visit to Greece from 4 to 8 May 2015, Mr. Ruteere noted that the economic crisis had resulted in further discrimination of the most vulnerable groups, such as migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers, Roma, and sexual minorities, which had been further exacerbated by racist and xenophobic discourse from one political party. He called for a concerted solution among European countries to address the complex challenge of mass migration through the southern borders and seas of Europe.
Finally, the Special Rapporteur turned to his recent visit to Argentina in May 2016. He said that reported trends of repression against the mobilization by indigenous groups to claim their rights were alarming. Access to justice for vulnerable groups remained a significant challenge.
Statement by Concerned Country
Greece, speaking as a concerned country, said that Greece had faced serious challenges in recent years. The economic crisis had made the situation of human rights more difficult. Greece had also been one of the countries most affected by the refugee crisis. Although burdened, the country had put tremendous effort into saving thousands of lives in search and rescue operations, and received the refugees in a humane way. Racist attacks had not increased during the period in question. Despite austerity and the economic crisis, Greece was determined to continue doing its utmost to respond adequately to the refugee crisis, in a spirit of solidarity and humanity. A few examples were enumerated of policies and legislation as responses to acts of violence. Five Special Prosecutors for racist crimes had been appointed and data collection on racist crimes had significantly improved. Regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the law on civil partnership was recently extended to same-sex couples. The Ministry of Justice was currently drafting legislation on legal gender recognition and was reviewing family law.
Greek National Commission for Human Rights expressed agreement with the Special Rapporteur that the economic crisis had resulted in further discrimination of the most vulnerable groups. It was time for the Greek State to take immediate action on crucial matters related to racism and hate crimes. Austerity measures of indeterminate duration violated rules of international and European human rights law. There was a need to redesign the European Union asylum system along with the Dublin system with a focus on human dignity and the safeguarding of long-established human rights. The Greek National Commission for Human Rights welcomed the establishment by the Greek Ministry of Justice of the National Council against Racism and Intolerance, and the creation of the Golden Dawn Watch as very positive steps.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Racism
European Union noted that the Special Rapporteur had pointed to a “need to move away from a purely State-centred approach and to put further emphasis on a bottom-up implementation of policies to foster social tolerance, mutual respect and trust”, asking him to elaborate on that with concrete examples. Cuba expressed concern that many issues raised in the report had shown no sign of improvement, adding that there were extremist groups in many countries which were totally legal. Bolivia said that the international community should step up actions to control xenophobia, which should be seen as a phenomenon based on slavery and colonialism, noting that poverty, underdevelopment, and exclusion were closely linked with xenophobia and related intolerance.
Russia was concerned about the increase of neo-Nazi groups in the European Union and said that the situation had deteriorated with the increase in migration, which had led to a sharp increase in hate speech. The Special Rapporteur should pay closer attention to the glorification of Nazism. Germany said that strong governmental response was needed to address racism and hate speech, including those against refugees and migrants, and said that the legal response alone would not be enough; that was why Germany was drafting a national action plan to address all forms of discrimination, in close cooperation with civil society organizations. Georgia stressed the importance of anti-discrimination laws, adding that States must develop comprehensive responses to discrimination, incorporating legal, educational and capacity-building measures. Georgia noted discriminatory policies against Georgians in occupied Georgia and asked how international human rights instruments could be implemented in areas outside of the effective control of central governments.
Mexico noted the continued threat to human rights and democracy by extremist political parties and movements, including neo-Nazis, Skinheads and others, and said that in some areas of the world their influence had increased. This was particularly true in Europe where extremist parties occupied seats in national and regional parliaments. Nigeria noted that 244 million people today lived outside of their countries of origin because of conflict or because they searched for better economic opportunities, and expressed concern about xenophobic rhetoric by political parties and leaders which could cause violence and abuse. Kyrgyzstan reaffirmed the importance of international norms and standards in the protection from discrimination and intolerance and fully supported the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation for the international community to urgently adopt a definition of xenophobia. Education remained the most effective means to counter negative views that extremist groups inflicted on young people.
Fiji said that it had a vexed history of racism from its colonial past, adding that the country had abolished racially separated schools, but continued to battle residual racism. Israel said that it was committed to combat racism and xenophobia, adding that the phenomenon should be totally eradicated, noting also that the Jewish people had paid the highest price for racism during the Holocaust. Spain said that xenophobia was one of the main contemporary forms of discrimination, asking the Special Rapporteur for his plans on following up on his initial study, and to detail his suggestion for training in diversity.
Namibia said no person should be discriminated against for any reason, and encouraged Member States to enact laws to effectively alleviate all forms of racism and xenophobia. United States said that women members of racial or ethnic minorities faced barriers to entrepreneurship, noting that the United States Government had taken steps to assure women’s access to health care. Croatia said that while facing migration, the international community had to advocate for zero tolerance of racism and xenophobia to assure equal treatment of all human beings, and asked the Special Rapporteur how to ensure the right national and international level balance to address racism and xenophobia in the most efficient manner.
Switzerland concurred that xenophobic conduct threatened human rights everywhere, and agreed that further efforts were needed to better prevent such conduct. South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African Group, shared the Special Rapporteur’s concerns about racism and xenophobia online, and encouraged him to work closely with the Durban Follow-Up Mechanism. Venezuela raised concerns about manifestations of racism, which increased the vulnerability of migrants. Venezuela was concerned about the glorification of Nazism in some Western countries, and restated its support to multi-culturalism, non-exclusion and integration.
Remarks by the Special Rapporteur
MUTUMA RUTEERE, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, stressed the importance of cooperation between States, civil society organizations and technology actors for addressing online manifestations of racism. He underlined the role of civil society organizations working with migrants at the local level in supporting access to justice for victims of xenophobic discrimination or xenophobic violence. He then said that States had the obligation to prohibit the proliferation of racism in consistence with their human rights obligations. Turning to the intersection with gender issues, he said that many women migrants were subjected to sexual violence. Recognizing the intersectionality between gender and race was crucial to fully address the issue in all its dimensions.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Racism
Costa Rica drew attention to the need to promote social dialogue. Costa Rica had reformed its political constitution, establishing the plurinational nature of the country. It stressed that it was essential to incorporate education in human rights. Senegal agreed that the absence of a clear definition of xenophobia was problematic and that the situation was exploited by some to abuse that term. The Council should take that issue as a priority in order to more effectively fight xenophobia. Armenia attached special importance to fighting all forms of discrimination, racism and xenophobia, which could lead to the radicalization of the population, and in the worst cases to genocide.
Thailand shared the concerns over an increasing trend of discrimination against migrants and people from different religious beliefs. To that end Thailand had made progress in the protection of migrant workers and stateless children. Ghana noted that a comprehensive approach based on a solid legal framework, and on education and awareness raising, should be adopted in order to fight all forms of discrimination, racism and xenophobia. Belgium expressed hope that the fifteenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration would be an opportunity to take stock of the achievements so far and challenges ahead, as the levels of discrimination remained at a high level worldwide.
Malaysia shared concern about the rise of incidents caused by racism, discrimination and xenophobia and stressed that, if not addressed, they could lead to grave human rights violations and even crimes against humanity. Another matter of serious concern was the use of information and communication technology by racist and extremist groups. Bangladesh appreciated the focus of the Special Rapporteur on migrants and was concerned about the denial of xenophobia in many societies and even worse, about its acceptance or justification because of national values or national security. Considering the current refugee and migration crisis, Brazil stressed that undocumented migration was not a crime, reiterated the obligation of all States to protect the rights of migrants, and said that a firm response by States and international organizations was needed to curb xenophobia and racial discrimination which tended to proliferate in times of economic crises.
Egypt shared the extreme concern regarding the continued manifestations of racism and racial discrimination in European countries, particularly against Arabs, Muslims and people of African descent. One of the worst forms of discrimination was becoming institutionalized with the stronger positions and acceptance of extreme political parties which were infiltrating law enforcement agencies. Azerbaijan said that almost 20 per cent of its territory remained under Armenian occupation, where a policy of ethnic cleansing of all non-Armenians was ongoing. Armenia had developed racist nationalist ideology.
International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism said that hate crimes and hate speech were often rooted in xenophobia and expressed deep concern about the presence of xenophobia in the political discourse, a phenomenon especially significant in Europe. International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in a joint statement, raised concerns about the current migration crisis, and about the spread of xenophobia and racism in Europe. United Nations Watch regretted that the genocide of the Yazidis by ISIS was not mentioned in the Special Rapporteur’s report, and asked the Special Rapporteur to examine whether United Nations Member States were partly responsible through their funding of fundamentalist religious and educational institutions. Arab Commission for Human Rights said that populism had demoralized political life, and regretted that a large number of States continued to refuse to collect disaggregated ethnic data.
International Association of Democratic Lawyers was concerned about the alarming resurgence of neo-Nazi and far-right groups in Europe, and particularly in Ukraine, and requested the Special Rapporteur to undertake an urgent visit there. Commission africaine des promoteurs de la santé et des droits de l’homme encouraged the establishment of mechanisms for strengthening the participation of persons of African descent in the elaboration of national development policies. Minority Rights Group stressed the positive role of civil society in supporting victims of xenophobic practices, particularly at the local level, and noted the importance of finding ways to get people at large to question their prejudices. It explained that artistic productions could play a positive role in that regard. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales welcomed the visit by the Special Rapporteur, underlining the importance of the right to migration. It expressed profound concern over possible changes in migration policies and legislation, which could introduce more restrictions, including criminalization of migrants.
Concluding Remarks
MUTUMA RUTEERE, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said that the curriculum in the education system was not only a mechanism to prevent racism and xenophobia. It was a very important sector that required priority because it was in schools that future citizens were formed. Speaking of the complexity of law enforcement with respect to xenophobia, in many places where there were migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, it was in their interaction with law enforcement officers that discrimination manifested itself. There were, nevertheless, some good examples of how to combat racial profiling, such as encouraging law enforcement officers to give a receipt to each questioned person. The question of disaggregated data was very important because it was difficult to build cases of discrimination without that element. Dialogue between various civilizations was positive, whereas the claims of a clash of civilization were baseless. As for the ongoing migrant crisis and refugee movement, Mr. Ruteere said he would continue to be engaged in that regard. Next year he would focus on counterterrorism and the problem of xenophobia. He pointed out that the strengthening of local government intervention was key to effectively fight against discrimination, racism and xenophobia.
General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance
Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that all societies were confronted with the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, which caused countless suffering. The European Union had the Agency for Fundamental Rights, and had launched on 14 June the European Union High-level Group on Combatting Xenophobia, with the task of encouraging discussions on how to better address hate crimes and hate speech.
Qatar, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, noted the important strides made since World War II in confronting racism and racial discrimination and expressed concern about new ugly forms of racism which were expanding in Western societies, such as racism, xenophobia and ridiculing of other religions, particularly Arabs and Muslims, who lived in those societies and contributed to their development. This cast a shadow of doubt on how democracy and the rule of law operated in those societies.
Dominican Republic, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, drew attention to the mobilization of efforts in the region for the adoption of the International Decade of People of African Descent and to ensure that the Sustainable Development Goals included the objectives of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States urged the United Nations General Assembly to convene the Fourth World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance.
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, was alarmed at the increase in incidents of religious intolerance, racial profiling, xenophobic acts, hate speech and religious hatred. It was deeply concerned that Muslims across the world were stigmatized and victimized. Counter terrorism strategies had unfortunately become a cover for the denial of the rights of Muslims. The Organization agreed with the Special Rapporteur that a comprehensive approach based on education and awareness raising was essential to address racism.
Cuba expressed its attachment to the Durban Declaration and to the Decade of People of African Descent. It said that its firm policy against racial discrimination had been broadly documented, as combatting racial discrimination ranked highly on the Government’s agenda, leading to the increased participation of persons of African descent in public affairs. Cuba said that politicization only contributed to poisoning discussions on this issue, and prevented progress from being achieved.
Ecuador was concerned about the increasing stigmatization of vulnerable groups as a result of cuts in social expenses. Ecuador had made efforts to promote an inclusive society for all, including indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups which were traditionally discriminated against as a result of Ecuador’s colonial past. The Constitution recognized the pluri-national and multicultural dimension of the Ecuadorian society.
Russian Federation noted the rise in xenophobia worldwide, notably the signs of radical nationalism. The serious racial incidents in the United States clearly demonstrated the acuteness of that problem. In the European Union there was ethnic and religious intolerance and discrimination against migrants. Moreover, the European Union condoned the policies of the Baltic States which allowed the marching of neo-Nazi groups. Neo-Nazism had also spread to countries such as Ukraine.
Right of Reply
Turkey, speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement made by Armenia in reference to the events of 1915, noted that it was outside of the Council’s mandate. The Government of Turkey was represented at the recent liturgy commemorating the suffering and losses of the Armenian community. Genocide was a very serious crime and Turkey had been doing everything to uphold international conventions against genocide. Furthermore, there was no legal or scholarly agreement on the nature of the events of 1915.
Armenia, speaking in a right of reply in response to Azerbaijan, noted that its policy of hatred and discrimination toward the Armenian people had been conducted systematically through State propaganda and media outlets over the years. Azerbaijan maliciously misinterpreted that some Armenian leaders could be compared to Nazis. Armenia regretted that the delegation of Turkey promoted denialist policies vis-a-vis the Armenian genocide, which had been confirmed by the overwhelming majority of international scholars.
Latvia, speaking in a right of reply, said that it was apparent that Russia had exaggerated the facts to suit its purposes and stressed that the members of the society in Latvia, as in any democracy society, took part in an open discussion on any number of issues. This was a manifestation of a mature democracy and a means to counter Russia’s propaganda machinery. Latvia had never contested the outcome of the Second World War, even if it did not bring it freedom but several decades of Soviet occupation.
Azerbaijan, speaking in a right of reply, said that the statement of Armenia contained traditional, absurd allegations against Azerbaijan. Armenia’s exaltation of fascism at the unveiling of a monument to a fascist general, with the participation of the country’s leadership in May 2016, was a sign of enormous disrespect for the millions of victims of World War II and their families.
Turkey, speaking in a second right of reply, noted with concern that Armenia had repeated its distorted narrative of history and the events of 2015. This approach would yield no result, as it had been already proven.
Armenia, speaking in a second right of reply, referred to the conclusions made by experts regarding the current situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. A recently published report outlined brutalities on the line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh, and it concluded that the ongoing hate speech created the risk of conflict. As for the position of Turkey, scholars had already made it clear that its position was a distortion of history.
Azerbaijan, speaking in a second right of reply, asked Armenia how it interpreted the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan which called for the immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC16/096E