AA13CR04ADD1

AS (2013) CR 04
Addendum 1

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Fourth sitting

Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 3.30 p.m.

ADDENDUM 1

A strategy to prevent racism and intolerance in Europe

Tackling racism in the police

(Joint debate)

The following texts were submitted for inclusion in the official report by members who were present in the Chamber but were prevented by lack of time from delivering them.

      Mr DRĂGHICI (Romania) – I have carefully read the report prepared by our colleague, and despite its very positive findings, I am convinced that variations of so-called “racism and intolerance” on the continent have still to be addressed by our Committee and by the Assembly, simply because they are a key concern for forthcoming action.

      Racism and intolerance, as outlined very well by our colleague, are on the verge of shifting dangerously in their approach and meaning. Properly covered by legal instruments, either at national or international level, these two endemic “diseases” of today’s society are still producing more damage than ever before. In societies divided by economic inequalities, where migration flows are looked at only from a negative perspective instead of being appreciated for the added value they bring, where migrants from within the continent or from outside are considered to be the “collective guilt” for what does not function properly, it is easy to talk about the effect without focusing on those affected – the people who are subject to them.

      Ethnic minorities and vulnerable and disadvantaged groups – among them the Roma minority across the continent – are suffering at the grassroots level. What we are aiming at will produce an effect if the measures envisaged in the report are taken further by national governments, are properly funded and also are addressed at the community level. If the proper policies are adopted by each local administration, discrimination will not be perpetuated, racism will not be allowed or encouraged, and measures for those facing discrimination should be taken not only for, but with them.

      Lastly, I would make a recommendation to the whole Committee: let us make a commitment to the work we do so that, through the measures we envisage, we strive for a reduction in the intolerant discourse among elected politicians in the work we do in our parliaments in our home countries.

      I suggest to each one of you that, between now and the next meeting of the committee, we incorporate in our political agendas the aim of diminishing the number of racist and intolerant remarks made by our colleagues at home. Let us be the first to report improvements in our work before we launch this recommendation to our governments.

      Mr CHISU (Observer from Canada) – It is disheartening to think that after decades of legislative reforms to eradicate racism and to draw attention to the dangers and ugliness of racism, it persists in our societies. However, through the efforts of our colleagues, such as the rapporteurs on both these studies, we can continue to shine a light on racism wherever it rears its ugly head.

      European countries are not alone in struggling to deal with the effects of racism and with policing in multi-cultural societies. The report examines racism, including police racism in European countries, but I have no doubt that similar observations could be made of the situation anywhere in the world.

      There needs to be broader acceptance that societies are becoming increasingly diverse as people become more mobile. We should embrace this, because cultural and racial diversity bring enormous benefits to our societies. This fact underlies the numerous agreements, both international and bilateral, that facilitate the free movement of people across international boundaries.

      The draft resolution of the report on racism in the police contains many important prescriptions to address racism: measures such as diversity training, community policing, outreach, involvement of minority communities in police oversight, and recruitment of minority candidates for policing jobs, as well as strong enforcement of human rights, but having programmes in place to reinforce a culture of tolerance and respect for minorities should not be the end of the matter. We should always strive to improve. In this regard, for example, I should mention a unique agreement reached between the Human Rights Commission in my home province of Ontario and the Ottawa police service to address accusations of racial profiling in the police force.

      Under the agreement, the Ottawa police service has committed to using data it collects from traffic stops in a bias-free way and in a manner that respects the province`s human rights code. The agreement also requires the service to collect disaggregated race-based data for a two-year period and retain an expert to analyse the data and study the impact of race in traffic stops. The data will also be provided to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which will be authorised to do its own study. The Ottawa police service will be required to consult various community groups before starting the data collection program.

      This is but one example of the kind of projects that can be put in place to understand the role of race in policing. We must continue in our work as legislators and members of parliament to press on with the tools at our disposal: public awareness campaigns urging tolerance and acceptance, denounciation of racist acts and organisations, reforming police practices, and constitutional reforms designed to strengthen the protections that already exist against the destructive effects of racism.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their excellent reports and for recognising the problem of racism within the police force. However, we must recognise that this is not just a matter of the police, but of racism in general. In my parliament I am chairperson of the committee responsible for police affairs. That is why I have a very pragmatic approach to this issue. I can support the proposed actions, but let us not forget that many countries, including Finland, already have legislation in place. Laws should be the primary instrument we use to tackle the problem.

      Making new laws is a slow process but it should be encouraged. However, we should avoid overregulating when possible. The police must have the authority to take care of their duties. At the end of the day, the police protect national security. We must not only point a finger of blame at the police, but adopt a constructive approach. Nevertheless, as far as the profile of the police profession is concerned, we must make it clear that racist behaviour is not acceptable and that it must be eradicated. All professions need their own ethical codes of conduct, and this includes the police force.

      In my view, the most important tool for tackling racism in the police force is police education. Encouraging diversity in police recruitment is essential. This has been put into practice also in Finland, at least in the general discussion. Police education varies in different member States of the Council of Europe. This year, the law on the Police College of Finland came into force in my country. Personally, I have high hopes for it.

      Prevention is more efficient than legislation, but I do not mean that we should be afraid of new legislation. A law is a strong instrument to demand certain behaviour and can impose sanctions. If we cannot solve the problem of racism another way, we must choose the legal way.

      Mr GIRZYŃSKI (Poland) – Racism and intolerance are very dangerous. In Europe in the 20th century, the totalitarian authorities in Germany and the Soviet Union engaged in major crimes. During the Second World War, Germany murdered Jews, Poles and many other nationalities just because they did not belong to the German people and the Nordic race. These crimes were committed by German politicians of the National Socialist German Workers Party, under the banner of national socialism and the red flag with a swastika.

      At the same time, in Soviet Russia the Poles, and many other nationalities, were killed just because they were Poles and did not want to conform to socialism and communism. The Russians in the Soviet Union committed these crimes under the banner of the communism, socialism and the red flag with a star. These crimes were committed by the Russian politicians of the Soviet Communist party.

      Racism and intolerance led to the Germans killing about 6 million Polish citizens – 3 million Polish Jews and 3 million Poles. Racism and intolerance caused the Russians to kill about 1 million Poles. For me as a Pole, the battle against racism and intolerance is important, and I will support all actions in this domain, so that people do not need to die because of them.

      Ms MAGHRADZE (Georgia) – In one respect, it is a little strange that, despite the enormous amount of work done by numerous organisations, we still have so many cases of racism, hatred and intolerance, not only in countries with no democracy or low levels of democracy, but in Europe too. A strategic approach to racism, hatred and intolerance implies the introduction or strengthening of a comprehensive legal framework, but at the same time it should emphasise prevention, awareness-raising and human rights education.

      In Georgia, crimes based on discrimination are covered in the criminal, civil and administrative codes. For a clearer and more comprehensive definition, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia has prepared a non-discrimination law, which covers all forms of discrimination. The Parliament of Georgia is in the process of adopting changes to legislation for the signing of the Istanbul Convention. The Georgian police systematically receive training on discrimination. The Prime Minister has appointed a personal data commissioner.

      Recently the Parliament of Georgia adopted a law forbidding State officials to spread Nazi and communist propaganda, although there are no Nazi or strong Communist parties in Georgia. In this context, I agree with the rapporteur that the Assembly should not introduce a filter against some political parties, but we can ask national governments to impose strong restrictions on registering political parties with discriminatory ideology.

      In Georgia we have historical and cultural experience of different religions and ethnic groups coexisting. In the capital of Georgia, Tbilisi, within a 300-meter radius there is a synagogue, a mosque and Georgian orthodox and Armenian Gregorian churches, all of which operate. It is noteworthy that for 26 centuries Jews have lived peacefully in Georgia.

      Currently the whole of Europe is faced with challenges with regards to tolerance. In Georgia, we also had some cases of violence and intolerance towards LGBTs when they decided to organise a rally, and in a village in Southern Georgia, when the local population wanted to build a minaret, the local Christian population objected. In both these cases the Government of Georgia and State agencies acted within the international norms protecting the rights of minorities. The problem in both cases lay in the lack of public awareness among the population.

      In this context the question raised by the rapporteur in connection with the parliamentary elections in Greece is very relevant: why did the electorate vote for Golden Dawn? What is really important in addressing the root of intolerance? To answer such questions, serious research and investigation into what motivates intolerance should be carried out. The Assembly needs to consider supporting factual research to define more acceptable and relevant strategies to tackle intolerance in different countries.

      Ms KANELLI (Greece) – The strategy of the Council of Europe for fighting racism and intolerance in Europe should be the opportunity for the Council to redefine its nature. We have to form a tough taskforce to deal with the monster that attacks anyone and everyone on our continent; the continent which paid the highest price during the Second World War

      Let us be honest: fighting racism and intolerance means fighting Nazism. I therefore propose that we eliminate from our vocabulary the term “neo-Nazism” as there is no such thing. Being a racist and being intolerant means being a Nazi. There is a danger, at the beginning of the 21st century, that hidden Nazism, which appears in politics and political rhetoric, will become legal. It appears as an excuse for facing the huge problems of the European working class masses who are being violently impoverished under the dictatorship of global markets.

      The Council of Europe is the only institution that can impose and demand that all its member States apply policies to reveal the “political Mengelism” hidden behind the excuses of procedures and measures based on winning elections at any cost. We do not have the time to experiment with how to kill the Nazi beast without breaking its face. If we win again, which we are historically obliged to do so because citizens and politicians wrote the book of human rights with their blood, there will be no more racism or intolerance in our societies and culture.

      Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation) – Recent developments confirm the relevance of promoting issues related to tolerance and non-discrimination. Russia consistently urges that we pay close attention to, and refrain from disregarding key problems in today’s Europe, such as large-scale non-citizenship, discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin or language, anti-Semitic opinions, restrictions on the social and economic rights of minorities, and the alarming increase in manifestations of neo-Nazism.

      We are convinced that there can be no justification for the annual marches of SS veterans in Riga, rallies of veterans of the 20th Waffen SS division in Estonia and the inauguration of monuments to SS-men against the background of the desecration of memorials and the exhumation and reburial of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War. I believe all of us feel indignant about the attempts to rehabilitate the crimes denounced by the Nuremberg Trial.

      Our constant efforts on the international scene are aimed at preventing the glorification of Nazism. For instance, at the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Russia initiated the adoption of the resolution to that effect, with 135 countries voting in favour of it. It underscores the fact that countries' failure to respond effectively to these practices runs counter to their obligations under the UN Charter, as well as the goals and principles of the Organisation. Without doubt, this is equally true of the Council of Europe.       Nor can we remain indifferent to the fact that extremist slogans, which the deputies from the right-wing nationalist parties use to score points and enter parliaments, become increasingly common in political election campaigns.

      We are particularly concerned about the fact that the new generation can be so indifferent to the above problems that it is tantamount to their giving consent to these phenomena which are a disgrace to modern Europe. This demands the most decisive action.

      Dear friends, have you ever heard the Earth breathe where mass graves of Nazi victims are located? Through the deathly silence nature itself urges us: "Do not forget! Remember!" Remember that there is no assurance that the tragic events of the 20th century will never happen again, unless we guarantee that through our firm stance.

      Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – I want to thank the rapporteur for raising this question once again in the Council of Europe and presenting this objective and comprehensive report.

      First of all I would like to support the idea that was set forth in the report regarding the establishment of the mandate of General Rapporteur against racism, hatred and intolerance. This will make work on this important issue more centralised, organised and directed.

      I agree with the rapporteur that the list of the biased motives for discrimination must be taken into account when enacting laws on combating racism and offences on the ground. Nothing should be outside the sphere of applicable law and no one should remain unprotected from aggressive intolerance. That being said, another interesting issue noted by the rapporteur is that more and more countries tend to enact laws on the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature, providing significant protection at the national levels.

      The ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems (ETS No. 189) also contributes to combating racist crimes in a specific sphere – the Internet. It is worth emphasising that over the past couple of years the Internet has become a new space for racism as it is difficult to find the person behind the racist and xenophobic comments. It is true that there is a dangerous side to the criminalisation of such acts as it may be seen as censorship, which can make everything even worse. That is why criminalisation should be the last resort in dealing with such problems, preferably giving priority to educational and preventive measures. Awareness-raising can be done by means of the mass media, the Internet and public campaigns such as the No Hate Speech Movement. The organisation and function of such things should be encouraged and supported by all possible means as this is the civilised way of combating racism.

      As noted by the OSCE, “national legislation against racism, focused strategies and appropriate national structures (such as specialized institutions) are key aspects of fighting racism effectively”. Tolerance is the key to peace and harmony in a society which should have a strong base of respect for everyone. Sometimes people need to understand the issue to be able to accept it, and that is why campaigning and awareness-raising are so important in this case.

      Finally, let me stress that Armenia attaches great importance to the fight against racism, xenophobia, hatred and especially hate speech in political discourse. This topic was one of the main priorities of the Armenian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. In this regard I would like to inform my distinguished colleagues that a conference on Combating Racism, Intolerance and Xenophobia in Europe, held in Yerevan on 21 and 22 October 2013 under the Armenian Chairmanship, addressed a wide range of issues related to the fight against racism and intolerance and adopted conclusions which were taken note of by the Committee of Ministers.

Ms ZAPPONE (Ireland) – I wish to commend Mr Gunnarsson and Mr Davies on their excellent reports. It is particularly useful that these two reports are being considered together by this Assembly, and I believe that if the implementation of the recommendations proposed by the reports move together in tandem this will increase their value.

I, like most of us here, am extremely concerned by the visible demonstrations of racism and intolerance across Europe. These reports highlight a particularly worrying element of the struggle to create tolerant societies; intolerant or racist statements by public representatives. We are all only too aware of the danger of extremism in public discourse coming from public officials, and I believe that this is an issue that deserves further serious consideration and examination by this Assembly.

Both reports demonstrate that there is a considerable problem in Europe with lack of reliable data on incidents of racism and intolerance against individuals or groups. We must call for a redoubling of efforts by States to improve data collection so that we have a clear understanding of the situation across Europe.

I very much welcome the reference to human rights education and training in the Strategy report. I would suggest that training on racism and intolerance always be done in the context of broader human rights training undertaken using Human Rights Education methodologies and furthermore, that existing good practice examples be identified and their lessons and experience utilised.

For both reports, the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders is key. This should include National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI), the police, politicians, NGOs, civil society and minority groups, in the elaboration, implementation and monitoring of strategies to prevent and tackle racism and intolerance.

It is clear that we are still far from consigning racist and intolerant views to the annals of history – the implementation of these reports should bring substantive change in this regard.