ENAR Shadow Report Racism in The Netherlands

Transcription

1 ENAR Shadow Report 2005 Racism in The Netherlands Leyla Hamidi National Bureau against Racial Discrimination (Landelijk Bureau ter bestrijding van Rassendiscriminatie - LBR) Contributions by Igor Boog, Carolina de Fey, Marjan Möhle, Eddie Nieuwenhuizen, Joost van der Vlist 1

2 Contents Table I. Introduction...3 II. Political and Legislative Developments...4 II.i Anti discrimination...4 II.ii Migration, family reunion and asylum policies...4 II.iii Racism as a crime...6 II.iv Counter Terrorism...7 III. Communities vulnerable to racism...9 IV. Manifestations of racism and religious discrimination...12 IV.i Employment...12 IV.ii Housing...13 IV.iii Education...14 IV.iv Health...17 IV.v Policing and racial profiling...18 IV.vi Racist violence and crime...19 IV.vii Access to goods and services in the public and private sector...20 IV.viii Media, including the Internet...23 V. Assessing the response...24 V.i Anti discrimination...24 V.ii Racist violence and racist crime...25 V.iii Counter-terrorism and protection of human rights...27 V.iv Integration and social inclusion of ethnic and religious minorities...27 VI. Conclusion...29 VII. Bibliography...30 ANNEX: Overall Assessment of Directive 2000/43/EC

3 I. Introduction This shadow report gives an overview of the state of affairs concerning racism and racial discrimination in The Netherlands in The year 2005 was a year of many contradictions. The emphasis laid by the government on the integration of migrants in Dutch society has had positive as well as negative effects. There is for instance increasing acknowledgment that, as research shows, the high rate of unemployment among non-western immigrants must for some part be attributed to discrimination in the employment market, several measures and policies are developed to stimulate the employment of ethnic minorities. Integration by means of employment and education is also seen as a good way to prevent radicalisation. On the other hand, the government, on a national as well as local level, in its effort to integrate ethnic minorities and fight radicalism, often creates an image of ethnic minorities and especially of Muslims, as secondrate citizens. This report highlights political and legislative developments in the field of antidiscrimination, migration, racism as a crime and counter terrorism and pays special attention to manifestations of racism and religious discrimination in those areas in society which are highly important for the full participation of ethnic minorities in Dutch society e.g. employment, housing, education and health. Finally, the report shows examples of best practices in different sectors of society and describes several measures taken by the government to combat racism and religious discrimination. As no statistics with regard to racism/racial discrimination in 2005 were available at the time of writing this report, some figures on the situation in earlier years were used. 3

4 II. Political and Legislative Developments II.i Anti discrimination The National Action Plan against Racism was presented by the Dutch government in 2003 as part of the follow-up of the UN Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban, September 2001). In June 2005, the Minister for Immigration and Integration Rita Verdonk, informed the Parliament on progress concerning the National Action Plan in the period December 2003 March As a result, the National Bureau against Racial Discrimination, together with E-quality, an expertise centre for female emancipation in a multicultural society, issued a reaction on the progress report. 1 The Equal Treatment Act was adapted in 2004 as a result of the implementation of the EU Article 13 Race and Employment Directives. In 2005, the Equal Treatment Commission applied in a number of cases the amended provisions in the Equal Treatment Act. II.ii Migration, family reunion and asylum policies Under the present cabinet, an attempt is being made to almost entirely stop the immigration of non-western ethnic minorities. In Dutch immigration law, the procedures for residence permits fall under two categories: asylum and regular. It has been apparent for many years that the asylum policy is aimed at discouraging new, potential asylum seekers. This same tendency can now be identified in the regular section of the Netherlands admission policy. The Aliens Act 2000 came into force in Since then, everything has been done in the field of asylum to minimise the chance of asylum seekers to be granted a status. For example, the AC procedure was incorporated in the Aliens Act This procedure takes a mere 48 hours from the time at which someone submits an application for asylum. The application needs to be submitted as soon as possible after arriving in the Netherlands. The AC procedure was intended for people who clearly abuse the asylum procedure and stands for Application Centre procedure. This means that asylum seekers in the application centre (located in Ter Apel) receive a decision within 48 hours, after which they are put out on the street. It is possible to make an appeal, but this must be submitted within one week. Given the fact that the applicants have just arrived in the Netherlands, rarely speak the language and are unfamiliar with the rules, it is practically impossible to find a lawyer in that one week who can examine the case in detail and submit an appeal. It is also extremely worrying that a procedure with so few guarantees is now being applied by the IND [Immigration 1 Reactie op voortgangsrapportage Nationaal Actie Plan, 4

5 and Naturalisation Service] to more than 50% of all applications. The IND even sets internal targets for the percentage of refusals based on the AC procedure. Another cause for concern within asylum law is the marginal review. This form of review was devised by the IND and approved by the Council of State. It entails the following: three criteria have been set which people must meet, firstly, they need to possess valid proof of identity (this is often a problem for asylum seekers, as human traffickers take away their identity papers); secondly, the account of their journey must not contain any inconsistencies (nor between the accounts given by different family members), which is simply unfeasible given that almost everyone sees or interprets things differently (if two people are asked to follow the same route and then describe it afterwards, their accounts will never be the same); the third criterion is that they must possess objectively verifiable documents which prove they are being persecuted by the authorities in their country of origin. If the asylum seeker cannot satisfy any of these criteria, the content of the asylum report is not examined further, regardless of how convincing that might be. Given that these decisions are taken on the basis of two interviews, which asylum seekers must give, unprepared, as soon as they enter the country, the inescapable conclusion is that the asylum procedure has more or less become a paper-shuffling exercise whose requirements almost no one can satisfy. This tendency continues in the regular entry of aliens. While the procedures for people with a high income (Western immigrants mainly) are simplified, those wishing to reunite with family members are required to take an integration exam abroad. This exam is allied to the MVV requirement (visa that permits a stay longer than 3 months, which must be requested in the country of origin) from which, by coincidence, the US, Australia, Switzerland and Japan are exempt, owing to the equivalent economic level of these countries. The link between a country s economic level and the integration potential of its citizens is unclear to the author. A distinction is made here, which is justified on the grounds that these countries are comparable with the Netherlands in social, cultural and economic terms. This legislation has received criticism from almost all quarters. From a legal point of view, the legislation is abominable and there are also a great many practical problems. The integration exam is carried out on a computer and (regardless of the ethics of someone s right to residence depending on a computer) it has emerged that experts have many remarks and criticisms about the passability of this exam. In addition to the integration exam abroad, an income criterion has been set for regular procedures. This means that a person can submit an application only if the partner in the Netherlands has a net monthly salary of 1,300 euro (the amount is slightly higher). No one admits that this measure was introduced to make it more difficult for Turkish and Moroccan compatriots to bring in a spouse from their country of origin. It is assumed that these groups are unlikely to be able to meet the income criterion. In practice however it turns out that these 5

6 groups are often able to meet the criterion and that it is mainly Dutch natives on a low income and other ethic minorities (especially asylum seekers) who fail to meet the criterion. II.iii Racism as a crime Discrimination can have a deep impact on people s lives. Defamation, incitement to hatred or violence and exclusion can lead to social unrest, inter-racial tensions and even violence. In order to clarify the norm that discrimination on the grounds of race is not tolerated, and make its application feasible in practice, codification is important. As a signatory to various treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, the Netherlands has committed itself to combating discrimination and unequal treatment. To this end, in 1971 the Dutch legislature adopted the prohibition of discrimination in the Penal Code. The relevant provisions (articles 137c - g and article 429quater) were tightened up in later years and extended to include discrimination on other grounds. The law now makes the following conduct a crime or misdemeanour against public order. The defamation of groups of people on the grounds of their race; incitement to hatred, discrimination or violence against persons on racial grounds; the dissemination of discriminatory views; participating in or lending support to activities aimed at discrimination; discrimination by persons in their official capacity, profession or business. For an explanation of the term race, the courts apply the definition as specified in Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. In order to underline the impermissibility of discrimination and give the police greater powers of investigation, the maximum punishment that can be imposed was raised in The court is able to impose a higher sentence when a person is guilty of systematic discrimination or when several persons are guilty of discrimination in collusion. This increase applies to several forms of racial discrimination. In the case of defamation, incitement to hatred, discrimination or violence, the maximum term of imprisonment has been raised from one to two years. With regard to the dissemination of discriminatory views and discrimination by persons in their official capacity, profession or business, the maximum sentence has been doubled from six months to one year. By making discrimination a punishable offence, the police and the Public Prosecutions Department take on an important role in combating this phenomenon. The framework for this is the Guideline on Discrimination (Aanwijzing Discriminatie), which sets out both for the police and for the Public 6

7 Prosecutions Department how they should act in discrimination cases. The effectiveness of the Guideline is evaluated every four years and, where necessary, amended and its implementation improved. The current Guideline will be evaluated in II.iv Counter Terrorism The war on terrorism is high on the agenda in the Netherlands. The current threat of attacks has led to a great many proposals and measures to counter radicalisation and terrorism. The measures stem in part from agreements made at European and international level. In 2005 the Dutch government announced a variety of measures. Some of these measures are aimed at broadening the powers of the police and judicial authorities and even creating new powers. By virtue of the Data Delivery Act (Wet Bevoegdheden vorderen gegevens), the police and judicial authorities have increased powers to request personal data. This concerns not only identification, but also sensitive and extraordinary data. It is sufficient that evidence exists that someone is planning a terrorist attack. To enable action to be taken against (possible) terrorist attacks as early as possible, a legislative proposal has been made to increase the powers of the police and judicial authorities to the extent that information can be gathered about groups of persons who might be plotting an attack (Wetsvoorstel Verruiming Bevoegdheden bij Opsporing en Vervolging terroristische Misdrijven). In addition to criminal measures, there is also a proposal for legislation on national security measures by the State: Bestuurlijke Maatregelen nationale Veiligheid. This proposal concerns the implementation of an obligation to report periodically and a ban on entering certain areas or consorting with certain persons which would apply to persons suspected of supporting or having links with terrorist activities. Finally, there is the proposal to make the glorification of terrorist acts a punishable offence. According to the Explanatory Memo, this proposal was inspired by the significant coarsening of the public debate and necessity of offering society legal protection against views that far exceed the boundaries of what is acceptable. The legislative proposal envisages making it a criminal offence to glorify, extenuate, trivialise or deny heinous crimes, if this might constitute a threat to public order. The proposal is not limited to terrorism only but encompasses a broader range of serious crimes. Such legislation can have far-reaching effects on citizens rights. Although the legislative proposals are not discriminatory in intent, the danger of this does exist in their application. In view of the religious / ethnic component that arises in the current terrorist threat, there is a high likelihood that the focus will fall on certain sections of the population. In some instances the government even speaks of Islamic terrorism and persons of this religion and thereby persons of a certain 7

8 ethnicity are therefore obvious targets. Incidents whereby Islamic citizens are wrongfully viewed as a potential threat to public order are therefore not out of the question. 8

9 III. Communities vulnerable to racism The Dutch Office of Statistics (CBS) collects data on the number of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. It uses the Dutch term allochtoon or the term migrants to define ethnic minorities. It distinguishes between migrants of the first generation and migrants of the second generation. Migrants of the first generation are born outside the Netherlands and migrants of the second generation are the children of first generation migrants. In fact, if only one parent is born outside the Netherlands, the child is identified as a second-generation migrant. 2 On 1 January 2003, there were 3,038,758 migrants of the first and second generation as defined by the Dutch Office of Statistics: 1,585,927 migrants of the first generation and 1,452,831 migrants of the second generation. The total population of the Netherlands was 16,192,572. The Dutch Bureau of Statistics distinguishes between two groups of migrants: migrants originating from Western countries and migrants originating from non- Western countries. In fact, the difference is not so much between Western and non-western countries as between industrialised and non-industrialised countries. The Dutch Office of Statistics (CBS) considers Japan to be a Western country for example. Migrants from Indonesia are also identified as Western migrants because they have integrated successfully in Dutch society. Moluccans are the exception. Migrants from non-western countries are considered to be ethnic minorities and are the target groups of integration policies of the Dutch government. Non- Western migrants are also the most vulnerable to discrimination. There were 1,004,566 non-western migrants of the first generation in the Netherlands on 1 January 2003 and 618,036 non-western migrants of the second generation. The four biggest groups of non Western-migrants are: Turks, Surinamese. Moroccans and Antilleans. Their numbers on 1 January 2003 were (first and second generation combined): Moroccans 295,332, Antilleans 129,312, Surinamese 320,658, Turks 341,400. Migrants of the third generation numbered 35,000 on 1 January There are also some smaller migrant groups from non-western countries in the Netherlands: Chinese (36,000), Somalis (25,000), Afghans (34,000), Iraqis (35,000), Iranians (28,000), Capeverdians (20,000), Ghanean (17,000). There are no official figures on Sinti and Roma or on Travellers (caravan dwellers). Estimates of the number of Sinti and Roma range from 3,500 to 6,000. The number of Travellers (caravan dwellers) is estimated at 30,000. The largest minority religion in the Netherlands is Islam (an estimated 920,000 or 5.7% of the total population), followed by Hindus (95,000) and Jews (40,000). 3 2 Figures can be found on

10 In 2002, 52% of the Dutch population identified themselves as a member of one of the several Christian churches in the Netherlands. 40% of the Dutch population identified themselves as not belonging to any religion. In 2003, there were 13,400 applications for asylum in the Netherlands. Of the 13,400 applications, 9,760 were permitted to stay in the Netherlands. The majority of these asylum seekers have received a temporary permit to stay in the Netherlands. The number of asylum applications has fallen dramatically over the last four years. In 2000 there were 43,560 applications, in 2001 there were 32,580 applications and in 2002 there were 18,670 applications. This decline of asylum seekers has been attributed to a new aliens law which was introduced on 1 April Asylum procedures in the Netherlands are very slow and many refugees have waited years for a decision by the government on whether their application would be granted. The Dutch government has decided to deport as many as 26,000 failed asylum seekers, whose application fell under the old aliens law. This decision has caused some uproar in Dutch society. Refugees who have settled in the Netherlands in the last decade are from countries like Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and China. For the purposes of the report Monitor Rassendiscriminatie , due for publication in the spring of 2006, a survey was carried out of people s experiences of discrimination: Discriminatie-ervaringen Almost 1,700 respondents took part in this survey (conducted with the aid of questionnaires, supplemented with in-depth interviews), consisting mainly of Dutch natives and people from the four largest groups of immigrants: Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans and Surinamese. According to the survey, more than half of the Moroccans and slightly less than half of the Turks had personally encountered racial discrimination in the past year on one or several occasions. This means that Turks and Moroccans are confronted with the problem on a regular basis; not only with incidents in which they themselves are discriminated against, but also with incidents in which persons from their immediate surroundings are the victim of discrimination. The percentage of Surinamese and Antilleans who said they had encountered discrimination in the past year is slightly lower: 40 and 37% respectively. A striking feature is that higher-educated Moroccans claim to experience discrimination more often than lower-educated Moroccans. Approximately 2% of the Dutch natives questioned stated that they had been personally confronted with racial discrimination. Due to the low number of ethnic Dutch victims that emerged from the survey, it is not possible to draw any 4 The National Bureau against Racial Discrimination compiled the report Monitor Rassendiscriminatie 2005 together with a number of partners, on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. It is an overview of the state of affairs with regard to racial discrimination in the Netherlands. 10

11 generalised conclusions about the nature and extent of racial discrimination towards the native population. 11

12 IV. Manifestations of racism and religious discrimination IV.i Employment Members of ethnic minorities are disadvantaged in the Dutch employment market. In 2005, unemployment among non-western immigrants was three times higher than unemployment among the native population. In 2005, 5% of the native Dutch working population was out of work, compared with 16% of the non-western working population (CBS). Among Moroccans, 20% were out of work in 2005; among Antilleans and Arubans 18%; among Turks 14% and among Surinamese 12%. The unemployment among the group of other non- Western immigrants was 19%. The youth unemployment among immigrants (15 24 years old) was 26% in 2005, compared with 11% of the native Dutch youth population. There is a consensus among researchers that part of the disadvantage must be attributed to discrimination in the employment market. This conclusion also emerges from the survey report Ethnic minorities in the employment market, commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and published in April 2005 (Klaver et al, 2005). The survey concludes that negative stereotyping of immigrant workers plays a significant, obstructive role in the recruitment policy of employers. A quote from the survey report says: in some cases, having a foreign name is enough to be rejected. Based on the research performed in the context of this report, it also emerges that one third of immigrants have experience of discrimination in the workplace. In August 2005, research was presented on the subject of discrimination against ethnic-minority students in Intermediate Vocational Education seeking a work placement. The research was commissioned by the Dutch political party Groen Links (Groen Links 2005). 336 companies were approached by test subjects who presented themselves as students seeking a work placement, whereby they gave either a Dutch name or a Moroccan name in the telephone conversation. In the building sector, 15% of those who gave a Moroccan name were invited for an interview, compared with 41% of the students with a Dutch name. The disparities were much smaller in the retail sector and in the hospitality sector. The researchers attribute the reticence in the building sector to the employers relative unfamiliarity with employees of foreign origin. The Dutch anti-discrimination bureaus report that 27% of the complaints received in 2004 related to the employment market. In 2003, the proportion was 18%. The majority of complaints concerned treatment in the workplace and recruitment and selection (Coenders et al, 2005). Not all of the complaints received by antidiscrimination bureaus are about discrimination on the grounds of race or origin; complaints of age discrimination also occur. It is however the case that race and origin form the largest category in the registered complaints. 12

13 The Equal Treatment Commission (CGB) issued 38 opinions in 2004 on the subject of racial discrimination in the employment market (in 2003 the number was 26), and a further seven that concerned discrimination on the basis of nationality and 16 on the basis of religion. In approximately half of the cases, there was evidence of unequal treatment in violation of the General Act on Equal Treatment. The cases involved unequal payment, unequal treatment in recruitment and selection and harassment in the workplace (CGB, 2005). An example of best practice can be found in the national project Couleur National and the local project Couleur Provincial, both of which were initiated in 2004 by the Anti-Discrimination Bureaus. They concern the award of prizes to companies that succeed in fully utilising the qualities of all employees, including those with a foreign background. In partnership with Riagg Rijnmond North West, the LBR (National Bureau Against Racial Discrimination) developed a training course on 'Dealing with stress and discrimination in the workplace' for ethnic-minority employees. The course consisted of ten meetings and began on 15 September IV.ii Housing In previous years we described how the government plays a key role in the Dutch housing allocation system, meaning that housing associations rarely get the chance to operate a discriminatory policy, but that the system still contains mechanisms that lead to indirect discrimination. In particular, the criterion length of occupancy often works to the disadvantage of immigrants. This year we are focusing on a completely different aspect, namely the Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek an Act of Parliament which outlines a set of measures designed to tackle problem neighbourhoods in urban areas. On 21 December 2005, the Upper House approved this legislative proposal. Three measures are named in the new Act. The first measure is described in chapter 2: the Opportunity Zone. In an opportunity zone, the local authority is empowered to lower the property tax to a maximum of 500,000. The second measure specified in the Act concerns access to the housing market. Article 8 of chapter 3 states that the municipal council, via the Housing Regulations, can determine that persons seeking accommodation, who have resided in the region for a period shorter than six consecutive years, are eligible for a housing permit only if they possess income from employment. Paragraph 2 specifies that in cases where this leads to unfairness, the Municipal Executive is nevertheless empowered to issue a housing permit. There are exceptions to the requirement of possessing income from employment. Persons who receive a pension or a student grant may not be excluded from the housing market due to the absence of income from employment. The third measure in the Act extends the powers of municipal authorities to have the management of buildings taken over, after these have been closed down. 13

14 Discrimination still arises from this Act designed to tackle problem neighbourhoods in urban areas. Immigrants and persons with a disability are indirect victims of this legislation. The principle of equality in article 1 of the Dutch Constitution obligates the State to treat equal cases equally. Indirect discrimination is permissible only when objective grounds for justification exist. The government declares in the Memorandum of Reply 5 that objective grounds for justification do exist. If we assume that this Act has a legitimate aim, then it is very much a question of whether the means are appropriate for achieving this aim. After all, a link between income and social cohesion has never been established. Moreover, it has never been sufficiently demonstrated or shown to be likely that persons with no income from employment are responsible for more illegal occupancy and nuisance behaviour. 6 Besides the unsuitability of the proposed means, their necessity also cannot be demonstrated. There are alternatives for achieving the specified aim. For example, Rotterdam City Council has set up a coherent regional programme. Investments in disadvantaged neighbourhoods will lead to a different composition of the population in the medium term and will be more effective than the legislation which has now been enacted. Many concerns about the effect of the legislation have also been raised in the Upper House. The Minister of Government Reform and Kingdom Relations, Alexander Pechtold, has given undertakings that the legislation may not be used as a policy to disperse immigrants. If this is suspected, the Minister will refuse permission to measures based on this legislation. He has also stated that an evaluation will take place after five years. IV.iii Education In 2005, the combat against segregation in education was high on the agenda for many schools and municipal councils in the Netherlands, particularly with regard to the concentration of children of non-western migrants, which is seen as a problem. Ethnic concentration has a slightly negative effect on the achievements of school children with a non-western background, although there is also research that disputes this. According to policy makers and politicians, the other main reasons for implementing measures are concerns about the integration of children with a non-western background and, to a lesser extent, the lack of intercultural interactions among all school children. In 2004, almost one in ten schools had more than 50% of pupils with a non- Western background. These schools are predominantly located in the major cities. This does not mean that segregation is at its worst here, however the major cities are also home to more people with a non-western background. 5 Memorandum of Reply, 17 August 2005, Equal Treatment Commission recommendation

15 Segregation in the Dutch education system results from the accumulative effect of various mechanisms, including: - spatial (socio-economic) segregation; - the white flight, connected with parents having freedom of choice; - the option that special schools have of refusing pupils on the grounds of personal beliefs; - parents with different beliefs are less interested in certain special schools; - informal barriers, such as parental contributions and waiting lists. Rotterdam City Council presented plans at the end of 2004 to counteract segregation in the education system by implementing separate waiting lists for pupils with and without a non-western background. If the composition of the school population were to deviate too far from the composition of the neighbourhood, parents would be advised to look for a different school. In response to these plans, the Education Council advised in May 2005 that it is not permissible to operate waiting lists and quotas on the grounds of origin. The Council did however leave open the possibility of making a distinction between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils, whereby the disadvantage is measured partly on the basis of the parents origin. This is indirect discrimination without objective grounds for justification, which is in violation of the law. Rotterdam City Council has now made agreements with a number of schools in the city that operate such waiting lists. The national government is reluctant to adopt this type of desegregation measure. It does, however, intend to give extra money to schools with up to 80% of disadvantaged pupils. This measure is designed to discourage schools from accepting more disadvantaged pupils. Requirements have also been set for newly founded schools: these may have a maximum of 80% of disadvantaged pupils, the school governors must be Dutch citizens and, when the application to found the school is made, it must include an outline of how the school means to contribute to citizenship education. These measures appear to obstruct the establishment of Islamic schools in particular. The final decision on this policy will be taken in After the murder of Theo van Gogh in November 2004, the focus on intercultural relations in schools seems to have grown. Racist, anti-islamic, extremist and anti-western views expressed by school children are receiving more media attention. The findings of a study conducted in secondary education and intermediate vocational education show that although relations in 21 of 25 schools visited were reasonable to good, (inter)national tensions do have an effect on the educational climate. It also emerged from the study that relations were better in schools that actively focused on this issue with programmes on the subject of diversity and interculturalism (Bestuursdienst Gemeente Amsterdam, 2005). 15

16 For its Education Report 2003/2004, the Education Inspectorate conducted a study of safety in schools. The findings show that 57% of primary schools encounter discriminatory comments at least a few times per year and 3% on a weekly basis. In secondary education, 93% (vocational education), 94% (preparatory secondary vocational education), 80% (senior general secondary education) and 72% (pre-university education) of schools experience discriminatory comments at least a few times a year; with regard to discriminatory comments on a weekly basis, these percentages fall to 23%, 15%, 7% and 0% respectively. In a study conducted by Research voor Beleid and commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Science and Cultural Affairs, the following figures were given: 12% of those questioned had never witnessed pupils making discriminatory remarks, 50% witnessed this once or a few times per year or per month, and 35% witnessed it once or a few times per week or each day (Van Wonderen, 2004). In 2004, a total of 240 complaints about discrimination in education were received by the anti-discrimination bureaus. This represents 6.3% of the total number of discrimination complaints. The complaints relate to enrolment, admission, clothing rules, suspension, and the relationship between teacher and pupil and between teacher and parent/guardian (Coenders et al, 2005). In March 2005 the Education Inspectorate opened a hotline for complaints about discrimination and extremism in the education system. This was in response to the repercussions of social tensions identified in the Education Report 2003/2004. The LAKS (National Pupils Action Committee) also deals with discrimination complaints. Neither organisation has (as yet) published any figures. Best Practices Kleurrijk Wellant The Wellant Colleges offer study programmes in the field of agriculture and horticulture, flower arranging and animal care. The specific nature of these study programmes and the location (often in rural areas) mean that these schools have few students with a non-western background. In addition, there are more instances of racism and discrimination at these schools. With the establishment of a support centre Kleurrijk Wellant (Colourful Wellant), these schools are working in cooperation with the LBR to promote interculturalism and combat racism and discrimination. Students and teachers alike are taking an active stance against racism and discrimination via a broad spectrum of activities from training courses for teachers on how to react to racist and discriminatory remarks, to the students production of a musical based on the book and the film The Wave. The project is being continued in

17 Wereldschool Utrecht Wereldschool (world school) is an LBR project for primary schools in which parents, pupils and the school staff commit themselves to creating a school where everyone feels safe and welcome, regardless of differences in appearance, country of origin or culture. The Utrecht Multicultural Institute carried out this project together with the LBR in both the city and the province of Utrecht, whereby the central theme was meetings between schools. Pupils, parents and teachers who, as a result of segregation in daily life rarely have the chance to get to know each other s cultural background, visited each other and took part in joint activities, such as a visit to an exhibition on prejudice and the scapegoat phenomenon in Fort De Bilt in Utrecht. IV.iv Health Non-Western immigrants have a higher rate of mortality than the native Dutch population at almost all ages. The difference is widest in infants. The cause of these disparities is attributed to socio-economic factors, although these factors cannot explain all disparities. In general, the self-experienced health of immigrants is poorer than that of Dutch natives. This is particularly true for Moroccan and Turkish Dutch citizens: around 60% in this group say that they feel healthy, while for Dutch natives it is over 80%. The disparities between the selfexperienced health of Dutch natives and immigrants are linked to the poorer socio-economic position of ethnic minorities, lower level of education and lower incomes. The poorer health experienced by immigrants mainly relates to psychological complaints: they are more likely to feel and have poorer mental health. Older immigrants (Turks and Moroccans in particular) feel physically as well but psychologically less healthy than Dutch natives. Immigrants experience their health as poorer compared with the native Dutch population. To what extent does this lead to more intensive use of health-care provisions? Little data is available on this subject. What data there is suggests that immigrants make less use of health-care provisions than Dutch natives. There are two exceptions, however: immigrants visit the family doctor more often and use more prescription medicines. The extent to which discrimination plays a role in self-experienced health is unclear. No figures are available on discrimination in health care. The Dutch anti-discrimination bureaus probably do receive complaints relating to health care, but these are registered under categories other than health care. In 2004, the Equal Treatment Commission issued no opinions relating to cases of discrimination in the health care sector on the basis of race or origin. 17

18 IV.v Policing and racial profiling As the enforcer of public order, the police play an important role in the combat against discrimination. Unfortunately, it is not only citizens who are guilty of discrimination. In 2004, anti-discrimination bureaus received 198 complaints about the police, including their conduct. This figure does not indicate how many of the complaints made against the police were justified, but it is nevertheless an indication of how these citizens felt they had been treated. In their work, the police use a variety of profiles that serve as the basis for alertness or action. Because some police officers come into prolonged, negative contact with certain ethnic minority groups, there is a risk that they will form a negative impression of these groups. This impression, consciously or unconsciously, can then serve as their guide on how to act in certain situations. The attitude and conduct of police officers are subjects that receive attention in police colleges and training courses. In view of the occupational hazard of negative stereotyping, more focus could be given to these subjects in practice in order to prevent conduct based on discriminatory presuppositions. With regard to the monitoring of aliens, legal criteria have been established to prevent actions based solely on ethnic identifiers. This risk seems to be less well covered in the exercise of other police powers. In 2002 a law on preventive searches came into force (Wet preventief fouilleren). This law empowers the police to search persons and vehicles in a designated area and during a designated period for weapons, irrespective of the existence of reasonable grounds for suspicion. Stop-and-search actions have been carried out in various cities. The danger inherent in these actions lies in the selective application of powers. The police may pretend that decisions about who to stop and search are made on a non-selective basis, but this is precisely where scope lies for personal interpretation by police officers, meaning that in some cases prejudices and negative stereotyping can serve as the guide to their actions. This danger of discriminatory selection also arises in identification checks by the police. Since January 2005, police officers have been empowered to ask persons for proof of identity in the course of their duties. The citizen must therefore be able to produce proof of identity upon request. As yet, no data is available regarding discrimination complaints submitted in connection with preventive searches or mandatory identification. If citizens feel they have suffered discriminatory treatment by the police, they can make use of the police complaints procedure. Although the police register these complaints, the figures fail to show whether or how many complaints involved discrimination. Due to the shortcomings in the registration system, only a partial impression can be formed about the number of complaints that arise. Complaints about police conduct can also be submitted to the National Ombudsman. In the case of discrimination complaints, the Ombudsman often refrains from pronouncing a judgement when the statements given contradict 18

19 each other and there are no further facts or circumstances that substantiate one of the statements. From the List of Pronouncements of the National Ombudsman, it emerges that in 2004 and 2005 a pronouncement was made in two cases, whereby an investigation was also made into the suspected discriminatory conduct of the police. In both cases it was judged that discriminatory conduct had not taken place. In addition to the police complaints procedure and the National Ombudsman, it is possible to launch criminal proceedings against police officers against whom a discrimination complaint has been submitted. The Guideline on Discrimination (Aanwijzing Discriminatie) states that in addition to, or instead of, disciplinary measures, criminal proceedings are possible. As far as we know, no criminal proceedings were launched against a police officer in 2005 on the grounds of discrimination. IV.vi Racist violence and crime To obtain an impression of the various manifestations of discrimination, figures from the police and the Public Prosecutions Department are indispensable. These are precisely the figures which are not available, making it impossible to give a full impression. The figures from the anti-discrimination bureaus and hotlines, where people can register complaints about and report instances of discrimination, show that in ,017 complaints of racial discrimination were received. This represents a decrease in relation to previous years. The figures for 2005 have yet to be published. The figures do not provide information on the nature of the complaints made. They encompass discrimination on a variety of grounds, and do not specify per ground the type of discriminatory manifestation that was involved. Of the total number of complaints received, 145 complaints were said to involve violence. No figures are available from the police on the number of discrimination complaints they received in 2004 and thereafter. The Public Prosecutions Department does have figures on this, but these are limited to independent discrimination offences and concern discrimination on several grounds. This is because the anti-discrimination provisions of the Penal Code are applicable to other discriminatory grounds, besides race. Figures on offences such as violence motivated by discrimination are not available. The registration figures of the Public Prosecutions Department show that, in 2004, a total of 214 discrimination cases were received. Categorising these figures according to the relevant article of the law produces the following overview: 19

20 Table 1 Number of discrimination offences registered by the Public Prosecutions Department in per article of the law Article c d e f g quater Total Source: Landelijk Expertise Centrum Discriminatie (National Centre of Discrimination Expertise) The registered information indicates where the discrimination offence took place, on which grounds, who the suspect was and in which manner it occurred. In most cases, discrimination occurred on the street or in a public place. It often concerned anti-semitism, discrimination against Turks or Moroccans, or was a manifestation aimed at skin colour. In the large majority of cases (70%), a white person was responsible for the discriminatory incident. These often concerned a vocal utterance and to a lesser extent took place via graffiti, illustrations, writings or in conjunction with (threats of) violence against persons. Threats of violence were concerned in 14% of the cases. According the figures of the Public Prosecutions Department, the suspect(s) in 65% of the discrimination cases submitted in 2004 were summoned to appear in court. This represents an increase in relation to previous years. In 16% of the cases, the Public Prosecutions Department dismissed the case. This percentage was significantly higher in previous years, much higher even than the national average for all cases. The fall in this percentage is possibly attributable to the 2003 Guideline on Discrimination, which emphasises restraint concerning the decision to dismiss. The court pronounced a sentence in 89% of the cases in This is an increase in relation to previous years. The figures for 2005 are not yet available. IV.vii Access to goods and services in the public and private sector Access to goods and services is an essential component of social interaction. Goods and services is a wide-ranging area. The main groups at risk of encountering discrimination are young immigrants (in the hospitality sector), people with a residence permit and caravan dwellers. Discrimination in hospitality establishments has been a problem since the 1970s. Reports of discrimination at the door have appeared in the media with some 20

21 regularity since that time. For the same length of time, projects have been set up with the aim of combating discrimination at the door of hospitality establishments. Research shows that the situation still leaves something to be desired. Although anti-discrimination bureaus, owners of hospitality establishments, municipal councils and the police are working together more and more at local level, a number of problems nevertheless arise in combating discrimination at the door. These problems have also been identified by the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rita Verdonk, in her letter to the Lower House of August The main problems are the under-registration of complaints and the burden of proof in discrimination cases in general. A variety of studies have shown that relatively few discrimination complaints are registered. Time and time again, research shows that a high percentage of young people complain about discrimination in the hospitality sector, but this is not reflected in the number of discrimination reports made. The low number of reports can be attributed to a variety of reasons. Perhaps young people do not believe that their complaint will actually lead to something. Another factor is that they are unfamiliar with complaints procedures. Having different complaint procedures in different municipalities will not, in any event, contribute to better registration of discrimination reports. Young people often go out in places outside their own region and they are unlikely to want to find out per region where they can register a complaint. This problem can be overcome by means of central national registration. Having one access point for complaints about the hospitality sector would at any rate make things simpler for young people. Central registration can work well in combination with the existing local initiatives. After registration, complaints would be passed on to the local anti-discrimination bureau (ADB) who can then put a choice before the complainant. Does the complainant want to register the complaint only for the purposes of building up a dossier, or does he/she desire a form of mediation via local initiatives? When complaints have been received about a particular hospitality establishment, the ADB would then contact the owner to communicate the complaints. In this way, the owner is given the opportunity to take appropriate measures. If complaints continue to flow in, the ADB will itself test the situation in practice, to support the complainants, given that the results of such tests can be used as legal evidence in criminal cases. This is extremely important, because jurisprudence shows that a great many complaints cannot be proven. In the financial sector, caravan dwellers and people with a residence permit are the main groups at risk of being excluded from services. Persons with a temporary residence permit are foreigners by definition. They are affected when extra requirements are placed on permit holders. The Equal Treatment Commission has concluded that this constitutes indirect discrimination on the grounds of nationality. The Commission finds that the suppliers who engage in this disputed behaviour often do so in order to limit the credit risk and thereby 21

22 protect the interests of their business. This goal is of course legitimate in principle, but in practice it disproportionately affects persons of non-dutch nationality. Moreover, it is also possible to achieve this goal by less impactive means; for example, by investigating the type of status more closely. The Commission has therefore issued the opinion that no objective grounds for justification exist for setting extra requirements. Businesses that do so are acting in violation of the law. Most complaints in connection with insurance and discrimination relate to the exclusion of caravan dwellers from household contents insurance. This concerns a group of around 35,000 Dutch citizens living in 9,600 caravans. The majority of caravan dwellers do not have household contents insurance. Many insurers adopt the view that services can be refused to this group because standard risks are not applicable. This reasoning is contestable. In actual fact, no research on caravan dwellers has been conducted since the 1960s. First of all, the Commission finds that in principle, the term race, as specified in the Equal Treatment Act, can also apply to a group of persons who, from generation to generation, are caravan dwellers and who view themselves as a section of the population with a culture that is distinct from other sections of the population. The Commission is therefore in alignment with the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination and article 429quater of the Penal Code. The Commission furthermore judges that the petitioners belong to the group of caravan dwellers who can be viewed as a section of the population protected by the Equal Treatment Act. In legislation, moreover, the government has put mobile homes on a par with fixed residences and they must comply with the same standards. Excluding caravan dwellers from services and referring them to insurance companies that insure groups with an increased risk is permissible only when it can be demonstrated that the question of increased risk truly exists. Given that there is no statistical data supporting the viewpoint of the insurers, the policy of excluding caravan dwellers from the normal provision of services would seem to be in violation of the Equal Treatment Act. In the aforementioned opinion issued by the Equal Treatment Commission, the Vereenigde Assurantiebedrijven Nederland N.V. (Netherlands Association of Insurance Companies) was therefore instructed to evaluate the current risk analysis for caravans and examine whether an altered situation exists, which justifies a different premium level. 22