Roma/Gypsies/Travellers of Europe:

An Examination of Discrimination and Racism

Report Adopted at Conference in Leuven, Belgium, 17-19th January, 1998

Acknowledgements

The Irish National Committee for the European Year Against Racism wishes to acknowledge and thank DGV of the European Commission and also the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the NGO’s for making this seminar possible. Thanks to Philip Watt and Caroline Talbot for invaluable organisational assistance.

Ms. Cissi N. Storck, Ministry of the Interior, Stockholm, SwedenMs. Nel Lorsé-Bkaer and Jeannet Heijda, the NetherlandsMs. Annemarie Dupre, FCEI, Rome, ItalyPanhellenic Cultural Association of Greek Roma/Athens, GreeceSave the Children, Athensand all the members of the Irish National Committee for the European Year Against Racism, and especially the participants in the Leuven Seminar for their written and verbal contributions.

Finally, thanks to Noreen Bowden for word processing and administration;Pat Pidgeon for layout and design.

John O’Connell was requested by the Irish National Committee to write this report in consultation with some members of the Committee and representatives from a number of other countries. The author wishes to thank all of those who assisted in the compilation of the Report and takes responsibility for any mistakes or inaccuracies contained in it. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Irish Committee or the European Commission.

Note on terminology:Roma/Gypsies/Travellers: These terms are sometimes used interchangeably reflecting the commonality between diverse groups. However, individual groups may prefer to use their own self-designated name.

ISBN # 1 897598 20 3

Copyright © 1998 Pavee Point PublicationsPublished on behalf of the Irish National Co-Ordinating Committee for the European Year Against Racism

Pavee Point, 46 North Great Charles Street, Dublin 1Tel: +353 1 8780255 Fax: + 353 1 8742626http://www.iol.ie/homepages/~paveeemail: pavee@iol.ie

2

Contents

PrefaceForewordIntroductionSection 1: Discrimination and Racism: Definitions and ResponsesSection 2: Country-by-Country ReportSection 3: Proposals and RecommendationsSection 4: Appendices

Appendix 1: PopulationAppendix 2: Legal InstrumentsAppendix 3: List of delegatesAppendix 4: References

3

Preface

The existence of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism throughout Europe presents a major challenge for all those believe in equality, social justice and democracy. In response to this the victims of racism and anti-racist organisations have been campaigning and lobbying for constructive responses at local, regional, national and European levels. Various studies have shown that racism is on the increase, that it takes on a variety of forms, targets different vulnerable groups, and manifests itself in covert and subtle ways as well as in overt and violent ways.

The European Parliament has adopted a range of resolutions in response to the situation. Likewise the Council of the European Communities and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council have also adopted resolutions recommending various actions to counter racism. In 1995 the European Commission issued a Communication and a proposal to designate 1997 as European Year Against Racism. Later that year the Council decided that the European Year Against Racism would go ahead. The objectives of the Year were: to highlight the threat posed by racism to economic and social cohesion within the EU; to encourage reflection and discussion on the measures required in order to combat racism,

xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Europe; to promote the exchange of experience on good practice and effective strategies; to disseminate information; to highlight the benefits of integration policies; to learn from those who suffer from racism and to promote their participation in society.

The Irish National Committee for the European Year Against Racism fully supported these objectives and undertook a range of actions to implement them. One action which the Committee undertook, with the support of the European Commission, was to organise a transnational working seminar, in Leuven, Belgium, on the specific form of racism experienced by Roma/Gypsies/Travellers in the European Union. The purpose of this seminar was to raise awareness and to develop proposals and actions for EU responses to this form of racism. Prior to the seminar, participants were requested to complete a questionnaire on the situation of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers in their respective countries. These provided some information that was incorporated into a draft paper, which was intended to stimulate further discussion and debate. On the basis of this discussion which took place during the Leuven seminar this final paper has been produced for dissemination. A full report of the seminar proceedings is also available.

Anastasia CrickleyChairperson, Irish National Committee for the European Year Against Racism1998

4

Foreword

The European Commission in its second social action programme set up a Comite des Sages to review progress and to suggest actions for the promotion of a Social Europe. The Committee presented its report “For a Europe of Civic and Social Rights” in 1996, stating that it “felt that Europe was in greater danger than it realised, with its social deficit lowering like a storm cloud overhead. Europe cannot be built on unemployment and social exclusion, nor on a shortfall in citizenship.”

The Committee highlighted the challenge of ensuring that the European Union project was not just an economic venture, pointing out that the social issues were at the heart of this challenge. The Committee called for the immediate specification of a minimum core of fundamental rights within the European Union. It also proposed that a gradual step-by-step process should be applied to the construction of a Social Europe corresponding to that involved in the economic and monetary construction of Europe.

The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) made some progress towards a citizen’s Europe by focusing on the promotion of equality between women and men. However, it failed to adopt a full employment policy. It also enhanced the importance of human rights within the EU and included a provision for the possible suspension of a state where there is a serious and persistent breach of human rights.

The fight against racism forms part of the EU’s responsibility for human rights. The new non-discrimination clause allows the Council to take appropriate action to “combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation.” This clause is welcomed by anti-racist groups, even though it is far weaker than NGOs had hoped for. The non-discrimination clause does not have direct effect in Member States, it requires unanimity and therefore can be vetoed easily. Neither does it cover such categories as social origin, national origin, or language. Nevertheless, it has been hailed as a significant advance in the struggle against racism and xenophobia, because for the first time it indicates a clear Community responsibility in the struggle.

In the broader European context it is also important to bear in mind the role of the Council of Europe in the fight against racism. The European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities are particularly relevant. The latter emerged from the Vienna Summit (1993) and the disruption in Central and Eastern Europe since 1989.

The promotion of social inclusion, equality and respect for cultural diversity requires legislation as well as awareness raising. Specific measures are needed to promote equal opportunities for minority ethnic groups. There is a need to protect the human rights of asylum-seekers and the 13 million third-country nationals resident in the EU. Without progress on these issues the creation of a Social Europe remains a dream. Roma/Gypsies/Travellers and their organisations want to be involved in transforming this dream into reality.

5

Introduction

The Eurobarometer Report of a survey on Racism and Xenophobia in the European Union (1997) shows some interesting initial results. Some of these are positive and encouraging, others are negative and alarming. First the positive. The survey shows that a large majority of those interviewed attach great value to fundamental rights and freedoms, with 84% opposing any discrimination based on a person’s ‘race’, religion, or culture. Over 90% put equality before the law, and the right to education and training amongst the rights to be respected under all circumstances. Over 80% included the following rights: to legal protection against discrimination; to live with one’s family; to housing; to one’s own language and culture; to religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and to freedom of speech. Some 75% of interviewees welcomed the development of a multi-cultural society and 70% acknowledged that authorities should make efforts to improve the situation of people from minority groups. Nearly 80% rejected the idea of repatriation of all immigrants. 84% called for a strengthening of actions by European Union institutions to combat racism through legislation and support for organisations which oppose racism.

The Report points out that the phenomenon of racism is complex and demonstrates the contradictory situation that feelings of racism can co-exist with a strong belief in the democratic system and respect for fundamental social rights and freedoms. The replies to the more detailed questions reveal that those surveyed believe that there is a need to restrict the rights of those who are considered “problem” groups. It is in relation to this belief that the Report presents some worrying and indeed alarming results. Nearly 33% of those interviewed declared themselves as quite or very racist, with respondents from Belgium (22%), France (16%) and Austria (14%) at the top of the scale. People who described themselves as racist tended to feel personal insecurity and fear of the future, to be on the right of the political spectrum, to be over 55 years of age and to have left education early. Some 25% of those interviewed favoured the assimilation of minorities (i.e. giving up one’s culture in order to become fully accepted members of society). 40% considered that there were too many people from minority groups living in their country and 20% agreed with wholesale repatriation of all non-EU immigrants.

While the Report does not name the specific minority groups against whom people direct their racism, or about whom people hold hostile views and attitudes, this paper will try to demonstrate that Roma/Gypsies/Travellers are clearly among these groups. Furthermore, it will try to show that while the racism against Roma/Gypsies/Travellers has much in common with other forms of racism it also has its own specific characteristics and expressions. Before providing a brief country-by-country account of the situation of Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, this paper will first of all set out some key concepts and definitions as well as a typology of approaches to combating racism. The paper will also draw attention to some recent anti-discrimination developments at EU level and finally will conclude with a series of proposals and recommendations about what needs to be done.

6

Section 1 Discrimination and Racism: Definitions and Responses

Anti-Gypsy Racism

A major problem in compiling a report on the racism experienced by Roma/Gypsies/Travellers throughout Europe is the lack of reliable data and the inconsistencies in the data available. This lack of data is in line with the predominant use of assimilationist approaches in the development and implementation of policies. It also reflects what seems to have been the approach of many governments for long periods - that is, when the Gypsies and Travellers are ignored then “the problem” will go away. Consequently there is a lack of Gypsy visibility in many national and EU-level initiatives and programmes. A second problem in relation to drafting this report is the fact that addressing the issue of racism at transnational level is fraught with difficulties because of confusing and conflicting uses of terminology. Words and descriptions such as ‘race’, racism, racial discrimination, ethnicity, ethnocentrism and xenophobia; migrants, immigrants; minorities, are used in different ways in different countries1. Obviously this poses challenges in terms of communication and mutual understanding and there is need for clarity in order to overcome this.

Despite these difficulties, what emerges very clearly from the examination of the situation of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers is that they are the victims of discrimination and racism throughout Europe. While this racism towards Roma/Gypsies/Travellers is similar in many aspects to the racism experienced by other groups in society it has its own specific features. In particular the negative stereotyping and scapegoating of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers has a long history and their exclusion is associated in particular with a rejection by dominant sedentary societies of mobile peoples and nomadism and its related values and lifestyle. In the past this has involved banishment, exclusion, slavery, and even genocide. In recent years a renewed intensification of hostility towards Roma/Gypsies/Travellers has led some writers to describe them as “Outcasts of Europe” (Time, November 3, 1997), and to assert that “the Roma are the most vilified and harassed minority in Europe today. . . Roma have become the pariahs of Europe sharing a collective fate of rejection” (Brearley, 1996).

It is not surprising that the experience of Gypsies is sometimes compared to that of the Jews. The Gypsy dispersion and the Jewish Diaspora experiences have much in common, especially in relation to the type of persecutions suffered and the fact that Gypsies and Jews were targeted by the Nazi regime for extermination. Clebert draws on biblical legends to show resemblances, stating that “some researchers have not hesitated to see them [Gypsies] as the cursed descendants of Cain” (Clebert, 1961, p. 23). In the Bible story, Cain the farmer killed Abel the shepherd and this is seen as providing an explanation for the origins of nomadism: “. . . you shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on Earth” (Genesis 4:12). The Bible specifies the trades that the descendants of Cain were to pursue: “. . . Jabod who was the ancestor of herdsmen who live in tents, and his brother’s name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of those who play the harp and pipe. . . Tubal-Cain, the master of all copper-smiths and blacksmiths” (Genesis 4:19-22). The subsequent linking of these trades to those of nomads is understandable.

Just as Jews were vilified by some people within the Christian tradition for the rejection of Jesus as Messiah and for the Crucifixion, so also Gypsies were associated with legends which linked them to the Crucifixion. Clebert recalls a legend from Macedonia about a Gypsy blacksmith being hired to forge the nails for the Crucifixion, and how this contributed to nomadism. A similar story exists in Irish Traveller folklore.

Historically, Gypsies were viewed as strange foreigners, and were often perceived as being associated with witchcraft and magic. Sedentary people were suspicious and distrustful of nomads engaged in such occupations as the following: peddlers, horse-dealers, public entertainers, smiths, exhibitors of performing animals, performers of spectacular feats, magicians and fortune-tellers. Negative images and stereotypes developed over the years and Gypsies were commonly accused of dupery and theft and were excommunicated and expelled as a result. “Roma, like the Jews, were

1 Minorities may refer to regional, national, linguistic, or non-territorial groups, for instance.

7

attacked in sermons, books, drama and popular art, and thus demonised in the popular mind. Stereotypes of the Gypsy woman or the Jewess as a dangerous seductress and of the male Gypsy or Jew as a dark sinister threat featured widely in literature” (Brearley: 1996, p. 9).

This passing reference to the exotic Gypsy woman corresponds to the voyeuristic sexism that intersects with racism towards many minority ethnic groups. However there is sometimes another internal form of the oppression of women, which is evident in the attempt to deny or control the sexuality of Gypsy/Traveller women by restricting them to asexual roles as homemakers and mothers.

Racism towards Roma, Gypsies/Travellers is not only manifested in the widespread acceptance of negative images and stereotypes used to legitimate their social exclusion but also in the living conditions they endure in virtually all countries. What is evident in the country-by country reports for the Leuven seminar is that despite variations between different countries in terms of legislation, socio-economic contexts and policies, Roma/Gypsies/Travellers are among the most marginalised who experience extreme deprivation, poverty and disadvantage. Despite the lack of accurate statistical data, the clear picture which emerges is that they fare very poorly in terms of all the indicators used to measure equality and development: levels of poverty and social exclusion, life expectancy, birth rates, infant mortality, health status, employment, accommodation, education and participation in socio-political institutions.

In order to develop a clearer analysis of this racism towards Roma/Gypsies/Travellers and how it contributed to their social exclusion, it is important to examine how racism is defined in the international context and also to take an overview of different approaches and responses to racism and the assumptions associated with these.

Racism and Racial Discrimination

Racism is a specific form of discrimination usually associated with skin colour and ethnicity. It is an ideology of superiority which provides a rationalisation for oppression. It also involves an abuse of power by one group over another group. So, while racism involves negative stereotypes and assumptions it should not be reduced simply to attitudes thereby equating it with prejudice. The reality of unequal power combined with prejudice enables some groups to treat others in racist ways by denying them access to opportunities, resources and decision-making processes.

UNESCO, in its Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (1978) provides the following definition:

"Any theory which involves the claim that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior, thus implying that some would be entitled to dominate or eliminate others, presumed to be inferior, or which bases value judgements on racial differentiation, has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity".

The UN International Convention of Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1969) defines racial discrimination as follows:

"Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life".

Approaches to Racism

While these working definitions have broad acceptance, the concept of racism is frequently contested among academics and others. There is the polarisation between those who argue that certain societies are inherently racist and those who claim that racism is a less serious issue related to the anti-social behaviour of some individuals. There are also a variety of approaches which can be categorised as follows: moral, biological, psychological, multi-cultural and structural (see table below).

The moral, psychological and cultural approaches, when used in isolation from socio-economic and historical contexts, tend to depoliticise the issue of racism by focusing almost exclusively on

8

individual attitudes and behaviours dislocated from their social, political, economical, and historical contexts. Solutions based on the moral approach rightly draw attention to the reality that racism is a moral issue and as such merits serious attention. The psychological approach, as Kovel argues, is by no means a sufficient tool for understanding the phenomenon of racism; it is, however, a necessary one: “Racism, far from being the simple delusion of a bigoted and ignorant minority, is a set of beliefs whose structure arises from the deepest levels of our lives - from the fabric of assumptions we make about the world, ourselves, and others, and from the patterns of our fundamental social activities.” Kovel shows how various fantasies and personality traits can coalesce into ‘race’ prejudice and how this sheds light on the history of racism: “Racist psychology is a prerequisite of racial institutions, and racist institutions engender a racist psychology” (Kovel, 1971).

The biological approach draws attention to the objective reality of certain physical differences and the specific form of racism associated with skin colour. Anti-racism does not mean a denial of these differences but does challenge the social meanings and interpretations attributed to them. UNESCO statements have debunked the so-called scientific racism based on biological determinism. However, this theory keeps recurring in the form of socio-biology, even though most geneticists and biologists acknowledge that: “The designation of the world’s population into distinctive racial categories can no longer be considered a tenable scientific enterprise” (Troyna and Williams, 1986).

The multi-cultural approach is popular with many people perhaps because it is non-threatening, and can improve mutual appreciation and understanding between individuals and groups; it can also contribute to overcoming communication problems and misunderstanding, which may fuel racism. However this approach is criticised for diverting attention away from power differentials, structural oppression and for overestimating ignorance as the main factor in the creation of racism.

The structural approach provides a sociological framework for understanding racism in the context of changing historical, political, economic and social processes. This approach provides a solid framework for going beyond symptoms and for addressing root causes. It also exposes how routine practices and procedures result in black and minority ethnic groups having lower incomes, higher unemployment, worse health, accommodation and life chances than the majority population and less influence on the decisions which affect their lives. However, the approach has been accused of making inflated claims (see Miles, 1989) and for deterministic and doctrinaire explanations which ignore concrete situations and individual personalities (Donald and Rattansi, 1992).

9

Typology of Approaches to Racism

APPROACH ASSUMPTIONS IMPLICATIONS

Moral

The issue of racism is viewed as an evil that results from original sin, human wickedness, or such human failings as greed, selfishness, and ignorance.

Efforts to tackle racism involve self-examination, change of attitude, aspiring to nobler moral values, and in affirming the dignity and worth of each individual.

Biological

Prejudice and racism are seen as natural and related to genetics. Biological differences such as skin colour are assumed to be associated with intellectual and/or moral capacities. Social disadvantages are portrayed as a reflection of innate inferiority.

Solutions to racism are sought through segregation (apartheid) and clear boundary maintenance. People believe and behave as if ‘races’ are natural. People lend credence to the concept of ‘scientific racism’ by believing and behaving as if ‘races’ are real and natural and not just social/political constructs.

Psychological

Learning experiences, personality traits and psychological processes are viewed as giving rise to certain attitudes which are described as racist. Certain personalities may be viewed as resulting in transferring blame onto others.

Solutions may be related to therapy, building confidence and self-esteem. Individual and interpersonal responses tend to be preferred to collective responses.

Multi-Cultural

Racism is understood as arising from the dynamics of cultural differences and tradition. A group may wish to retain its purity by excluding other cultural groups and by guarding its distinctive identity.

Solutions are sought through increase in information exchanges and exposure; improved communication; development of familiarity to language, customs and traditions (i.e. intercultural training).

Structural

The causes of racism are located within the main structural features and social processes of the dominant society. Structurally-created problems of poverty, unemployment, housing shortages and so on are seen as fuelling racial prejudice. Social structures (political, economic, ideological) are seen as restricting the life chances of minority ethnic groups.

Solutions are sought through legislation, codes of practice and affirmative action with a view to tackling the causes and consequences of racism. These may be supplemented with anti-racist training and collective action.

10

Eurocentrism

Finally before going on to the summary reports on a number of countries it is important to avoid a chauvinistic Eurocentric approach, which can itself be another form of racism. It is frequently pointed out that racism is something which goes against the very core principles underlying all EU policies. Nevertheless it must be remembered that European expansionism in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and the so-called ‘discovery’ of various ‘new’ countries was the beginning of a pattern of white domination and an ideology of superiority. This was compounded by the subsequent development of nation-states and the control of borders. Fascism and Nazism emerged from the notion of ethnic superiority legitimated by the ideology of racism.

After the destruction of the so-called Second ‘World War’ the major reconstruction and economic recovery that took place involved immigrants from former colonies. Many people believed that racism was a thing of the past, especially with the collapse of the Berlin Wall (1989), symbolising the end of the Cold War, there was great optimism and a sense of euphoria. Unfortunately, the eruption of ‘ethnic cleansing’ with the break-up of Yugoslavia showed that genocide could happen once again despite world-wide media coverage.

One should not conclude from this that ethnic identity is something which is atavistic or intrinsically negative. But, as Miroslav Wolf states: “Group identities are profoundly ambivalent: they are havens of belonging as well as repositories of aggression, suffocating enclosures as well as bases of liberating power.”

The response of many governments to this ambivalence is to try to assimilate ethnic minorities and this has been the widespread approach to Roma/Gypsies/Travellers, as can be seen in the individual country reports. But the paradox of ethnic identification requires a more sophisticated response: “Ethnicity typically becomes most destructive when it is threatened, therefore in order to reduce ethnic tensions it is necessary to protect people’s rights to form ethnic loyalties, and not to repress ethnic identification (Dharam Ghai, UNRISD, 1995). Once ethnic identity is recognised it becomes possible for other markers of identity to emerge and more civic-based forms of identity may transcend ethnicity.

While some people point to the development of the European Union, with the removal of internal borders, and the promotion of European citizenship as a positive antidote to the excesses of extreme nationalism, others warn of the dangers of ‘Fortress Europe’. This warning points to the increased policing of the external border to exclude people, especially black people, from entering the European Union. Such exclusion is also accompanied by a Eurocentrism which involves viewing the standards and practices of the dominant ethnic groups as superior. The challenge therefore is to create a multi-cultural Europe based on equality, where individuals can retain their group identities while respecting the identities of others.

A focus on Roma/Gypsies/Travellers in the context of a multi-cultural Europe should avoid any tendency to exoticise minorities. It is important, therefore, to bear in mind that the situation of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers is by no means an exception in the European structure and that there are many common features between mobile peoples, non-territorial peoples, dispersed national minorities and diaspora from various countries. Therefore, appropriate non-territorial solutions to the challenges of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers could constitute a valuable contribution to the solutions of problems experienced by or associated with other peoples.

11

Section 2 Country-by-Country Report

Austria

In Austria the rise of the Freiheitliche Partei Osterreichs (FPO), which is associated with a tradition of anti-Semitism and fascist organisations, has been accused of promoting racist policies against foreigners. The asylum law of 1991, which prevents asylum-seekers from accessing state assistance, has resulted in increased homelessness. There are also severe regulations related to family reunion. Many Austrian Sinti deny or hide their identity because of a history of persecution. From the 17th century onwards Roma in all Hapsburg territories were forced to become sedentary. In the 18th century, during the reign of George II, Roma children were forcibly taken into care. During the Nazi regime there was a large concentration camp for Gypsies in Burgenland.

More recently, the horrors of that period were brought to mind by the explosion of a booby-trap bomb which killed four Gypsies at a camp in Oberwart in the Burgerland region bordering Hungary. (International Herald Tribune, 22/4/95) There have been reports of other attacks near Vienna. Roma and Sinti have been recognised as Austrian citizens since 1945 but were not included in Article 7 of the State Accord on Ethnic Minorities nor in the 1976 legislation on ethnic groups. In 1989 the Roma and Sinti Gypsy Defence League was established to improve the living conditions of Roma and to obtain recognition as a minority ethnic group. This recognition was granted in 1994. However, in Austria, there is a reluctance to promote the rights of minorities as such, although since 1993 Roma and Sinti are entitled to set up their ethnic group councils.

Most Roma and Sinti in Austria are among the disadvantaged in terms of below-average life expectancy, high drop-out rate from school, poverty and social exclusion (source: reports by the European Roma Rights Centre, Budapest).

Belgium

The growth in support for the Vlams Blok (VB) political party of Flanders, especially in Antwerp, corresponds with the Eurobarometer study which shows that 22% of those interviewed in Belgium openly admit to being racist. This growth is also reflected in the popularity of the slogan "Eigen Volk Eerst” (our own people first) and associated xenophobic policies. One study commenting on the situation in Belgium states that "racial discrimination is frequently practised openly, and is viewed as quite normal behaviour" (Forbes and Mead: 1992). Obviously this is not a very encouraging context for Roma/Travellers.

In Belgium, the Constitution (Article 6) states that "All Belgians are equal before the law" and that "enjoyment of the rights and liberties to which Belgians are entitled must be safeguarded without discrimination." However, given the very restricted nature of Belgian citizenship this has little benefit for immigrants from places like Morocco, Turkey, Zaire, Algeria, Tunisia or the former Yugoslavia. The Vande Lanotte Act introduced restrictive measures for asylum-seekers and refugees, making it more difficult to access social services. Even though legislation was introduced in 1981-82 to suppress racism and to prohibit incitement to discrimination it appears that there are failures to effectively implement legislation in order to protect minorities. In fact municipalities use legislation on urbanisation to evict Roma/Travellers and to restrict nomadism. Roma support groups are critical of the assimilationist approach adopted in schools which do not cater for the specific needs of Roma. The media also frequently portray Roma in a negative way and images tend to be either of beggars and thieves on one hand or of musicians on the other. Since 1965 there has been a recognition of Travellers/Roma rights to permanent residence and the “Cartes de Tsigane” system (an authorisation to remain in Belgium for up to three months) was dropped in 1975.

At the provincial level there are policies to provide halting sites for nomadic and sedentary Roma and Travellers but there is a problem at the municipal levels because of a systematic refusal to build sites. Recently the Flemish community abandoned the idea of special schemes designed for

12

Gypsies and migrants in favour of an integrated approach within the social service system, but there is a problem with implementation of this. The Comité National des Gens du Voyage mediates in cases involving site provision.

The Gypsy population of Belgium, comprised of Yenish, Manouche, Roma, Travellers is distributed between the three regions of Walloonia (40%), Flanders (40%) and Brussels (20%). Policies in the Flemish and French communities tend to be integrationist while in Wallonia policies are assimilationist. In recent years there has been a significant increase in Roma, many seeking political asylum, from Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.

It is reported that Roma and Travellers in Belgium have a far lower life expectancy than average (54.8 : 74.8). There are many health-related problems, such as low take-up of immunisation services, low participation in the education system especially second-level and virtually no Travellers/Gypsies in third level (source: Machiels, T. Vlaams Centrum Woonwagenwerk, unpublished). In Belgium, the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Opposition to Racism, established in 1993, provides a forum for the promotion of equality and the fight against all forms of discrimination.

Denmark

Reports on racism in Denmark refer mostly to minority ethnic groups from Turkey, the former Yugoslavia, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Morocco. References to Roma are rare which is not surprising given the relatively small population of Roma there and the fact that this population is not very visible to the majority population. Legislation in Denmark (The Racial Discrimination Act, 1971) covers direct but not indirect discrimination and according to some critics "simplistic measures such as the unadorned criminal prosecution model chosen by Denmark are not sufficient to eliminate discrimination" (see Wilkie: 1990). Assimilationist tendencies are evident in the treatment of asylum-seekers and refugees who may receive social security benefits on condition that they strive to learn the Danish language. Anti-racists challenge the Progress Party (Fremskridspartiet) and the People's Movement Against Immigration because these are seen as promoting racism or xenophobia. In 1993 the Etnisk Debatforum (Ethnic Debate Forum) was established to support ethnic minorities and to strengthen anti-racist work in Denmark.

France

France has the second largest population of Gypsies (Tsiganes) in the European Union. Gypsies in France, along with other minorities especially from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Vietnam and Cambodia experience systematic disadvantage and racism. According to one analyst: "The French state sees nomadism as the main obstacle for 'normal' life for Gypsies" (Reyniers: "Innovation and change in Gypsy communities”, see Costarelli, 1993). Nomads in France are obliged, since 1969, to carry special identification papers (e.g. mobile tradesmen, construction workers, and Tsiganes with no regular source of income). There have been reports of Gypsies being obliged to report to police every three months (Inter-Press Service News, 8/3/93). The restrictions on nomadism effectively disenfranchise a large percentage of Tsiganes.

In France the term integration tends to mean assimilation and minorities such as Roma/Travellers are expected to become absorbed into society as citizens. This is reflected in the reluctance to teach minority languages (e.g. Breton, Occitan, Romani) in schools.

With regard to education it is estimated that despite an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 (according to various sources) speakers of various forms of Romani in France it is frequently omitted from reports on minority languages. Gypsy advocates believe that Romani as an optional language should be taught to children giving priority to improving the linguistic skills of children who are able to speak Romani and not only to teach minimal Romani to children for whom this is a totally foreign language. The language could also be promoted by the development of a specific focus on Romani by the Centre National d’Enseignement a’ Distance, which would be relevant not only for

13

residents in France but throughout other countries also. A positive development is the creation of a chair of Romani Language and Civilisation at the Institute National des Langues et Civilisation Orientales (Universite de Paris). Another is the development of internet sites and waggon-schools on campsites in the Val de Loire. (Source: Marcel Courtiade, unpublished).

Commentators on the situation of Gypsies in France drew attention to the lack of halting sites, poor living conditions, marginalisation, and enforced dependency on social welfare. Local authorities are obliged since 1990 to provide halting sites for nomadic Gypsies but in practice strong local opposition tends to prevent this from happening. Sites are also regulated in ways that restrict Gypsy economic activities. The RMI (Revenu Minimum d'Insertion) scheme established in 1988 as a safety net is criticised for being overly bureaucratic involving long delays in processing applications. The Association for the Care of Travellers (ASAV) has denounced deportations of Roma to Romania. There have also been reports of forced evictions of Roma from Nanterre in the suburbs of Paris (IRR, Reports).

There is legislation in France to prohibit racism. For instance, in the preamble to the Constitution all forms of racial discrimination are condemned. Article 2 of the Constitution contains the following: "France is a republic, indivisible secular, democratic and social. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs." But non-citizens or "aliens" are not protected by this. An act of Parliament in 1972 outlaws racism and the French Criminal Code prohibits discrimination in employment. However, despite the recognition of discrimination against people on the basis of membership of an ethnic group, there is no direct jurisprudence in respect of groups and Gypsy identity is associated with lifestyle rather than ethnicity. Challenges to racism in France have to be taken at an individual level, thereby removing the opportunity to prove the existence of racism against specific ethnic groups. There are also some laws and regulations which have negative impacts on minority ethnic groups, for instance, the 1993 Pasqua laws revoked some of the rights of migrants and aggravated their precarious position in relation to social security and benefits (health, housing, family life).

Despite these shortcomings, the recent financial penalties imposed on Mr. LePen, leader of Front National (FN), for incitement to racism provides encouragement for anti-racist organisations. Mention of Mr. LePen also brings to mind the complexity of racism and xenophobia as evidenced by the fact that some Tsiganes are reported to have become associated with the FN.

Germany

In Germany citizenship is related to jus sanguinis and the notion of a ‘people’ and consequently naturalisation is very restricted. There is also considerable support for extreme right organisations and neo-Nazi groups, fuelled by the arrival of a large number of asylum-seekers. The Constitution 3(3) does have provision to counter discrimination:

“No one may be prejudiced or favoured because of his sex, his parentage, his race, his language, his homeland and origin, his faith or his religion or political opinions.”

Nevertheless, Roma/Sinti status is ambiguous2. When ratifying the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, Germany designated the Danes and the Serbs as National Minorities, but added that it would also apply the provisions of the Convention to two other groups: Roma/Sinti, and Frisians. This seems to mean that Roma and Sinti are not recognised as minorities de jure, but will be treated de facto as minorities. German authorities are negative towards the emergence of minorities. Immigrants considered ethnically German (Aussiedler) can become full citizens. Contract workers and guest workers (gastarbeiter) are expected to return home when no longer required for work. Overall the expectation is that assimilation is what works best.

There is a relatively large Sinti and Roma population in Germany. Over the past decade this population has increased with the arrival of Roma asylum-seekers from Macedonia, Romania and the former Yugoslavia. The new immigrants went mostly to Essen, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Mainz, Mannheim, Berlin and Hamburg. The German authorities (e.g. the Westphalian

2 Roma is used to refer to groups who migrated to Germany after the middle of the 19 th century; Sinti referes to earlier migrations from the 15th century.

14

government) have repatriated Roma to Macedonia (1990) on the basis that these were economic and not political refugees. There were also deportations to Romania and a refusal to accept that persecution of Roma in Romania merited political asylum (Helsinki Watch Report, 1991). Roma/Sinti support groups have drawn attention to widespread incidents of racism such as arson attacks and harassment. This is consistent with research carried out by the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Wuppental which showed that over 37% of students admitted their prejudice towards Gypsies, who were at the top of their list of despised groups (Roma Rights Newsletter).

In a call for greater solidarity, one prominent Gypsy spokesperson makes a self-critical observation about the hostility of German Sinti towards Roma from Eastern Europe:

“This is part of the Gypsy misfortune. The behaviour of some Gypsies towards others can be worse than that of non-Gypsies towards our race as a whole . . . The Sinti are much better off than the Roma, who have only recently arrived, and so regard them with contempt. The Roma often live in tents and slums, some are thieves and beggars, and the Sinti shun them, not wanting to be identified with these brethren for whom they have no feeling because they have had no contacts. To the Germans, however, both are simply Ziggeuner, the only difference being that some speak German and others do not. (Romany Rose quoted in N.B. Tomasevic and R. Djuric: 1989).

This dilemma of insider versus outsider is evident among Gypsies in all countries and is sometimes used by opponents as a divide and conquer tactic. It makes it more difficult to challenge the intense public hostility towards Roma/Gypsies/Travellers.

Greece

Gypsy support groups in Greece draw attention to the marginalisation of Gypsies (Tziganes): severe accommodation problems, lack of sanitary facilities, lack of education and high levels of illiteracy, negative stereotypes, restrictions on Gypsy trading, loss of cultural identity, and an underdeveloped political consciousness. There are frequent reports in the Greek press portraying Gypsies as parasites, beggars, as being involved in fraud, or as drug-dealers. There have also been reports of police raids on Roma settlements (e.g. Ano Liosia, 1996, 1997), destruction of personal property and illegal detention of some residents (see Roma Rights, Spring 1997).

Article 5(2) of the Greek Constitution stipulates that:“all persons living within the Greek territory shall enjoy full protection of their life, honour, and freedom, irrespective of their nationality, race or language, or of religious or political beliefs.”

The Greek Civil Code guarantees civil rights to foreign nationals on the same basis as Greek citizens. However, in practice there is widespread discrimination and a failure to introduce and implement adequate procedures to protect minorities, especially Roma. The co-ordinating committee of Immigrant and Anti-Racist organisations accuses the Greek government of being autocratic and xenophobic in its treatment of immigrants. The procedures required for obtaining work permits (white and green cards) are very difficult for many immigrants to fulfil.

Ireland

Travellers are widely acknowledged as one of the most marginalised and disadvantaged groups in Irish society. Travellers fare poorly on every indicator used to measure disadvantage: unemployment, poverty, social exclusion, health status, infant mortality, life expectancy, illiteracy, education and training levels, access to decision-making and political representation, gender equality, access to credit, accommodation and living conditions. It is not surprising therefore, that the Economic and Social Research Institute concluded that ". . . the circumstances of the Irish Travelling people are intolerable. No humane and decent society, once made aware of such

15

circumstances, could permit them to persist". (). The ESRI also stated that Irish Travellers are "... a uniquely disadvantaged group: impoverished, under-educated, often despised and ostracised, they live on the margins of Irish society" [ESRI, July 1986, Paper No. 131].

After generations of ignoring Travellers altogether, government policies in relation to Travellers began to be formulated in the early 1960’s modelled on developments in the Netherlands. These policies were explicitly assimilationist with ‘itinerancy’ seen as the key problem to be solved. Subsequent policy focused more on integration with a gradual shift from a ‘culture of poverty’ approach to a human-rights approach. More recently as a result of lobbying by Travellers and Traveller support groups there has been a greater recognition of Traveller cultural identity and Travellers have been mentioned explicitly in protective legislation. However there was strong resistance to an attempt by the government to introduce Equal Status legislation in 1997 which would address explicitly the discrimination against Travellers. This remains an ongoing area of debate and campaigns.

There has been a strong denial of the existence of racism towards Travellers among many within Ireland although it is accepted that they experience discrimination. Evidence for the existence of anti-Traveller racism is gathered from political and media discourse which is shown to involve a racialisation process inferring the inferiority of Travellers (McVeigh, 1996, O’Connell, 1997).

Apart from the negative stereotypes and vilification of Travellers in such discourse, Travellers experience discrimination in a variety of ways. Individuals, when recognised as Travellers, are sometimes arbitrarily refused entry or access to public places or services. Many policies, procedures, and practices reflect either a lack of acceptance or a total denial of Traveller identity. Negative stereotypes and scapegoating of Travellers are commonplace. There is also a clear gender dimension to the Traveller experience of racism. Many Traveller women are more easily identifiable than Traveller men, and are therefore more likely to experience discrimination. Sometimes evictions are carried out when Traveller men are absent, leaving women to deal with the brunt of male verbal and physical abuse. But above all Traveller women, as mothers, homemakers and carers, have to make do with low incomes, in poor living circumstances, without basic facilities such as running water and sanitation.

Travellers with a disability have usually been cared for in institutions, where assimilation was the norm and where little or no consideration was given to cultural identity.

The most public and controversial area where anti-Traveller discrimination arises is in relation to the provision of accommodation. Local authorities and resident associations are accused by Travellers and Traveller organisations of turning the accommodation issue into a political football. Elected local councillors are keenly aware that their political survival depends on the support of local residents who easily outnumber Travellers. Resident associations make their opposition to Travellers living in ‘their’ areas very clear. Local authorities in turn have undertaken a ‘boulder policy’ that involves placing large rocks along the roadsides where Travellers camped or might camp illegally. This is combined with evictions of Travellers from unofficial camping sites. Gardaí and/or private security firms are sometimes involved in the carrying out of these evictions.

The deplorable living circumstances of many Travellers, because of the lack of suitable accommodation, is a crucial factor in the poor health of Travellers. The life expectancy of Travellers is far below the national average, with Traveller men and Traveller women living on average ten years and twelve years less than their sedentary peers, respectively. Traveller infant mortality is more than twice that of the majority population. These realities, combined with a failure to address them comprehensively, are seen by politicised Travellers and Traveller organisations as other manifestations of institutional racism.

Italy

There is a large population of Roma/Sinti/Zinari in Italy, many of whom have been living there for generations while others are immigrants from the former Yugoslavia. An estimated 40,000 Roma are said to live on the outskirts of the main cities (Rome, Florence, Turin, Bologna, Milan, Venice,

16

Genoa, Naples). Many of these Roma immigrants live in deplorable circumstances without basic facilities and services, faced with raids and evictions (see Roma Rights, Autumn 1997). Emergency facilities are needed to cater for basic needs along with a comprehensive package of positive action and capacity-building measures. Italy has been an attractive destination for immigrants from many African countries, Iran, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Albania. This is partly due to the extensive underground economy which provides opportunities for clandestine, temporary jobs. Unfortunately, immigrants, and especially Roma, sometimes become the targets of right-wing groups such as the Moviemento Politico neo-Nazi skinhead organisation, which is alleged to have led attacks on Roma in recent years. There are reports of many racist incidents against Gypsies throughout Italy despite the legal situation (see IRR, European Race Audit, 1995).

According to the Italian Constitution: “All citizens are invested with equal social status and are equal before the law, without distinction as to sex, race, language, religion, political opinion and personal or social conditions.”

There is government legislation to protect against discrimination but according to commentators there is poor implementation of this in practice (see Forbes and Mead, 1992).

Since 1973, the Italian government has issued circulars in order to protect the culture of Roma and to challenge prejudice. With greater decentralisation in recent decades there have been some positive regional initiatives in relation to Roma, such as calls for respect for their cultural identity. However, despite these developments, Italian Gypsies continue to experience widespread discrimination and marginalisation: negative stereotypes are commonplace, lack of sites and bad living conditions, and problems associated with loss of cultural identity.

Another issue, probably not unique to Rome or Italy exposed unequal treatment of Gypsy girls. This emerges from a study of the penal aspect of juvenile justice in Rome which showed that Gypsy girls tend to be dealt with more severely than girls from the majority population: “. . . half of them are sent for trial, compared with only 21.6 per cent of Italian girls: very few of them are accorded amnesty and no gypsy girl is dismissed on the grounds of immaturity” (Cippollini, 1989). The study shows the need for legal assistance to protect Roma/Gypsies/Travellers from abuses and unequal treatment.

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands a distinction is made between Travellers or caravan dwellers (Woonwagenbewoners) and Gypsies (Roma). There are an estimated 20,000 of the former, considered as indigenous Dutch, and about 3,500 of the latter considered as from abroad (Hungary and the former Yugoslavia). The Dutch government introduced a law on caravans in 1918, which made it necessary to have a license and specified certain conditions in order to occupy a caravan or houseboat. This had some positive results because it put an end to expulsions by local authorities. It was also the beginning of caravan camps, which tended to be located in isolated areas, which contributed to the stigmatisation of Travellers.

The next crucial phase was during the German occupation. The Germans issued new regulations and controls on ‘foreign’ caravan dwellers, which in effect had implications for all Travellers by restricting movement. In 1944, 245 Dutch ‘Gypsies’ were deported to Auschwitz with the cooperation of the Dutch government (Willems, W. and Lucassen, L., 1990). A new bill required the central registering of Travellers and legislation was enacted in relation to free movement.

After the war, Travellers regained their right to free movement until 1947 when a new state commission introduced a ban on travelling. It was the beginning of large regional camps with basic facilities and special education for Traveller children. In 1968 the Caravan Act was enacted with the stated objective of improving the social position of Travellers. Critics allege that it had the opposite results, because of its assimilationist approach.

17

The history of Travellers in the Netherlands contains lots of evidence of discrimination and racism. The notion of ‘difference’ was frequently equated with deviance and Travellers were mistrusted, viewed as criminals, seen as dirty and as social parasites. Assimilation and modernisation policies contributed to a stigmatisation of Travellers so that they are at the bottom of the social ladder. Travellers have also been subjected to special police surveillance, which makes them very suspicious of data-gathering by officials (Cottaar, A, 1990).

The increase in immigration in the 1970’s, especially from Surinam, gave rise to new policies in relation to minorities in the Netherlands. A report entitled Ethnic Minorities was produced by the Advisory Council on Government Policy in 1979, which acknowledged the existence of a multicultural society, the need for integration alongside the preservation of cultural identity. A further development followed with the 1983 Minorities Memorandum, which included among the target population Roma and Woonwagenbewoners. Policies were directed at improving education (interculturalism), health, accommodation and employment. Efforts were also made to combat discrimination and in 1995 the National Anti-Racism Bureau (LBR) was established. In 1994 an Equal Treatment Commission was established to provide minority groups with a mechanism for challenging discrimination. In 1996 a Forum was established bringing together various groups involved with minorities on welfare issues. Traveller organisations have expressed some concern that their specific concerns may be lost in the government’s tendency to lump all minorities together.

In the Netherlands, despite the clear recognition of multi-culturalism and valuable developments in intercultural education, there have been strong assimilationist tendencies at work in relation to Travellers, as evidenced in the restrictions on nomadism and the social control mechanisms associated with integration policies and procedures.

Northern Ireland

The disadvantaged circumstances of the 1500 members of the Traveller community in Northern Ireland have been documented in a growing number of reports by statutory and voluntary agencies from the 1980’s on. The social exclusion of Travellers is well-documented and, in addition, reports by human rights bodies have drawn attention to the existence of both individual level and institutional level racism, this latter manifestation being evident in the differential access experienced by Travellers in relation to the range of statutory services.

In the mid-1980s legislation was introduced empowering, but not obligating, local councils to provide serviced sites for Travellers. These arrangements are in stark contrast to those for the accommodation of homeless people from the majority sedentary community, which is mandatory. The new law also gave councils the power, through ‘designation’, to impose a quota of Travellers allowed to live legally in their area. Following the establishment of this framework for provision, some 68% of Travellers now live on authorised sites with 30% still living on roadside camps without any facilities. However, given the small size of the Traveller population this represents a very slow rate of progress during the last 12 years. All the sites have been built in the face of public and political opposition. The overwhelming majority of sites constructed are sub-standard, providing a bleak environment of concrete, arranged in high-density fashion.

Most media coverage of Travellers tends to be negative and focuses on evictions, hostile comments from politicians or intra-community violence. The provincial newspapers are often one-sided in their coverage without any attempt to give a platform to the views of Travellers or their support groups.

Recently and for the first time, since Northern Ireland was not covered by the British 1976 Race Relations Act, Travellers have been specifically named as a group entitled to receive redress against discrimination under the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. The two main political parties belonging to the Unionist tradition – the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party – opposed the inclusion of Travellers in the Order. The 1997 Order is also significantly flawed in a number of ways. These included an inordinately high burden of proof

18

required of those alleging discrimination, the lack of legal aid and the emphasis on individual rather than group redress.

Equality-proofing measures (with specific reference to ethnic identity) known as the Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment guidelines (PAFT) are supposed to inform both the policy-making process and service provision of government agencies. However a review of services to Travellers commissioned by the government in 1995 concluded that it was not possible to assess the impact of the PAFT guidelines or recent initiatives to improve access for Travellers to education and healthcare, because government departments did not systematically collate data on Travellers. This finding suggests that these departments have not been particularly concerned with the application of the PAFT guidelines to the Traveller community. The existence of the PAFT guidelines has failed to prevent an attempt by the Department of the Environment to introduce new anti-camping measures aimed at Travellers to substitute for the powers of designation through to be now illegal under the Race Relations legislation.

Although there are legal measures to address incitement to hatred nominally on the statute book, these have proved ineffective to address a number of vitriolic attacks by politicians and others, including the notorious comment by a former deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast that Travellers were dirt who should be sent to the city incinerator. (source: Paul Noonan, unpublished report)

Norway

In the Nordic countries officials may grant recognition to Roma but are far more reluctant to recognise Taters. In Norway, Travellers or Taters were equated with vagrants and the official policy was one of assimilation (see Halvorsen and Hvinden, 1997). The Norwegian Mission for the Homeless was seen by the municipal authorities as having special competency for dealing with Taters. Government policies and private agencies tried to put an end to nomadism and Taters were subjected to extensive surveillance and social control: One commentator described the perception and treatment of Travellers in this way:

"Taters were seen as a parasitic group, as dangerous, and immoral or anomic individuals threatening to the order of larger society. The Travellers have, throughout history, been strongly discriminated against as a minority group in Norway, with regard to legislation and official understanding, which have been restrictive and racist. A consequence of this has been a devaluation of the Travellers. They are regarded as inferior and of low status” (Schluter, 1993).

As in some other countries an element of the assimilation process involved putting Tater children into care and foster homes, with many negative consequences related to loss of identity and isolation. In the media there have been discussions about ways of 'solving' the Tater problem through internment and sterilisation.

Schluter comments on how the long history of rejection and exclusion has had very negative consequences for the self-esteem of the Taters, as well as loss of cultural identity, ghettoisation and concludes the following from this: "Travellers, therefore, protect themselves against the majority society and they have developed various strategies to achieve this, for instance rejection, withdrawal or anger and aggression, or perhaps also sanctions."

In Norway the media tends to perpetuate negative stereotypes of Taters and Traveller advocates state that there is a need for greater public awareness and information to counter these stereotypes and prejudices. However, it would appear very difficult for Taters themselves to achieve progress without proper support. Many Taters are trapped between two cultures as a result of policies of forced assimilation. This is manifested in the resulting psychological problems such as severe anxiety and depression, as well as other health problems. Taters are also faced with obstacles in the form of administrative and legal requirements, which restrict their traditional way of life and economic activities, thereby contributing to dependency and poverty.

Public response to the Taters range from denial and avoidance to isolation, harassment and even violent attacks. Since 1986, Norwegian Taters have the same formal rights as other Norwegian citizens, but the lack of a legitimate cultural space and the denial of cultural rights have blocked Travellers’ access to legal and political institutions and the full benefits of the welfare state. The

19

status of Taters as an “ethnic minority” or “national minority” in Norway, remains to be decided by the government (Halvorsen, 1997).

In more recent years the Romani People's National Association (Romanifolkets Landsforenng: RFL) has tried to adopt a very different approach with a view to facilitating the organisation and mobilisation of Taters. RFL has lobbied officials and the government to desist from using negative labels such as 'vagrants' and 'scroungers' when referring to Travellers and is trying to reclaim the term Tater from its pejorative connotations. It has also called for recognition of Taters as a minority ethnic group whose cultural identity needs to be protected and resourced (Halvorsen and Hvinden, 1997). It has also started to plan for a Tater museum with a view to achieving greater recognition for the culture of Taters.

Portugal

Gypsies (Cigana) are among the most marginalised, impoverished, and disadvantaged groups in Portuguese society. While the vast majority are sedentary as a result of a long process of assimilation there is still a significant number of nomadic and semi-nomadic families. Most live on or near the large cities in precarious circumstances. The Gypsy population is very young with 15 as the median age and there are very few elderly Gypsies due to low life expectancy. The marginalisation of Gypsies is evident in all aspects of life, education, social integration, and employment. There are many reports of Gypsies being associated with drugs as users or dealers and this adds to the negative perception and treatment of them by the majority population.

Discrimination and racism towards Gypsies is widespread and this is propagated by media coverage, which reinforces negative stereotypes. Support from Gypsies is provided by the Institute for the Advancement and Pastoral Care of the Gypsies with diocesan branches in a number of cities. This provides a support structure for Gypsies and offers training programmes and advocacy as well as raising awareness and appreciation for Gypsy culture among the wider population. Every June there is a National Day for the Gypsy People to celebrate their cultural identity. In 1991 the Ministry of Education set up a Secretariat for the co-ordination of an education programme with a view to creating a better understanding of cultural diversity. This was welcomed by Gypsy support groups (Reis, F., unpublished report).

The Portuguese Constitution (Article 13) contains an anti-discrimination clause: "All citizens shall have the same social dignity and are equal before the law." Another article supplements this to cover residents as well as citizens. However there is no code of practice in relation to employment practices to prevent discrimination and minority ethnic groups are represented disproportionately among the low-paid and long-term unemployed, with the Gypsies at the lowest rung on the social ladder. There is also a lack of social policies to deal with the needs and rights of minority ethnic groups.

Recently the Portuguese government appointed a High Commissioner for Ethnic Minorities who formed a working group to deal with racism. The Municipality of Lisbon also approved a local Council for Immigrant Communities and Ethnic Minorities in order to draw up relevant policies for these groups.

Spain

The Gypsy (Gitano) population in Spain is a very significant minority comprising an estimated 2% of the national population and about 4.3% of the population in Andalusia. With such a large population it is not surprising that there is a lot of diversity within the Gypsy community in terms of social status, economic and political circumstances, levels of education and living conditions.

As in other countries the Spanish government for many years pursued policies of assimilation and sedentarism. However, following from the adoption of a democratic constitution in 1977 Gypsies began to develop their own organisations, sometimes with official support and approval.

20

Recognition of Gypsy culture and identity is evident in the establishment of a National Plan for Gypsies with an accompanying budget to promote various initiatives.

Some Gypsies in Spain have been acclaimed as musicians and for their contribution to Flamenco, others have become professionals and there has been a Gypsy member of the European Parliament. Nevertheless, many Gypsies live in poverty, are marginalised and socially excluded. Drug abuse and delinquency are serious problems, especially among young people who are marginalised. The age structure of the Gypsy population in Spain is similar to that of Gypsies/Travellers in other countries - about 50% under 15 and a very small percentage over 60. There are also many problems in terms of education and training, and this adds to the exclusion from the labour market. Most Gypsies prefer self-employment and engage in market trading.

There are, however, reports of widespread hostility to Gypsies, which manifests itself in the negative portrayals in the media, as well as harassment, evictions, and occasional attacks by mobs. To counteract such hostility and to improve the socio-economic circumstances of Gypsies there are numerous Gypsy associations and support groups involved in education, training, job creation, and advocacy.

A more overt form of racism in Spain is evident in the treatment of immigrants. In June 1996 the newly elected conservative government supervised the deportation of over one hundred illegal immigrants from Melilla to various African countries. The deportees were forcibly drugged beforehand. The Partido Popular – hard –line policy on immigration particularly evident in the Spanish Territories of Centa and Melilla. Spain, along with Italy, is seen as the guardian of Fortress Europe – policing the border to prevent migrants from Africa from entering. In 1995 a protest by a group of African immigrants was brutally broken up by local mobs assisted by the police. The incident was described as “the most horrendous outbreak of nakedly racist violence in recent Spanish memory” (Mathew Cann, “Policing the Frontier: Centa and Melilla” in Fekete, 1997).

21

Sweden

Sweden has reputation as a liberal, multicultural, and tolerant society. Perhaps as such one would not expect the outright forms of racism experienced elsewhere. There is, however, evidence of a more subtle form of racism based on cultural differentiation which is being propounded by a number of intellectuals in Sweden (see Mats Deland, “The Cultural Racism of Sweden” in Fekete, 1997). According to the proponents of this cultural racism the difficulties associated with ethnic diversity (such as economic costs and violent conflicts) outweigh the benefits, and as a result, they support segregation and ‘positive nationalism.’ By positive nationalism is meant the expression of nationalistic emotions, assimilation of immigrants into Swedish culture, and a restriction of the entry of refugees into Sweden. Associated with this thinking is the growth in racist skinhead activities and music.

In Sweden the term Tattare is rarely found anymore in official social policy discourse because Swedish Travellers were not considered a social group. Travellers themselves find the term offensive because of the pejorative connotations associated with it. The preferred term now is Traveller/Resandefolker. A member of the community is quoted describing the situation in the following way: "They've taken much away from us: the culture, the language, the way we would like to live. . ." (Halvorsen and Hvinder, 1997) Policies in the past were strongly opposed to nomadism and aimed at assimilation. A particularly harsh expression of this forced assimilation was the removal of children from their parents and their placement in institutions. There are also reports of sterilisation of Travellers to restrict their population growth. The result has been that Travellers are frequently not visible and are not in a position to organise and mobilise effectively. Travellers in Sweden are pressured to live in an underground culture which most Swedes are unaware of.

Roma in Sweden are recognised as full citizens and have formal equality but it is admitted that they experience discrimination in shops restaurants, housing, and on the labour market. Roma members claim that they experience difficulties also with police. In Sweden discrimination is forbidden by law, but in practice Roma, and especially the more recognisable women in traditional dress, experience xenophobia. The media, however, are relatively careful in its coverage of minority ethnic issues.

Efforts by the Swedish government to integrate Roma into society are viewed as having only limited success. A Working Group has been established by the government to propose new methods in order to improve the situation for Roma.

An Ombudsman, appointed in 1986, has the task of monitoring cases of discrimination, racism and xenophobia against minority ethnic groups. Work to combat racism and xenophobia in Sweden relies on the monitoring and implementation of legislation and proper procedures by the police and judiciary to ensure equality. The Nordic Romani Council operates at national level, including Roma organisations from other countries, and includes anti-racism as one of its responsibilities. There are a number of local Roma organisations as well. One of the acknowledged features of the situation of Roma and Travellers in Sweden is poor participation in the education system, and consequently, lack of qualifications. Obviously this has implications for accessing the labour market and. given the heavy reliance on integration as a means to social equality, raises many questions about the capacity of Swedish society to be truly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic (source: Cissi N. Storck; Bo Hazell, unpublished reports).

United Kingdom

There has been a long history of anti-racist struggles and debates in the U.K. and there is extensive legislation against discrimination. The 1976 Race Relations Act covers direct and indirect discrimination in the employment area. Local authorities have developed a range of measures to tackle racism and to promote equality. Nevertheless there is still a high level of racial harassment and violence and there are active groups associated with the National Front which promote racist ideas and actions.

22

There is a large Gypsy/Traveller population in the UK which is divided into different groups, often referred to as Romanichals, Gypsies and Travellers. "Travellers" is the term usually used to refer to those originating from Scotland and Ireland.

Historically Gypsies have always been described in official discourse as a problem. The “Gypsy problem” is recorded in legislation such as the 1530 and 1554 Egyptians Act designed to stop immigration, deport Gypsies, or else face imprisonment or execution. The Poor Law of 1596 tried to prohibit nomadism and there are numerous pieces of legislation in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries targeted at Tynkers and Gypsies. In these pieces of legislation the stereotypes of Gypsies/Travellers are evident as various groups deemed socially undesirable are all lumped together e.g. vagabonds, rogues, vagrants, hawkers, people involved in palmistry, tent and caravan dwellers. The prevailing official representation was that of outsiders, outcasts, criminals and parasites.

It is not surprising, given the official view, that Gypsies/Travellers in the UK have been subjected to ongoing persecution, prosecution, and racial harassment. Down through the centuries Gypsies/Travellers in Britain experienced imprisonment, deportation and execution. However, as Mayall (1995) points out, the reality of Gypsy/Traveller relations with the majority population is more complex and ambiguous at local level, where the law was not always implemented or was interpreted leniently. Mayall and others point out that examples of good relations and tolerance are unlikely to have been recorded in official records so that the negative aspects, while true, may not reveal the full picture.

The earlier responses to Gypsies/Travellers in Britain were within the framework of addressing vagrancy. Later, with a greater shift to local government, Gypsy/Traveller issues began to be addressed in relation to issues such as accommodation, health and education.

In the U.K., local authorities have a responsibility to provide accommodation for Gypsies/Travellers. The 1960 Caravan Sites Act empowered local authorities to provide sites but few councils did so. The 1968 Caravan Sites Act made it a duty for local authorities to use those powers to provide "adequate accommodation" for Gypsies "residing in or resorting to their area." The term "Gypsies" was used to refer to "persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin . . ." but it excluded travelling showmen or people engaged in circuses.

But there is still a huge shortfall in site provision, with an estimated 40% of nomadic families without legal halting sites. Gypsies also face sanctions for camping within "designated areas" (i.e. areas where a local authority can demonstrate that it has already provided accommodation for Gypsies there). Gypsies and their support groups have challenged this, accusing the authorities of discriminatory policies in conflict with the 1976 Act. In 1994 the introduction of Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, ostensibly to counter 'New Age Travellers', added further difficulties for Travellers/Gypsies.

There have been some progressive developments in the area of education for Gypsies/Travellers in the United Kingdom, partly because of developments in the provision of education in the context of a multi-ethnic society, and partly because of specific positive active measures for Travellers/Gypsies. Nevertheless there remains a major challenge to improve continuity and progression for many Gypsies/Travellers within the schooling system.

Towards the end of 1997 the arrival in Dover of 234 Roma from the Czech Republic and Slovakia seeking political asylum in Britain provoked an outburst of anti-Gypsy racism. The Dover Express referred to them as "freeloaders and spongers". The Daily Mail headline ran "Ministers warn Slovak Gypsies, Keep Out". One commentator stated: "Britain's reaction of disdain and dismissal reflected an attitude so ingrained across the Continent that it hardly occurs to Europeans to consider it racism." (James Walsh, Time, Nov. 3, 1997)

A writer in The Observer stated: "Everyone, it seems, has decided the Gypsies are not refugees but economic migrants seeking to improve their lot. And the anger has been nationwide." It also quoted the chief executive of the Refugee Council, who said that the name Gypsies feeds people preconceived prejudices about their lifestyle (The Observer, 21 October, 1997).

23

Roma in Central and Eastern Europe

The presence of Roma from Central and Eastern European countries in Member States of the European Union shows the inadequacy of examining the situation of Roma in the EU in isolation from the wider European context. Furthermore, the new wave of Roma migration from Central and Eastern European countries has provoked debate and discussion on the plight of Roma asylum-seekers. Against this background and in the context of the enlargement of the EU it is important therefore to focus on the circumstances of Roma in Central and Eastern European countries. This brief overview does not pretend to present a comprehensive picture of Roma and does not focus on the many positive developments in terms of self-organisation, cultural developments or other achievements. The focus is on the discrimination and racism in line with the purpose of this report.

There are an estimated eight to ten million Roma/Gypsies/Travellers living in Europe with substantial populations in Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey. In the EU the largest Roma/Gypsy/Traveller populations are in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece and the United Kingdom. A Council of Europe report points out that this population differs from other minority ethnic groups in that they do not have a common homeland and that they are one of the few groups who have never resorted to armed struggle and violence to promote their cause. “Yet the history of the Gypsies is one of discrimination, exclusion and persecution of which they have almost always been the victims, wherever they have found themselves. During the Second World War they were used by the Nazis for their racist biological experiments, before being exterminated in concentration camps; between 300,000 and 600,000 are believed to have perished in this way” (Council of Europe, European Committee on Migration, The Situation of Gypsies (Roma and Sinti) in Europe, Strasbourg, 1995).

According to Rom activist Rudko Kawczynski: “The main problems confronting the Roma is racism. Poverty, lack of education, unemployment, and cultural deprivation are the results of society’s hostility toward the Roma. As such they are symptoms and not the core of the problem.” (Roma Rights Newsletter, Spring 1997)

The International Romani Union issued a statement calling for the protection of Roma/Sinti: “In Ex-Yugoslavia and Romania, for example, the Roma are faced with pogroms and slaughter by nationalistic chauvinistic parties or paramilitary units, and pogroms against Roma have also been reported in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Ukrania as well as in Germany.” (International Romani Union, Berlin, 1992).

In Central and Eastern Europe under the various communist governments, policies in relation to Roma were characterised by assimilation and forced settlement. Initially the tendency was to focus on their status as an economically underprivileged group but this tendency was replaced by more repressive measures outlawing nomadism and attempts to wipe out traditional Roma culture. In Bulgaria, for instance, there was a policy to “Bulgarianise” Roma, i.e. to eliminate Roma identity and culture. Roma in Bulgaria, comprising about 6% of the total population, have a long history of persecution, expulsion, and forced sedentarism. The consequences of these policies are still evident in the ghetto-like conditions of many Roma, the lack of basic facilities and services, difficulties in accessing education and health care and widespread social exclusion. Reports by Helsinki Watch, for instance, claim that there is widespread discrimination, including allegations against the police and media as well as attacks against Roma by right-wing skinheads. Efforts to promote Roma rights are led by a minority of Rom intellectuals, the Confederation of Roma and a national lobby, the United Roma Federation.

The social exclusion of Roma is also evident in Albania, where there are over 90,000 Roma. Many live in very poor circumstances, are unemployed, or work in dead-end, low-pay jobs. In the Czech Republic, Roma constitute about 2% of the population (i.e. approximately 250,000). Again, they have a long history of policies and laws restricting their way of life. Nomadism was forbidden; the Romani language was suppressed. There are reports of sterilisation being rewarded by payments in the context of poverty. In recent years, right-wing skinheads are also reported to have led attacks against Roma. President Havel in 1995 attended the unveiling of a memorial to Czech Roma interned in Nazi camps but has been criticised for his silence on contemporary manifestation of racism towards Roma. Miroslav Sladek, leader of the extremist Association for the Republic of Czechoslovakia called on all city mayors to expel Roma from the territories for the their

24

widespread hostility to Roma. In 1994 the Czech government’s new citizenship law disenfranchised some 100,000 Roma. The law laid down conditions that many Roma could not comply with, leaving them without permanent residence permits and entitlements.

In Hungary there are an estimated 500,000 Roma, many of whom live in poverty on the margins of society. Roma children were often sent to schools for the mentally disabled. There are also reports of skinhead attacks and police brutality towards Roma. However, in 1979, Roma were recognised as an ethnic group, and in 1993 a law on the rights of national and ethnic minorities provided a legal framework for the protection of Roma against discrimination and for the promotion of Roma culture. It also opened up new opportunities for the organisation and representation of minorities at local and national level.

In Romania, there is the largest concentration of Roma in Europe with some reports claiming a population of 3 million. Roma in Romania experienced five centuries of slavery; slavery in Moldo-Wallachia was only abolished in 1864. It is not surprising, given this history, that there were many attempts to flee this situation resulting in various migrations. Marcel Courtiade comments on the long-term consequences of this history of persecution as giving rise to fatalism, hopelessness, aggression, lack of confidence and ambivalence about identity. According to Helsinki Watch (1991): “Gypsies in Romania have been the target of increasingly violent attacks since the revolution that toppled Nicolae Ceausescu. Their homes have been burned and vandalised, they have been beaten by vigilante mobs and on occasion arrested by police and beaten in police custody, and they have been chased out of one village after another, often without any opportunity to return.”

The Romanian Constitution (1991) recognises and guarantees members of national minorities the right to conserve, develop and express their ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity. It also recognised minorities as having a right to representation in Parliament. In 1990 the Democratic Union of Romanian Roma was established.

However, whenever socio-economic problems intensify Roma become the national scapegoat and this is reflected in the negative media portrayal of Roma as criminals. Since 1990 many have left Romania especially for Germany via Poland. In 1992 the Bonn/Bucharest Accord was signed, which enabled Germany to repatriate 50,000 Romanians (mostly Roma). The Romanian government was given 30 m Deutchmark for this initiative. In 1995 new legislation opted for the term Tsignani instead of Roma to distinguish them from the majority population.

In Slovakia, which came into existence after the division of the Czechoslovak Federal Republic (1993), Roma have legal status and rights alongside other ethnic minority groups. This entitles them to education in their own language and to consultation on matters affecting them. However, Prime Minister Vladmir Meciar in 1993, is reported to have described Roma as antisocial, mentally backward and socially unacceptable (Fakete, L. and Webber, F., in Inside Racist Europe, London, 1994).

In the former Yugoslavia the situation of Roma is very difficult. Rajko Djuric, himself an exile from Yugoslavia, describes the war in Bosnia as “our second genocide”3. According to Djuric, as many as 300,000 Roma have been killed in Bosnia since 1992. He states that Roma were used to clear land mines and that the Serbian army forced Roma to kill one another. Reports from various commentators, such as Bill Crocker, director of the Bosnian Aid Committee of Oxford, state that many Roma are absolutely destitute and that the prejudice towards Roma is exacerbated by the hardship which the general population had had to endure. According to Tilman Zülch, president of the Society for Threatened Peoples in Germany, there are reports of Roma in concentration camps. Many fled to Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the Scandinavian countries. Rajko Djuric draws

3 Genocide means any of the following: “Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such; (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical deterioration in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures designed to prevent births within the group; or (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)).

25

attention to the plight of Roma who have no travel documents because they were refused passports and are therefore stateless. In 1996, the International Romani Union organised demonstrations in Berlin against the deportations of Roma by the German government. (International Romani Union, Konferenz “Perspektiven der Roma in Bosnier”, 15-16 November 1997, Tuzla-Bosnier).

Commenting on the overall discrimination of Roma in Eastern Europe James Golstein states: “The kinds of discrimination Roma face are, however, generally manifestations of practice, not of law. Europe has few ‘Jim Crow’ laws of the kind that, for many years in the United States, expressly treated African-Americans differently from whites by mandating segregation in public schools, for example. Rather, in administering, applying and interpreting rules and statures which are, on their face, racially neutral, public officials commonly treat Roma differently from -and almost invariably, worse than – racial ethnic majorities. Thus, in criminal justice systems of some countries, while no law explicitly sanctions differential treatment on the basis of race or ethnicity, reports proliferate of Roma victims and defendants suffering discriminatory treatment.” (Roma Rights newsletter, Summer, 1997).

26

Section 3 Proposals and Recommendations

1. Research and experience show that there are some key social and economic factors which contribute to racism such as: dissatisfaction with one’s life circumstances, fear of unemployment, feelings of insecurity about the future, and a low confidence in the way public authorities and political establishments function. Therefore, if European institutions, national and local governments are to be effective in tackling the root causes of racism, which they must if they are to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms, then it is imperative that they address these socio-economic factors.

2. In the reform of the regulations governing EU Structural Funds there is need for mainstreaming of equality and exclusion across all operation programmes. Within this there is need for a specific targeting of minority groups including Roma/Gypsy/Travellers.

3. Special EU initiatives need to ensure that Roma/Gypsy/Traveller projects are included in positive action measures, e.g. Fifth Action Framework for Equality between Women and Men; Targeted Social Research, etc.

4 Ongoing funding with specific budget lines to promote interculturalism and to eliminate racism need to address the situation of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers and such funding should be accessible to small organisations.

5. In the context of education, programmes should be initiated to promote minority languages. With the priority of improving the linguistic skills of children who are able to speak the minority language (e.g. Romani) and not only to teach such languages minimally to children from families for whom this is a totally foreign tongue.

6. Efforts should be made by education authorities to enable Roma/Gypsies/Travellers to benefit from information technology especially for the purpose of distance learning. This should include web sites, publications, human rights documentation and various other reports and updates on relevant developments through Europe.

7. Building on the achievements and momentum of the European Year Against Racism there is a need to ensure that Roma/Gypsies/Travellers are explicitly included in any follow-up initiatives such as: action plans, round-table discussion and consultations.

8. In recognition of the fact that Roma/Gypsies/Travellers have been part of the European heritage and culture for centuries, the European Commission should present a proposal for a Council Decision to designate a specific year as the European Year of the. Roma/Gypsies/Travellers This could be done in co-operation with the Council of Europe and could be strengthened further by a UNICEF focus on Roma/Gypsy/Traveller children.

9. The European Commission should establish a clear mechanism for interdepartmental co-operation so as to develop an integrated strategy for tackling issues affecting Roma/Gypsies/Travellers.

10. European anti-racist initiatives need to address the situation of third-country nationals (some of whom are Roma) with regard to resident’s rights, voting rights, free movement (especially when related to work: music, conferences, etc.), and aid to local developmental projects.

11. The newly-established European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, in co-operation with the Council of Europe, needs to undertake a special initiative to address the specific forms of racism experienced by Roma/Gypsy/Travellers. The Centre needs to be able to provide reliable and comparable data at European level on the causes of this racism and how it impacts on Roma/Gypsies/Travellers in relation to: freedom of movement, employment and economic

27

activity, media portrayal, education, training, social inclusion, civic engagement, and cultural identity.

12. Given the relatively large Roma population in Central and Eastern European countries there is need for co-operation and co-ordination between EU institutions, the Council of Europe and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE) to counter racism targeted against Roma/Gypsies/Travellers and to promote better communication and understanding, bearing in mind that co-ordination should not lead to monopoly by a single institution.

13. In the process of enlargement of the European Union, the European Commission should work in co-operation with the Council of Europe to improve the human rights situation of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers in the applicant states.

14. International legal instruments, such as conventions, treaties and directives are important because they make explicit values, norms and standards and specify human rights as defined by the wider society. These instruments place some pressure on governments to introduce domestic legislation to prohibit discrimination and legislation. Such legislation is essential for the protection of minorities such as Roma/Gypsies/Travellers. But the value of legislation is greatly reduced in the absence of effective implementation, as well as ongoing monitoring, independent agencies to take cases to court, clear and accessible means for dealing with grievances, tribunals and positive action programmes.

15. In accordance with the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), the term ‘refugee’ applies to any person who is outside his/her country “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. . .“ This should be borne in mind in the processing of asylum applications and racial crimes should be deterritorialised in a way similar to the deterritorialisation of crimes related to drugs and terrorism. In addition, the procedures and regulations governing asylum applicants should be made transparent and explicit. It should also be possible to have an appeals system within the judicial system.

16 There is a need to counter the racist activities and policies of extreme right-wing political parties with a racist agenda and also neo-Nazi groups which engage in racial harassment. Therefore political parties which proclaim their respect for the basic principles of democratic society should adopt a code of good practice and non-discrimination.

17. Roma/Gypsies/Travellers have survived centuries of forced assimilation and persecutions, which has contributed to their mistrust of mainstream society and a sense of alienation. Consequently they are perceived by many people as adopting a suspicious and defensive stance towards society in general. Against this background and in the context of ongoing social ostracism, Roma/Gypsy Traveller ethnic identities have a tendency to become totalizing thereby rendering almost irrelevant their other identities and loyalties within civil society. In order to deal with this alienation and mistrust there is a need for initiatives at European and national levels which create the conditions for Roma/Gypsies/Travellers to develop, within a multi-cultural context, other equally significant forms of identity. Only then will they see themselves as full citizens with a sense of belonging, sharing in society’s core values, having a say in government, engaging in cultural practices, and advancing through education, training and employment.

18. Social inclusion and social integration should not be equated with the homogenisation of minority ethnic groups. Gypsy/Traveller/Roma cultural identities much be recognised and respected while at the same time acknowledging that culture is not a static phenomenon but one that evolves and develops in such a way that new ethnic markers are created. Consequently, the seeming paradox of constructively resourcing ethnic identity, can also contribute to the development of a more inclusive and multi-cultural society, while making ethnicity one rather than the only or major form of identity.

19. When restrictions and impediments to the economic development of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers are a consequence of ethnic identity then these should be regarded as a form of racial discrimination. Such cases should be the subject of legal investigation and sanctions.

28

20. In order to avoid exploitation or tokenism the principle of equal treatment of persons as applied to Roma/Gypsies/Travellers involves regarding individuals according to their competencies, professional abilities, moral qualities, and experience when engaged in an activity or programme, and not uniquely on their ethnic belonging. However, this should not preclude the use of positive action measures designed to enable groups or individuals to overcome inequality and disadvantage.

21. The principle of equal pay for equal work should apply to the employment of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers so that the so-called ethnic identificationis not abused by, for example, replacing generally accepted rates of renumeration with unpaid voluntary work.

22. Roma/Gypsy Traveller organisations or individuals should be provided with adequate technical and financial support to ensure that funded projects and initiated activities are brought to completion within a reasonable time-frame and not demobilised by excessive delays and bureaucracy.

23. Roma/Gypsy/Traveller organisations and support groups need to be fully informed of and engaged in recent developments at EU level: the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, and the proposed platform of NGO’s to combat racism, and in particular of the potential created by the adoption of the Amsterdam Treaty which includes a non-discrimination clause.

24. Roma/Gypsy/Traveller organisations and support groups need to engage with the process of roundtable discussions at national and European levels in order to ensure that the Proposed Platform of Anti-Racist NGO’s is developed in a way which is relevant for them.

25. Given the historical and social causes of diverse Roma/Gypsy/Traveller groups, there is need for greater solidarity and co-operation. A prerequisite for this is a rejection of the search for the ‘true’ Gypsy and an acceptance of respect for the various groups of diverse nomadic origin throughout Europe. Strategic alliances need to be developed and resourced in order to promote such solidarity.

26. All cultures, including those of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers, contain elements that can be dehumanising and oppressive. There is a challenge therefore to resolve tensions and conflicts between communal rights and individual rights, between cultural autonomy and the rights of specific groups (such as women, children, and disabled persons) as defined in international human rights instruments. In order to approach such potentially controversial issues in a constructive and critical way there is a need for dialogue based on equality and mutual respect. Innovative initiatives are required to enable this to happen including capacity-building measures and the organisation of fora, cross-cultural exchanges and networks.

27. Roma/Gypsy/Traveller organisations and support groups need to be resourced and facilitated to engage constructively in the organisation, education, mobilisation, representation and advocacy of their members in order to overcome alienation, social ostracism, poverty and exclusion. In this way, active participation and partnerships can be developed which will promote social cohesion and interculturalism.

28. In solidarity with other anti-racist and anti-exclusion organisations, Roma/Gypsy/Traveller support groups need to develop strategic alliances with such organisations in order to eliminate all forms of discrimination, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and xenophobia.

29. Anti-racism and human rights organisations and networks at national and international levels need to be alerted and sensitised to the specific needs and concerns of Roma/Gypsies/Travellers in order to facilitate their appropriate inclusion in their activities and programmes.

30 Employers, trade-unions, government agencies, regional and local authorities, education institutions, academics, religious bodies, the media, professional organisations, non-government and grass-roots organisations, and the victims of racism themselves need to be mobilised into

29

partnerships in the fight against racism and xenophobia, and in the valuing of diversity and multi-ethnicity.

31. Given the responsibility of the police for the maintenance of law and order it is essential that they carry out their duties in accordance with the principles of professional ethics and standards. This is imperative if the mutual mistrust between police and Roma, Gypsies, Travellers is to be overcome. It is also necessary that the role of the police as guardians of anti-discrimination is highlighted, that there are transparent policing procedures, that pre- and in-service training addresses the challenges of ethnic diversity by including anti-racist and intercultural dimensions and that mechanisms are introduced to involve Rom, Gypsy, Traveller organisations in partnership arrangements.

32. The media can play a crucial role in either promoting or challenging ethnic prejudices and stereotypes. Research has shown that minority ethnic groups have been, and continue to be, portrayed negatively (as a problem, dirty, dangerous, or a threat) or stereotypically (as scroungers, criminals, deviants, etc.) by the media, thereby contributing to the reproduction of racism. There is a need, therefore, for professionals in the media to introduce and implement anti-racist guidelines and ethical standards so as to provide fair coverage of Rom/Gypsy/Traveller events and issues.

30

Appendix 1

Estimates of Roma, Gypsy Traveller Populations

Austria 15,000 - 20,000

Belgium 10,000 - 15,000

Denmark 2,500 - 4,500

Finland 5,000 - 8,000

France 200,000 - 300,000

Germany 85,000 - 120,000

Greece 140,000 - 200,000

Ireland 20,000 - 27,000

Italy 85,000 - 120,000

Netherlands 30,000 - 40,000

Norway 1,000 - 5,000

Portugal 50,000 - 100,000

Sweden 15,000 - 30,000

Spain 300,000 - 400,000

Switzerland 15,000 - 20,000

United Kingdom 80,000 - 100,000

There is a dearth of reliable data; these figures are based on reports by Roma Rights Centre, Minority Rights Group, Centre de recherches tsiganes, and UNICEF.

31

Appendix 2

List of Relevant Legal Instruments

Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) (1950) and its additional protocols.

United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)

Convention of the International Labour Organisation concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (1960)

European Social Charter (1961) and its additional protocols

UNESCO convention against Discrimination in Education (1962)

United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)

International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (1966) and its first additional protocol

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992)

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( )

International Convention on the Rights of the Child ( )

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)

32

Appendix 3Delegates at the Conference

Giorgio Bezzecchi UNIRSI/Opera Nomadi NazionaleItaly

Maurizio Pagani Romano DromCoop. SDC. ARLItaly

Valentin Suarez Saavedra Secretariado General GitanoAyuntamiento De AlmendralejoSpain

Maria Teresa Vega Spain

Klaus Pritzluleit ACK/EKD Arbeitsgemlirstatt Christlider Kaiden in DentshkmdGermany

Dr. Rajko Djuric Germany

Annika Debodt Comite National des Gens de Voyage Belgium

Josette Haag Comite National des gens de Voyage Belgium

Anastasia Crickley National Committee for European Year Against RacismIreland

John O’Connell Pavee PointIreland

Fintan Farrell EAPNIreland

Rosaleen McDonagh NTWFIreland

Thomas McCann Irish Traveller MovementIreland

Caroline Talbot Ireland

Sergio Rodriguez Union Romani

33

Spain

John Murray Council of EuropeFrance

Bo Hazell Swedish Broadcasting CorporationSweden

Bo Hazell Sweden

Birger Rosengren Swedish Traveller MovementSweden

Fernanda Reis Secretariado Diocesano Delisboa Da Obral Nacional Para A Pastoral Dos CiganosPortugal.

Cesarina Marques Portugal

Jose Adelino Silva Portugal

Rene De Bodt Comite National des Gens du VoyageBelgium

Paul Noonan Belfast Travellers Education and Development GroupNorthern Ireland

Pauline Leeson Tuar Cratha ProjectNorthern Ireland

Maria Leimberger Comite National des Gens du VoyageBelgium

Paul Jongbloed Enschede Holland

Katia Smith Husser France

Toon Machiels VCW Belgium

Joop Wikkerink Enschede ActivaHolland

Terry Suddaby Ealing Travellers Project

34

United Kingdom

Theresa Barrett Ealing Travellers ProjectUnited Kingdom

Alice Doran Ealing Travellers ProjectUnited Kingdom

Marcel Cortiade Section de Langue et Civilisation rromani France

Music BrahminSS. Romani Baxt Cercle de JeuneseFrance

Rune Halvorsen Department of Sociology, NTNUNorway

35

References

Acton, T. Gypsy Politics and Social Change. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1974.

----- “Anti-Roma Racism in Europe.” The Forum Courier. Brussels: EU Migrants Forum, Sept. - Oct. 1997.

Bovenkerk, F. Testing Discrimination in National Experiments: A Manual for International Comparative Research on Discrimination on the Grounds of ‘Race’ and Ethnic Origin. Geneva: International Labour Office, 1992.

Brearley, Margaret. The Roma/Gypsies of Europe: A Persecuted People. Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Policy Paper, No. 3, December 1996.

Brown, C. and Lawton, J. Training for Equality: A Study of Race Relations and Equal Opportunities Training. London: Policy Studies Institute, 1991.

Cartner, H. Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Persecution of Gypsies in Romania. New York: Human Rights Watch, Helsinki, 1991.

Chesler, M. and Delgado, H. “Race Relations and Organisational Change’ in Shaw, et al., eds. Strategies for Improving Race Relations: Anglo-American Experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987.

Cipollini, R. “Gypsy Girls in an Italian Juvenile Court,” in Growing Up Good - Policing the Behaviour of Girls in Europe. M. Cain, ed. California: Sage, 1989.

Clebert, J.P. The Gypsies. London: Vista Books, 1963.

Community of Ethnic Relations in Europe. Final Report of the Community Relations Project of the Council of Europe. MG-CR (91) Final E.

Costarelli, Sandro, ed. Children of Minorities: Gypsies. UNICEF, 1993.

Cottar, A. Caravan Dwellers in the Netherlands: The Making of a Minority. CUF Congress, Leider, September, 1990.

Council of Europe, Community and Ethnic Relations in Europe. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1991.

Divide and Deport: Roma and Sinti in Austria Budapest: European Roma Rights Centre, September, 1996.

Donald, James and Rattansi, Ali, eds. ‘Race’, Culture and Difference. Sage Publications, The Open University, 1992.

Dublin Traveller Education and Development Group, Irish Court for Civil Liberties, Irish Traveller Movement. Anti-Racist Law and the Travellers. 1993.

DTEDG File. Irish Travellers: New Analysis and New Initiatives. Dublin: Pavee Point Publications, 1992.

------ Ethnic Violence, Conflict Resolution and Cultural Pluralism. Report of the UNRISD/UNDP International Seminar on Ethnic Diversity and Public Policies. New York: 17-19 August, 1994. Geneva: United Nations Research Institue for Social Development (UNRISD), 1995.

Eurobarometer Opinion Poll No. 47.1: Racism and Xenophobia in Europe. Draft final report presented at the Closing Conference of the European Year Against Racism, Luxembourg, 18 and 19 December 1997.

36

European Anti-Poverty Network. Racism and Poverty in Europe. Brussels: European Anti Poverty Network, 1997.

European Race Audit, Bulletin The Institute of Race Relations, London : March 1994, 1995.

Feler, G. Struggling for Ethnic Identiy: The Gypsies of Hungary. New York: Human Righsts Watch, Helsinki, 1993.

Fekete, Liz (ed.). Europe: The Wages of Racism, Race and Class. London: Institute of Race Relations: Vol. 39, July-September 1997.

Ficowski, J. The Gypsies of Poland. Warsaw: Interpress, 1990.

Fonseca, Isabel. Bury Me Standing: The Gypsies and Their Journey. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1996.

Forbes, Ian and Mead, Geoffrey. Measure for Measure: A Comparative Analysis of Measures to Combat Racial Discrimination in the Member Countries of the European Community. University of Southhampton, 1992.

Fraser, Angus. The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1992.

Halvorsen, Rune and Hvinden, Bjorn, “In Pursuit of Redress and Recognition: Ethnic Mobilisation by Itinerant People in Norway.” paper prepared for ESA Conference at Essex Universiy, England, 1997.

Katz, J. White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1978.

Kendrick, D. and Paxon, G. The Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. London: Sussex University Press, 1972.

Kendrick, Donald and Paxon, Grattan, The Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. London and New York: Heinemann, 1972.

Kendrick, Donald and Bakewell, Sian. On the Verge: The Gypsies of England. Hatfield: University of Hartfordshire Press, 1995.

Kenny, Máirín. The Routes of Resistance: Traveller and Second-level Schooling. Ashgate, Aldershot, 1997.

Kovel, Joel. White Racism: A Psychohistory. New York: Vintage Books, 1971.

Liegeious, J.P. Gypsies and Travellers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1987.

Liegeois, J.P. Gypsies: An Illustrated History. London: Al Sagi Books, 1986.

Liegeois, J.P. and Georghe, N. Roma/Gypsies: A European Minority. Minority Rights Group Report, London, 1995.

Lucassen, L. “Stigmatisazaion and Group Formation: Dental Gypsies and the Government”. CUF Congress, Leiden, September, 1990.

Luthra, M. and Oakley, R. Combating Racism Through Training: A Review of Approaches to Race Training in Organisations. Policy Paper in Ethnic Relations, No. 22, University of Warwick, UK., 1991.

Mayall, David. English Gypsies and State Policies. Hatfield: University of Hartfordshire Press, 1995.

37

McVeigh, Robbie. Minority Ethnic Groups and Racism. CRD North/South Factsheet Series, number 5. Belfast: Centre for Research and Documentation, 1996.

Miles, R. Racism. London: Routledge, 1989.

O’Connell, John. “Travellers in Ireland: An Examination of Discrimination and Racism.” Dublin: National Co-ordinating Committee for European Year Against Racism, 1997.

Okely, J.M. The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Report on the Findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Racism and Xenophobia. (European

Parliament) Luxembourg, 1991.

Roma Rights. Newsletter of the European Roma Rights Centre. Budapest: Summer 1997.

Roma, Gypsies, Travellers: East/West: Regional and Local Policies, Report of International Study Conference, Rome 1991. Pavee Point Publications, 1997.

Schluter, Ragnhild. “Travellers - forgotten Norwegian minority.” in European Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol 3, No. 2/3, 1993.

Sudden Rage at Dawn: Violence Against Roma in Romania (September, 1996)

Time of the Skinheads, Denial and Exclusion of Roma in Slovakia (January 1997)

Tomasevic, Nebojsa Bato and Duric, Rajko, Ph.D. Gypsies of the World. Flint River Press, London, 1989.

Troyna, B. and William, J. Racism, Education and the State. Croom Helm, 1986.

Van Dijk, T.A. Elite Discourse and Racism. California: Sage, 1993.

Wilkie, M. Victims of Neutrality: Race Discrimination in Denmark. Nordic Journal of International Law, 1990.

Willems, W. and Lucassen, L. “A Silent War: Foreign Gypsies and the Dutch Government Policy, 1969 - 1989.” Luf-Congress, Leider, September, 1990.

Wrench, John and Taylor, Paul. A Research Manual on the Evaluation of Anti-Discrimination Training Activities. International Labour Office, Geneva, 1993.

38