report 2010 multiple discrimination in europe

7/28/2019 Report 2010 Multiple discrimination in Europe

1/20

EU-MIDIS

European Union Minorities andDiscrimination Survey

English

2010

05

Data in Focus ReportMultiple Discrimination

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Embargo:

Wednesday

2February2011,

11am(CET)


2/20

EUMIDIS

2

WHAT is EU-MIDIS?

It is the rst European Union-wide survey to ask immigrant

and ethnic minority groups about their experiences o

discrimination and criminal victimisation in everyday lie.

As many incidents o discrimination and victimisation go

unreported, and as current data collection on discrimination

and victimisation against minority groups is limited in many

Member States, EU-MIDIS provides the most comprehensive

evidence to date o the extent o discrimination and

victimisation against minorities in the EU.

In total 23,500 immigrant and ethnic minority people were

surveyed in ace-to-ace questionnaire interviews in all 27

Member States o the EU during 2008. A urther 5,000 people

rom the majority population living in the same areas as

minorities were interviewed in ten EU Member States to allow

or comparisons o results concerning some key questions.

Each interview lasted between 20 minutes and one hour,

and asked people a series o detailed questions depending

on the extent o their personal experiences o discrimination

and victimisation.

Survey Themes

The bulk o survey questions in EU-MIDIS covered the

ollowing themes:

generalquestionsaboutrespondentsperceptionsand

experiences o discrimination on dierent grounds in

addition to ethnic or immigrant origin such as age and

gender;

questionsaboutrespondentsawarenessoftheirrightswith

respect to the prohibition o discrimination on the basis o

ethnicity or immigrant background, and knowledge about

where to make complaints about discriminatory treatment;

specicquestionsaboutrespondentsexperiencesof

discrimination because o their minority background in

dierent areas o everyday lie such as looking or work or

nding a house or an apartment to rent or buy including

whether they reported experiences o discrimination to any

organisation;

questionsaboutrespondentsexperiencesofbeinga

victim o crime, including whether they considered their

victimisation happened partly or completely because o

their minority background, and whether they reported

victimisation to the police;

questionsonencounterswithlawenforcement,customs

and border control, and whether respondents considered

they were victims o discriminatory ethnic proling

practices.

Respondents were asked about their experiences o

discrimination and victimisation in the ve years and

12 months prior to the survey.

The dt eted hee uses esdets eeis

bei disimited ist i the st 12 mths.

EU-MIDIS

EUropEan UnIon MInorITIES

anD DIScrIMInaTIon SUrvEy

Box 1

EUMIDIS methd d smi

Sme

In each Member State between 500 and 1,500

respondents were interviewed ace-to-ace using a

standardised questionnaire.

A minimum o 500 people were interviewed per ethnic

minority or immigrant group surveyed in a Member State

or example, 500 Roma respondents or 500 respondents

with a Sub-Saharan Arican background. Between one and

three ethnic minority/immigrant groups were surveyed per

Member State.

The survey results draw comparisons between

Member States where the same groups were surveyed or

example, the EU-MIDIS Data in Focus 1 report looks at the

experiences o Roma interviewees in seven Member States.

Iteiew eid:

May - November 2008

Smi h:

1) Random route sampling with ocused enumeration:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,

Greece, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain

2) Address-based sampling: Denmark, Germany, Finland

and Luxembourg

3) Interviewer generated and network sampling: Malta

4) Combination o (1) and (3): Ireland, Netherlands,

Slovenia, Sweden, and the UK

For more inormation about EU-MIDIS sampling and

methodology, please see the EU-MIDIS Technical Report:Methodology, sampling and feldwork(2009),

available at: ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/attachments/EU-

MIDIS_Techn-Report.pd


3/20

Data in Focus Report: Multiple Discrimination

3

DaTa In FocUS SErIES

This is the th in a series o EU-MIDIS Dt i Fus reports

that explore specic ndings rom the survey. EU-MIDIS Data

inFocusreportsprovideonlyanintroductorysnapshotofthe ull results rom the survey, and are intended to introduce

the reader to some core ndings in specic elds or with

regard to certain minority groups. Previous Data in Focus

reports include:

DatainFocus1:TheRoma

DatainFocus2:Muslims

DatainFocus3:RightsAwarenessandEqualityBodies

DatainFocus4:PoliceStopsandMinorities

AcomprehensiveEU-MIDISMainResultsReportwas

published in December 2009.

In due course, the European Union Agency or Fundamental

Rights (FRA) intends to make the dataset available rom the

survey so that anyone can undertake their own analysis o

the results.

The current Data in Focus report examines :

resdets ee eetis but deeiees disimiti i thei Membe Stte

the bsis e uds disimiti

(mutie disimiti) such as gender and age, as

well as ethnicity and immigrant background. These ndings

are compared with results or the majority population that

are taken rom a Eurobarometer survey conducted in the

same year.

resdets es eeiee disimiti

s the eeie it sei the bsis thei

ethiit immit bkud, which is explored in

relation to personal characteristics such as gender and age,

and socio-economic variables such as employment status.

Dei mutie disimiti:The term multiple

discriminationcanbeunderstoodasmeaningdiscrimi-

nation on more than one ground. The concept o multiple

discrimination is elaborated urther in the section o this

reporttitledDiscriminationonDierentGrounds.

All reports and other documentation rom

the survey are available at:

ra.europa.eu/eu-midis


4/20

EUMIDIS

4

DaTa In FocUS rEporT 5

KEy FInDIngS on MUlTIplE DIScrIMInaTIon

Everyfourthethnicminorityorimmigrantrespondentinterviewed in EU-MIDIS indicated they had elt

discriminated against on at least two o the ollowing

grounds in the last 12 months: ethnic or immigrant

origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or belie,

disability,orforotherreasons.

ComparingEU-MIDISandSpecialEurobarometer296

results shows that the majority population in EU Member

States elt discriminated against less oten across a range

o grounds than ethnic minority and immigrant persons

surveyed in EU-MIDIS. The results thereore suggest that

ethnic minority and immigrant groups are generally more

vulnerable to multiple discrimination than the majority

population in the EU.

Ethnicityorimmigrantoriginconsistentlyemergesasthe

most signicant ground or experiencing discrimination

among ethnic minorities and immigrants surveyed in EU-

MIDIS more than other grounds such as age or gender.

EU-MIDISclearlyshowsthatvisibleminoritiesthatis,

those who generally look dierent to the majority

population eel discriminated against more oten and

across a range o grounds than other minorities. For

example, Roma and people o Arican origin indicate

that they experience more discrimination than ormer

Yugoslavians, those with a Russian background, and

Central and East Europeans.

Genderandagearestrongpredictorsofdiscriminationor certain groups: or example, young ethnic

minority/immigrant men tend to report high levels o

discriminatory treatment; however, this overall nding

diers or certain minority groups surveyed in EU-MIDIS.

Twiceasmanyethnicminority/immigrantwomen

compared with ethnic minority/immigrant men

indicated that they experienced discrimination on the

basis o gender. This indicates that minority women are

vulnerabletomultiplediscriminationonthebasisoftheir

ethnicity/immigrant background and their gender.

Socio-economicdisadvantageisacontributingfactor

totheexperienceofdiscrimination:onaverage,46%of

respondents who experienced what they considered to

be discrimination on dierent grounds were in the lowest

income quartile recorded or their EU Member State.

ThemajoritypopulationinEUMemberStatesgenerally

perceive discrimination across a range o grounds as being

more widespread than ethnic minority and immigrant

respondents in EU-MIDIS do. This also holds true with

respect to perception o discrimination on the ground o

ethnic and immigrant origin. In contrast, ethnic minority

and immigrant respondents in EU-MIDIS indicate that

they experience what they consider as discrimination,

across a range o grounds, more oten than the majority

population in Member States.


5/20


5

UnDErSTanDIng DIScrIMInaTIon

piies Equ Tetmetd nDisimiti

The principles o equal treatment and non-discriminationlie at the core o democratic societies. At the level o the

European Union these principles are enshrined in primary

law as reected in Article 21 o the Charter o Fundamental

Rights o the European Union. According to this article, any

discrimination based on grounds such as sex, race, colour,

ethnic or social origin, genetic eatures, language, religion

or belie, political or any other opinion, membership o a

national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual

orientationshallbeprohibited.Moreover,Article19ofthe

Treaty on the Functioning o the European Union (Part II

Non-DiscriminationandCitizenshipoftheUnion)givesthe

Union the competence to combat discrimination on grounds

o sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belie, disability, age

and sexual orientation. At the time o publication (2011),

dierent Directives variously address discrimination across

a range o grounds and in dierent contexts encompassing

employment through to goods and services (see Box 2).

The European Union Agency or Fundamental Rights has

a Multi-Annual Framework that identies nine general

thematic areas or its research activities in the period

2007-2012. One o the nine areas encompassesdiscrimination across a range o grounds including sex,

race or ethnic origin, religion or belie, disability, age or

sexual orientation, and persons belonging to minorities

and specically reers to any combination o these grounds

(multiplediscrimination).Insum,discriminationonmore

thanonegroundishighlightedintheAgencysMulti-Annual

Framework as an area or data collection with respect to

enjoyment o undamental rights in the EU.

ReferencetomultiplediscriminationintheAgencys

work reects the slow but growing recognition o this

phenomenon at the level o European Union law and policy.

For example, recital 14 o the Racial Equality Directive reers

tomultiplediscrimination,andinthepreparatoryworkof

the European Commission or a new Directive prohibiting

discrimination on dierent grounds commonly reerred to

astheHorizontalDirectivereferenceismadetotheneed

to tackle multiple discrimination, or example by dening

itasdiscriminationandbyprovidingeectiveremedies

(which, however, is considered as going beyond the scope

o the directive).1 In addition, the European Commission has

commissioned reports2 and has unded research on multiple

discriminationsuchastheGenderaceprojectunderthe

7th Framework Programme.3

Also, the European Parliament has requently highlighted

the problem o multiple discrimination. In its resolution on

the Stockholm Programme, it stressed that while EU law

and policy makers have adopted an extensive body o law

to combat the multiple discrimination suered by women

rom minority backgrounds, especially Roma women, no

signicantprogresscanbedemonstrated;itthereforecalled

on the EU Member States to review the implementation

o all policies related to the phenomenon o multiple

discrimination.4 The Parliament also stressed that older

women and older people rom ethnic minorities may ace

multiplediscrimination.5

Box 2

Eue Ui tidisimiti eisti

The original Treaty establishing the European Community

(1957) contained a provision prohibiting discrimination

on the ground o sex in the eld o employment. Recent

examples o legislation that have added additional grounds

o discrimination, and have urther developed the groundo discrimination in relation to sex, include:

Dietie 2000/43/Ec ri Equit Dietie:

establishes a ramework against discrimination based on

racial or ethnic origin inside and outside the labour market;

Dietie 2000/78/Ec Emmet Equit Dietie:

establishes a ramework or equal treatment in employ-

ment and occupation, and in Article 1 lays down a general

ramework or combating discrimination on the grounds

o religion or belie, disability, age or sexual orientation as

regards employment and occupation;

Dietie 2004/113/Ec gede Dietie (d gede

rest Dietie 2006/54/Ec): establishes a ramework or

equal treatment between men and women in access to and

supply o goods and services.

See European Union Agency or Fundamental Rights and

European Court o Human Rights (2011)A Handbook on

European Non-Discrimination Law.

1COM(2008)0426nal,availableat:eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008PC0426:EN:NOT.

2 European Commission (2007) Tackling Multiple Discrimination: Practices, policies and laws, Luxembourg: Publications Ofce, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=51&type=2&furtherPubs=no.3 For urther inormation, see: http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pd/genderace-brochure_en.pd.

4 European Parliament resolution o 25 November 2009 on the Communication rom the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

An area o reedom, security and justice serving the citizen Stockholm Programme, in OJ C 285 E as o 21 October 2010, paragraph 31.

5EuropeanParliamentresolutionof21February2008onthedemographicfutureofEurope,inOJC184Easof6August2009,paragraph44.

EU-MIDISpresentedauser-friendlydenitionof discrimination that could be understood by interviewees:

when somebody is treated less avourably than others

because o a specifc personal eature, such as age, gender

or minority background.

No specic denition o multiple discrimination was used

in the survey.


6/20

EUMIDIS

6

This Data in Focus report contributes to the development

o knowledge in the EU with respect to the experience o

multiple discrimination, which to date is relatively under-

researched compared with work addressing discrimination

on single grounds.

Disimiti Difeet guds

The evidence described in previous Data in Focus reports

shows that certain minority groups, such as the Roma (Data

in Focus Report 1) and respondents with a sel-identied

Muslim background (Data in Focus Report 2), experience

signicant levels o discrimination in dierent areas o

everyday lie based on their immigrant or ethnic origin,

or their religious background. For some groups, such as

Muslims, it is difcult to distinguish between experiences

o discriminatory treatment on the basis o their ethnicity/

immigrant background and/or their religion as the two are

closely intertwined as a reection o cultural and personal

identity.

The current Data in Focus report explores the issue o

mutie disimiti. The concept recognises the act

that an individual can be discriminated against on more

than one ground in any given situation or time. In other

words, a person does not only have a minority background,

but also a certain age and gender that might add to her or

his vulnerability to discrimination. For example, a woman

with an ethnic minority background might be aected by

discrimination in a dierent way to a man with the same

minority background. Other personal characteristics or

circumstances, such as disability or educational background,

alsoimpactononesexposuretoandexperienceof

discrimination. It is the adding up and/or combination o

dierent grounds o discrimination that orm the substance

ofwhatiscommonlyunderstoodasmultiplediscrimination,

and which has been variously addressed by dierent

authorsandacademicdisciplinesasadditivediscrimination

orcompounddiscrimination,andasintersectional

discrimination.

There has been progressive acknowledgement o the role

thatmultiplediscriminationcanplayinpeopleslivesby

disciplines such as gender studies, and in some branches

o socio-legal research6. In contrast, the law has been

slow to recognise and respond to the concept o multiple

discrimination in practice. The relatively ew cases addressing

discrimination on more than one ground is evidence o

the law lagging behind in this area, and o the limitations

imposed on addressing multiple discrimination through the

applicationofthecomparatorapproachindiscrimination

cases in a number o jurisdictions.7

Although EU-MIDIS was developed with the primary purpose

o looking at discrimination on the single ground o ethnicity

or immigrant background, some general questions were

also developed to capture discrimination across a range

ofgroundsandwithrespecttorespondentspersonal

characteristics. However, the nature o the questionnaire

instrument means that the results cannot denitively show

whether respondents experienced discrimination across a

range o grounds at the same time, or as the intersection

o various grounds that are difcult to distinguish rom

each other. What the results do point to is the existence o

discrimination on more than one ground in a 12-month

period, and on the basis o dierent personal characteristics

that may operate individually or together to exacerbate

experiences o discrimination.

The importance o recognising multiple discrimination lies

with the act that it takes into account the complexity o

discrimination as it is experienced by some people.

Fra eseh mutie disimiti

The FRA has included reerence to and analysis o multiple

discrimination in some o its work to date, or example in its

reports on:

Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds o Sexual Ori-

entation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States: Part

II The Social Situation (2009), which includes a chapteron multiple discrimination. See: ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/

attachments/FRA_hdgso_report_part2_en.pd

Housing conditions o Roma and Travellers in the European

Union (2009) which includes a brie section on Mul-

tiplediscriminationandhousing.See:fra.europa.eu/

raWebsite/attachments/Roma_Housing_Comparative-

nal_en.pd

As a reection o the need or more concrete research to ex-

plore the realities o multiple discrimination, the European

Union Agency or Fundamental Rights initiated research at

the end o 2010 on Inequalities and multiple discrimination

inaccesstohealthcare.Theprojectwilllookathealthcare

with respect to the intersection o discrimination in relation

to ethnicity, gender and age. The results o this research will

oer examples o multiple discrimination as it is expe-

rienced in practice, which can serve to inorm socio-legal

research and policy responses in this eld.

For project details see:

ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/research/projects/

proj_multiplediscriminationhealthcare_en.htm

6Burri,S.andSchiek,D.(2009)Multiple Discrimination in EU Law: Opportunities or legal responses to intersectional gender discrimination?, Report by

the European Network o Legal Experts in the Field o Gender Equality or the European Commission DG Employment, Social Aairs and Equal

Opportunities; Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection o Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique o Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist

TheoryandAntiracistPolitics,inUniversity o Chicago Legal Reorm,pp.137-167.

7Thecomparatorapproachindiscriminationlawmeansthataclaimantwhosaystheyhavebeendiscriminatedagainstwillhavetodemonstrate

lessfavourabletreatmentbyidentifyingapersonoutsidetheirgroupwhowastreatedbetterasaresultofnotbeingamemberofthegroupthatthecomplainantbelongsto(groupbeingthegroundunderwhichdiscriminationisclaimedsuchasage,orgender,ordisability).Thisbecomes

complex in cases o multiple discrimination as the comparator the person against whom the complainant should be compared is unclear, and could

theoretically involve several people.


7/20


7

Mutie disimiti eetis d eeiees

EU-MIDIS asked respondents two questions about

discrimination on the grounds o disability, religion or belie,

age, sexual orientation, gender, and ethnic or immigrant

origin.

Therstquestionconcernedrespondentseetis

about the extent to which discrimination, across the range

o grounds listed above, is widespread in their country

(Question A1, see Box 4).

Thesecondquestionexploredrespondentspersonal

experiences o discrimination with ed t whethe

the et disimited ist across the same range

o grounds in the past 12 months (Question A2, see Box 5).

Respondents could indicate whether they had experienced

discrimination in the last 12 months on more than one

ground the results o which can be interpreted as an

indicator o multiple discrimination.

The results to both o these questions are compared in this

report with ndings rom identical questions that were asked

o the majority population in a Special Eurobarometer survey

ondiscrimination(No.296),whichcollecteddatainthesame

year as EU-MIDIS 2008.

Disimiti the ud ethi/immit ii with eset t esdethteistis suh s ede, e dsiemi sttus

The majority o questions in EU-MIDIS asked respondents

about their personal experiences o discrimination

according to their eelings o having been discriminated

against across nine areas o everyday lie on the basis o a

single ground o discrimination ethnic or immigrant origin.

Discrimination was asked about with respect to the ollowing

nine areas:

whenlookingforwork;

atwork;

whenlookingforahouseoranapartmenttorentorbuy;

byhealthcarepersonnel;

bysocialservicepersonnel;

byschoolpersonnel;

atacaf,restaurant,barorclub;

whenenteringorinashop;

whentryingtoopenabankaccountorgetaloan.

The results to these questions are looked at in this report

inrelationtorespondentspersonalcharacteristicssuchas

gender and age. In this way, the ndings can indirectly pointto the potential existence o multiple discrimination; or

example, when ethnic minority women are reporting higher

levels o discrimination than men rom the same minority

group.

The results in relation to the nine areas o discrimination on

thebasisofrespondentsethnicity/immigrantbackground

arealsoexaminedwithrespecttorespondentssocio-

economic position. Three background variables that

were collected in the survey are used to create a measure

ofrespondentssocio-economicpositiontoseeifthe

experience o discrimination diers or persons who are

materially and socially better o in comparison with those

who are socially and economically disadvantaged (see Box 3).

WHaT DID THE SUrvEy aSK?

Box 3

Mesui esdets siemi siti

Background variables such as gender, age and years in

education were collected or all EU-MIDIS interviewees.

In order to create a proxy or socio-economic position, the

ollowing background variables are used in the analysis:

educationinyears;

incomelevelinquartiles;

employmentstatusatthetimeoftheinterview.

The results related to socio-economic position should be

interpreted with caution as the variables used have certain

limitations.

The education variable is collected as the number o years

in education, which poses a problem o interpretation

as it does not always correspond to the highest level o

education attained. It is potentially problematic in the case

o recent arrivals in an EU Member State who might need

to study longer to have their qualications recognised in

their host country. In addition, migrant workers are oten

working in areas that are below their level o qualications

and, as a consequence, have lower incomes than might

be expected given their years o education. At the sametime the income variable is not comparable between most

EU Member States, and can only be used as an indicator

relative to available data at Member State level on average

incomes. For employed respondents, the survey did not

collect data on their occupation, and thereore it is

impossibletodistinguishbetweenthosehavinggood

andbadjobs.


8/20

EUMIDIS

8

peeti mutie disimiti

Figure 1 shows that in comparison with the minority groups

questioned in EU-MIDIS, more respondents rom the majority

population, who were interviewed or Special Eurobarometer

296,considereddiscriminationtobewidespreadacross

allsixgroundsaskedabout.Strikingly,62%ofthegeneral

population thought that discrimination on the basis o

ethnicoriginwaswidespreadincomparisonwith55%ofethnicminorityandimmigrantrespondents,and45%ofthe

majoritypopulationincomparisonwith33%ofminority

interviewees considered that discrimination on the basis

ofreligionorbeliefwaswidespread.Atthesametime,33%

o both majority and minority interviewees thought that

discrimination on the basis o ethnicity or immigrant origin

isfairlyorveryrareintheEUMemberStatewheretheylive

(not shown in Figure 1).

When comparing perceptions o whether discrimination

onthebasisofethnicityorimmigrantoriginiswidespread

(Figure 2), there is great variation in the extent to which this

orm o discrimination is identied as a problem between

groups and Member States. For example, whereas in Sweden

perceptions are roughly the same between the majority

and minority groups surveyed, in the case o Poland the

majority population perceives signicantly lower levels o

discrimination against minorities in comparison with Roma

interviewees. These ndings warrant urther exploration at

the Member State level.

SUrvEy rESUlTS

MUlTIplE DIScrIMInaTIon

Box 4EUMIDIS Questi a1 (Sei Eubmete296, Questi a1): peetis butdisimiti difeet uds

For each o the ollowing types o discrimination,

could you please tell me whether, in your opinion,

it is very widespread, airly widespread, airly rare, or very

rareinyourcountry?Discriminationonthebasisof...

1. ethnic or immigrant origin

2. gender

3. sexual orientation

4. age

5. religion or belie

6.disability

Figure 1

peeti disimiti s e i widesed,

EUMIDIS d Sei Eubmete 296, sue esdets (%)

EU-MIDISandSpecialEurobarometer296,bothquestionA1(seeBox4)

Ethnic or immigrant origin

Gender

Sexual orientation

Age

Religion or belief

Disability

EurobarometerEU-MIDIS


9/20


9

Figure 2

cmis eeti disimiti bsed ethi immit ii s bei e i widesed,EUMIDIS d Sei Eubmete 296, sue esdets (%)

BE Eurobarometer

BE North African

BE Turkish

BG Eurobarometer

BG Roma

BG Turkish

CZ Eurobarometer

CZ Roma

DK Eurobarometer

DK Turkish

DK Somali

DE Eurobarometer

DE Turkish

DE Ex-Yugoslav

EE Eurobarometer

EE Russian

EL Eurobarometer

EL Albanian

EL Roma

ES Eurobarometer

ES North African

ES South American

ES Romanian

FR Eurobarometer

FR North AfricanFR Sub-Saharan African

IE Eurobarometer

IE Central and East European

IE Sub-Saharan African

IT Eurobarometer

IT Albanian

IT North African

IT Romanian

CY Eurobarometer

CY Asian

LV Eurobarometer

LV Russian

LT Eurobarometer

LT Russian

LU Eurobarometer

LU Ex-Yugoslav

HU Eurobarometer

HU Roma

MT Eurobarometer

MT African

NL Eurobarometer

NL North African

NL Turkish

NL Surinamese

AT EurobarometerAT Turkish

AT Ex-Yugoslav

PL Eurobarometer

PL Roma

PT Eurobarometer

PT Brazilian

PT Sub-Saharan African

RO Eurobarometer

RO Roma

SI Eurobarometer

SI Serbian

SI Bosnian

SK Eurobarometer

SK Roma

FI Eurobarometer

FI Russian

FI Somali

SE Eurobarometer

SE Iraqi

SE Somali

UK Eurobarometer

UK Central and East European

EU-MIDISandSpecialEurobarometer296,bothquestionA1(seeBox4)

Perceptionspresentanimportantreadingofthemood

o a country with respect to specic questions, but they

should not be read as indicators o realities on the ground.

In most cases where people are asked to comment on their

perception o the extent o discrimination in their country,

they are answering hypothetically in relation to a number o

grounds that typically do not apply to them or example,

when asked about discrimination on the basis o ethnicity

the majority population cannot, in most cases, respond rom

personal experience. In contrast, minority interviewees might

be expected to respond with respect to their own or that

oftheirfamiliesorfriendsexperiences;inthiscase,itcan

beassumedthatminorityrespondentsonlyspeakfortheir

ethnic or immigrant group rather than that o others who

may experience higher or lower levels o discrimination.


10/20

EUMIDIS

10

Eeiee mutie disimiti:bsed esdets es eeis hi bee disimited ist

Fidis m EUMIDIS d mis with Sei

Eubmete 296

Bearing in mind the limitations o looking at generalperceptions to judge the situation regarding discrimination

in a country, EU-MIDIS also asked questions about

discrimination as respondents themselves elt they had

experienced it.

Question A2 in the EU-MIDIS survey asked ethnic

minority/immigrant respondents i they had eeieed

disimiti on the basis o dierent grounds

(see Box 5). The same question was asked in the Special

Eurobarometer296surveyonthemajoritypopulation.

Comparing results rom EU-MIDIS and Special Eurobarometer

296(asshowninFigure3):

Some23%ofallrespondentstoEU-MIDISindicatedtheyhad

elt discriminated against on a single ground in the last 12

months,whereas12%ofthemajoritypopulationindicated

thistobethecase;14%ofEU-MIDISrespondentssaidthey

had elt discriminated against on multiple grounds in the

past12monthsincomparisonwithonly3%ofthemajority

population;and63%ofEU-MIDISrespondentsindicatedthey

had notelt discriminated against on any ground in the last

12monthscomparedwith85%ofthemajoritypopulation.

These ndings indicate that miit esdets

iteiewed i EUMIDIS eeieed wht the

sideed t be disimiti the bsis

sie ud d mutie uds me te

th the mjit uti iteiewed i Sei

Eubmete sue 296.

Figure 4 breaks down these results by EU Member State and

in relation to the dierent groups surveyed in EU-MIDIS. It

shows that experience o discrimination on more than one

groundisgenerallyhighestforvisiblydierentminorities,

such as people o Arican or Roma origin in comparison with

Central and East Europeans, and people o Russian origin.

Box 5EUMIDIS questi a2 (SeiEubmete 296, questi a3):eeiei disimiti difeet uds

In the past 12 months have you personally elt

discriminated against or harassed on the basis o one or

moreofthefollowinggrounds?Pleasetellmeallthatapply:

1. ethnic or immigrant origin

2. gender

3. sexual orientation

4. age

5. religion or belie

6.disability

7. another reason

Box6

cmi esuts betwee EUMIDIS dSei Eubmete 296

By bringing together the results rom EU-MIDIS and the

datacollectedthroughtheEuropeanCommissionsSpecial

Eurobarometerondiscrimination(No.296)bothof

which were conducted in 2008 it is possible to compare

experiences o multiple discrimination between the ethnic

minority and immigrant groups surveyed in EU-MIDIS and

the majority population in the EU-27. In this way, the resultscan oer some preliminary ndings on the extent to which

discrimination on a single ground and on more than one

ground is more prevalent among minority and immigrant

groups in comparison with the majority population.

Although identical questions were asked in EU-MIDIS and

Eurobarometersurvey296,itshouldbenotedthatthe

data collection or EU-MIDIS was mainly carried out in

urban areas while the Eurobarometer surveys are based on

nationwide samples o respondents; thereore the results

have to be cautiously interpreted as reecting the locations

where the two surveys were conducted.

ForSpecialEurobarometer296ndings,see:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdf

Figure 3

cmi esuts m EUMIDIS d SeiEubmete 296: disimiti b umbe uds, st 12 mths, sue esdets (%)

EU-MIDISquestionA2,andSpecialEurobarometer296,

question QA3 (see Box 5)

Discriminatedagainst onmultiplegrounds14%

Discriminatedagainst on oneground23%

Not

discriminated

against

63%

EUMIDIS

Discriminatedagainst on oneground12%

Not

discriminated

against

85%

Discriminated

against onmultiple grounds

3%

Eubmete


11/20


11

In comparison with most other EU Member States: in

Austria, both o the minority groups surveyed in EU-MIDIS

indicated very slightly lower levels o having experienced

discrimination (as they perceived it) on more than one

ground compared with the majority population; although

the overall rates o discrimination in Austria never exceeded

5%foreithermajorityorminoritypopulationrespondents.

The main Eurobarometer results or Austria (as reerencedinBox6)indicatethatmajorityrespondentsreportedhigh

levels o experiencing discrimination on grounds o both

gender and age in comparison with majority respondents

inotherEUMemberStates(6%ofAustrianssaidthatthey

had been discriminated against because o their gender,

and11%becauseoftheirage,whereastheEU-27averages

were3%and6%,respectively).Asaresult,thendings

on discrimination experiences or majority respondents

in Austria, as shown in Figure 4, were slightly higher incomparison with many other countries.

Figure 4

cmi esuts m EUMIDIS d Sei Eubmete 296:disimiti eeiees me th e ud, st 12 mths sue esdets (%)

BE Eurobarometer

BE North African

BE Turkish

BG EurobarometerBG Roma

BG Turkish

CZ Eurobarometer

CZ Roma

DK Eurobarometer

DK Turkish

DK Somali

DE Eurobarometer

DE Turkish

DE Ex-Yugoslav

EE Eurobarometer

EE Russian

EL Eurobarometer

EL Albanian

EL Roma

ES Eurobarometer

ES North African

ES South American

ES Romanian

FR Eurobarometer

FR North African

FR Sub-Saharan African

IE Eurobarometer

IE Central and East European

IE Sub-Saharan African

IT Eurobarometer

IT Albanian

IT North African

IT Romanian

CY Eurobarometer

CY Asian

LV Eurobarometer

LV Russian

LT Eurobarometer

LT Russian

LU Eurobarometer

LU Ex-Yugoslav

HU Eurobarometer

HU Roma

MT Eurobarometer

MT African

NL Eurobarometer

NL North African

NL Turkish

NL Surinamese

AT Eurobarometer

AT TurkishAT Ex-Yugoslav

PL Eurobarometer

PL Roma

PT Eurobarometer

PT Brazilian

PT Sub-Saharan African

RO Eurobarometer

RO Roma

SI Eurobarometer

SI Serbian

SI Bosnian

SK Eurobarometer

SK Roma

FI Eurobarometer

FI Russian

FI Somali

SE Eurobarometer

SE Iraqi

SE Somali

UK Eurobarometer

UK Central and East European

EU-MIDISquestionA2,andSpecialEurobarometer296questionQA3(seeBox5)


12/20

EUMIDIS

12

EUMIDIS: guds mutie disimiti d

ete esdet us

Looking specically at results rom EU-MIDIS, the maingrounds identied by minorities who reported eeling

discriminated against on dierent grounds were

unsurprisinglygiventherespondentsbackgrounds

ethnicandimmigrantorigin(93%)andreligionorbelief

(64%),followedbygender(34%)andage(29%)note

the percentages do not add up to 100 as respondents

could indicate more than one ground o discrimination. It

cannot be determined rom the EU-MIDIS results whether

discrimination on more than one ground was experienced

as dierent incidents over a 12-month period, or whether

discrimination on dierent grounds occurred at the same

time; however, the ndings do indicate that minorities are

particularly vulnerable to discrimination because o their

ethnic minority and immigrant background and because o

other personal characteristics such as religion.

In particular, Muslim respondents indicated that religion was

eitherveryorfairlyimportantintheirlives91%ofNorth

Africansand85%ofTurkishrespondentsindicatedthisto

bethecasewhile90%ofSub-SaharanAfricans,coming

rom a mixture o dierent religious backgrounds, also

indicated that religion was important to them. This suggests

that identity encompassing actors such as ethnicity and

religion can be experienced as intersectional discrimination

by many minority ethnic groups in Europe, meaning that

dierent grounds o discrimination interact and are hard

to distinguish rom each other. This interpretation is useul

to keep in mind when looking to understand high levels

o reported discrimination on multiple grounds by specic

aggregate groups as shown in Figure 5.

EUMIDIS: Bkud hteistis thse wh

eted disimiti me th e ud

Looking specically at the gender and age o respondentsin EU-MIDIS who indicated they had experienced

discrimination on several grounds reveals some notable

results. Namely, on average among those who reported

multiple discrimination, there were slightly more men than

women(respectively53%and47%).Menindicatedthey

experienced discrimination slightly more oten than women

inmostofthegroundstested(seeFigure6)withthe

exception o gender.

AsFigure6showsamongthoseindicatingtheyhad

been discriminated against on dierent grounds women

reported much higher levels o experiencing what they

consideredtobediscriminationonthebasisofgender,with

44%ofwomenand24%ofmenindicatingthisasaground

o discrimination. In comparison, the percentage o men

andwomenidentifyingageasagroundofdiscrimination

wasalmostidentical30%ofmenand29%ofwomen.With

respect to age, a detailed analysis o the survey data shows

that o those indicating experience o discrimination on

dierentgroundsonly9%wereover55yearsold,while

41%werebetween25-39yearsofage.

Together, these results in consideration o age and gender

needtobeinterpretedwithrespecttothesurveysoverall

nding that most respondents who said they had been

discriminated against indicated that this occurred most

oten when looking or work and when at work this in

generaltendstobeeconomicallyactivemalesamongthe

minoritiessurveyedinEU-MIDIS;20%ofwomenamongthe

minoritygroupssurveyedindicatedtheywerehomemakers,

asopposedto1%ofmensurveyed,withtheproportion

ofwomenidentifyingthemselvesashomemakersbeing

ashighas42%amongRomawomen,and28%among

Turkish and North Arican women respondents. In this

regard, the results could be urther explored with respect

to the vulnerability o particular groups to discrimination

on dierent grounds in relation to employment namely,

younger males with minority backgrounds.

Figure 5

EUMIDIS Disimiti eeiees me th e ud,b ete esdet us, st 12 mths sue esdets (%)

EU-MIDIS question A2 (see Box 5)

North African

Sub-Saharan African

Roma

Turkish

Ex-Yugoslav

entral and East European

Russian


13/20


13

In addition, the results indicate that respondents who are

more exposed to multiple discrimination tend to come rom

socially disadvantaged backgrounds (see Box 3 concerning

theinterpretationoftheseresults),sinceasmanyas46%ofthem were located in the lowest income quartile recorded

in the survey. And, as a reection o this, unemployed

respondents were particularly exposed to discrimination

on more than one ground in comparison with employed

respondents,with21%oftheunemployedreporting

discrimination on more than one ground compared with

12%ofthosewhowereemployed.Hence,theresultsshow

that two indicators o social disadvantage namely, income

andemploymentstatusarereectedinrespondents

heightened exposure to discrimination across a range o

grounds. However, the analysis o results did not nd that a

low number o years in education is related to heightened

experience o discrimination across dierent grounds anding that is addressed later in the report.

These results indicate that certain sub-groups within the

minority groups surveyed in EU-MIDIS are vulnerable to

discrimination. It is these groups that are in particular need o

targeted policy interventions recognising their experiences

o multiple discrimination with respect to indicators o social

disadvantage, such as employment status and income.

Figure6

EUMIDIS guds disimiti m thse wh hd bee disimited ist mutie uds,st 12 mths (%)

Male

Female

EU-MIDIS question A2 (see Box 5)

Note: Does not sum up to 100 due to the possibility to indicate multiple grounds o discrimination by the respondent.


14/20

EUMIDIS

14

The previous section o this Data in Focus report looked

at the experience o discrimination on more than one

ground. This part ocuses on discrimination, as respondents

perceived it, on the single ground o ethnic/immigrant origin

in nine areas o everyday lie rom looking or work to

rentinganapartmentwithrespecttorespondentspersonal

characteristics such as gender and age. In this way, ndings

rom EU-MIDIS concerning discrimination on the single

ground o ethnic minority or immigrant origin are explored

in relation to heightened exposure to discrimination8 on

the basis o gender and age. Hence, the ndings can be

tentatively explored as proxy indicators with respect to

multiple discrimination.

With regard to the nine areas o everyday lie asked about

in EU-MIDIS (see p. 7) in relation to discrimination on the

single ground o ethnic minority or immigrant background,

the results indicate that overall men experience more

instances o discrimination than women over a 12-month

period. Conversely, among those respondents who indicated

they did not experience discrimination on any o the grounds

asked about in the last 12 months (zero discrimination

experiences) there are more women than men (a dierence

o about ve percentage points) (Figure 7).

ExpErIEncE oF DIScrIMInaTIon on THE

SInglE groUnD oF ETHnIc/IMMIgranT

orIgIn WITH rESpEcT To SElEcTED

rESponDEnT cHaracTErISTIcS

Figure 7

gede difeees i eeiee disimiti the ud ethi/immitii difeet es disimiti sked but i EUMIDIS, st 12 mths sue esdets (%)

EU-MIDIS questions CA2-CI2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of areas where discriminated against

0

40

20

60

80

100

Male

Female

8 Heightened exposure to discrimination is measured here as the number o areas, o the nine tested, where the respondent was discriminated against.While high incidence o discrimination across the nine areas o everyday lie could be the result o repeat discrimination by one person or organisation, the

numberofareasofdiscriminationrangingfrom0(=nodiscrimination)and1(=discriminatedagainstononeofthenineareasinthepast12months)

to9(=discriminatedagainstatleastonceinallofthenineareasinthepast12months)indicateshowvariedandpervasivediscriminationis.


15/20


15

Figure 7 reveals a clear pattern: or every increase in the

number o dierent areas where a discriminatory incident

onthebasisofarespondentsethnicminority/immigrant

background occurs, the share o men generally increases

while the proportion o women decreases. Among those

most vulnerable to discrimination, namely those who

reported being discriminated against in two or more areas,

around55%andaboveweremen.Oneofthepossible

explanations or this pattern, which has been reerred to

earlier in the report, is that men are more likely to be seeking

paid employment or to be in paid employment, while

womenaremorelikelytotakeuptheroleofhomemaker.

The role o homemaker means that women are not exposed

to discrimination to the same extent as men in two o the

nine areas asked about looking or work and at work

which, taken together as discrimination in relation to

employment, represented the eld where discrimination was

most oten reported in the survey by respondents. Thereore,

the nding that men are more exposed to discrimination

on the grounds o ethnicity/immigrant origin has to be

interpreted with respect to the impact that gendered roles

can have on exposure to discriminatory treatment. Taking

the two areas o discrimination related to employment

out o the analysis when looking or work and when at

work results in a slight reduction in dierences in reported

discrimination between men and women.

Also, when looking at Figure 7, it needs to be kept in mind

that the number o those who experienced what they

considered to be discrimination on the basis o their ethnic

minority or immigrant background in ve or more areas

isverysmallthatis,only2%oftheEU-MIDISsample

experienced this level o discrimination. In this regard,

the experience o men and women is more similar with

respecttolessfrequentorlessextremeexperiencesof

discrimination in a 12-month period.

When looking at the age o respondents reporting

discrimination on the basis o ethnicity/immigrant origin or

the dierent areas o everyday lie asked about, a pattern

o heightened exposure to discrimination emerges among

younger respondents. Figure 8 shows that younger people,

namelythoseinagecategories16-24and25-34years,

generally experience higher levels o discrimination in

relation to one or two areas. Overall, respondents aged 50

years and over experience the lowest levels o discrimination

on the basis o their ethnicity/immigrant origin; or

example,82%ofthoseaged50yearsandoverexperienced

no discrimination in the last 12 months on the basis o

ethnicity/immigrantorigin,whereas36%ofthoseaged

16-24yearsand34%ofthoseaged25-34yearsexperienced

discrimination.

This pattern with respect to age and decreased exposure

to discrimination in the last 12 months holds true when the

data is looked at with respect to dierent aggregate groups.

Again, this result as with gender is likely to reect the act

that people are less likely to be looking or work or to be in

work as they get older, and thereore are eectively excluded

rom questions relating to discrimination on the basis o

looking or work or being in work. Yet, i a question had

been asked about exposure to discriminatory treatment on

the basis o ethnic minority or immigrant origin during the

course o several years or a lietime, it would have likely been

the case that older respondents would have reported much

higher levels o discrimination.

Notably, the ndings reported in Figure 8 would seem

to present the inverse o the current emphasis on

discriminatory treatment in relation to age, which tends to

focusonolderpeoplesexposuretoagediscriminationin

relation to employment as well as other areas. However, this

current emphasis tends notto look at the intersection o age

with other grounds o discrimination, such as ethnicity or

immigrant origin.


16/20

EUMIDIS

16

9 FRA (2010) Experience o discrimination, social marginalisation and violence: a comparative study o Muslim and non-Muslim youth in three EU Member States ,Luxembourg: Publications Ofce. The report looks at the experiences o Muslim and non-Muslim youth (aged 12-18 years) in France, Spain and the UK in

relation to experiences o social marginalisation and racism, and in relation to a sense o social isolation and support or and involvement in violence; see:

ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/attachments/Pub-racism-marginalisation_en.pd.

10 See FRA EU-MIDIS Data in Focus report on Rights Awareness and Equality Bodies (2010).

In this regard, as might be expected, the EU-MIDIS ndings

in consideration o older respondents do indicate that they

reportageasagroundofdiscriminationmorethanyounger

respondents. Namely: among the respondents who said

they were discriminated against in the past 12 months on

one or more grounds, age was identied as a ground or

discriminationby29%ofrespondentswhowere50years

oldorolder,comparedwith8%ofrespondentsinthe25-34agegroup(11%of16-24yearoldsand12%of35-49year

olds who had been discriminated against mentioned age

as a ground or discrimination). However, the results rom

EU-MIDIS show that younger ethnic minority and immigrant

groups are reporting higher levels o discriminatory

treatment on the basis o ethnicity/immigrant origin. These

general ndings warrant closer inspection with respect to

the relationship between discrimination on the ground o

ethnicity/immigrant origin and discrimination in relation

to age. Heightened exposure to discriminatory treatment

on the basis o ethnicity/immigrant origin among young or

younger second and third generation immigrants, or among

established minority groups, is a worrying sign with respect

tothesegroupslong-termprospectsforsocialintegration

into mainstream society.9

In addition to looking at discrimination on the ground

o ethnicity/immigrant origin in relation to gender and

age,indicatorsmeasuringrespondentssocio-economic

position can be looked at to better understand vulnerability

to discrimination on the ground o ethnicity/immigrant

origin.Inthisregard,thesurveyresultsshowthat57%

o respondents who experienced discrimination in ve

or more areas o everyday lie come rom what can be

described as a low income household (lowest income

quartile in their country). Furthermore, o the respondents

who did not experience discrimination on the grounds

ofethnicorimmigrantorigin,only9%wereunemployed

incomparisonwith59%ofthoseinpaidemployment.

Thereore, and supporting the earlier analysis with respect

to socio-economic background and exposure to multiple

discrimination, it can be concluded that economicvulnerability goes hand in hand with experience o

discrimination on the basis o ethnic/immigrant origin.

In contrast, ethnic minority and immigrant respondents with

more years o education tend to be over-represented among

those who said that they were discriminated against in one

or more areas o everyday lie. This nding would appear to

be counter-intuitive in relation to the act that unemployed

respondents and those on lower incomes are also reporting

high levels o discrimination. A possible explanation could lie

with the act that respondents with more years o education

are more likely to be integrated into mainstream society:

or example, through employment in occupations that are

typically held by the majority population and thereore

they are more exposed to discriminatory experiences than

those who are socially isolated rom the majority population.

Alternatively, it could be the case that more educated people

are more likely to be aware o their rights with respect to

non-discrimination,10 and also that ethnic minorities and

immigrants are under-employed as regards the qualications

they have and the jobs they are in. However as noted in

Box 3 these explanations cannot be tested urther, given

that the survey did not ask respondents about the kind o job

they had.

Figure 8

ae difeees i eeiee disimiti the ud ethi/immit ii difeetes disimiti sked but i EUMIDIS, m thse wh hd bee disimited ist ithe st 12 mths (%)

EU-MIDIS questions CA2-CI2

1 2 3

Number of areas where discriminated against

4 5+

16-24

25-34

35-49

50+

0

5

10

15

20


17/20


17

Bearinginmindthisreportsgeneralndingsonethnic

minorityandimmigrantgroupsheightenedexposureto

multiple discrimination, relative to the majority population in

EU Member States, the ollowing points are orwarded:

Policiesaimedatcombatingdiscriminationshould

recognise the interplay between dierent grounds

o discrimination in order to highlight and eectively

address the phenomenon o multiple discrimination.

Theconceptofmultiplediscriminationcouldbe

dened and introduced into legislation that sets out to

address discrimination that can occur on more than one

ground.

Eectivecomplaintsproceduresshouldbemade

available to deal with situations o multiple

discrimination. In particular, legal procedures should

ensure that a victim o multiple discrimination can

lodge a single complaint encompassing more than

one ground o discrimination in a single procedure,

ideally beore a single body. Avoiding overly complex

complaints mechanisms is particularly important in

consideration o certain minority groups such as

recent immigrants who may have limited knowledge

o the respective systems in a country or lodging

discrimination complaints.

Aspeoplewithanethnicminorityorimmigrant

background appear to be more vulnerable to

discrimination on single and multiple grounds than

the majority population policy responses that aim

to address discrimination on the basis o actors such

as gender or age should mainstream ethnicity and

immigrant origin into any accompanying programmes.

Dataneedstobecollectedabouttheextentandnature

o multiple discrimination that can be used as evidence

in the ormulation o policies addressing discrimination.

Such data collection needs to capture discrimination

that occurs on dierent grounds against the individual

or group, and in relation to the same incident or

incidents.

Inormation should be collected and disaggregated

or all grounds o discrimination. It should also be

combined with data collection on background

respondent variables which can be made anonymous

or statistical purposes that serve to highlight patterns

o discrimination.

Non-governmentalorganisationsthatworktohighlight

and respond to the undamental rights situation o

particular vulnerable ethnic minority and immigrant

groups should be encouraged to look at the interplay

o dierent grounds o discrimination on the groups

they serve. In this way, their work can more eectively

address discrimination on more than one ground.

EqualityBodiesthataddressmultiplegroundsof

discrimination are to be encouraged in their work

to record and address maniestations o multiple

discrimination.

USIng THESE rESUlTS

Belgium BE

Bulgaria BG

Czech Republic CZ

Denmark DKGermany DE

Estonia EE

Ireland IE

Greece EL

Spain ES

France FR

Italy IT

Cyprus CY

Latvia LVLithuania LT

Luxembourg LU

Hungary HU

Malta MT

Netherlands NL

Austria AT

Poland PL

Portugal PT

Romania ROSlovenia SI

Slovakia SK

Finland FI

Sweden SE

United Kingdom UK

abbeitis used EU Membe Sttes


18/20

EUMIDIS

18


19/20

Eue Ui ae Fudmet rihts

Schwarzenbergplatz 111040 - Wien

Austria

Tel.: +43 (0)1 580 30 - 0

Fax:+43(0)158030-691Email: [email protected]

ra.europa.eu

EUMIDIS

Eue Ui Miities d Disimiti Sue

Dt i Fus ret 5:

Mutie Disimiti

Design:redhotncool,Vienna

2011 - 20 pp, - 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN-13:978-92-9192-661-9TK-30-10-694-EN-C

DOI: 10.2811/95159

A great deal o inormation on the European Union Agency or Fundamental Rights is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the FRA website (ra.europa.eu).

European Union Agency or Fundamental Rights, 2010

Reproduction is authorised, except or commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

For any use or reproduction o photos contained herein, permission must be sought directly rom the copyright holder.

Thisreportaddressesmattersrelatedtonon-discrimination(Article21)fallingunderChapterIIIEqualityofthe

Charter o Fundamental Rights o the European Union.

Jiri Moucka / iStockphoto


20/20

Visit:

fra.europa.eu/eu-md

sEE ALsO:

EU-MIDIS Main Results ReportEU-MIDIS at a glance

Data In Focus 1: The RomaData In Focus 2: MuslimsData In Focus 3: Rights Awareness

and Equality BodiesData In Focus 4: Police Stops and

Minorities

TECHNICAL REPORT (ON-LINE)

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (ON-LINE)

TK-30-10-694-EN-C

9 7 89 2 91 9 26 61 9

report 2010 multiple discrimination in europe

Documents