RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE NETHERLANDS
Pages 16 to 35 of: human Rights in the Netherlands – Annual Status Report 2013
Introduction
2013 may well enter history as the year in which the Dutch talked about racial discrimination more than ever before. The discussions in the media revealed great differences of opinion on what discrimination on the ground of race and racism actually is. This was made very clear by a number of incidents. While some thought they were being humorous by making a joke about someone’s origins or the colour of their skin, others found that this was absolutely unacceptable in the year 2013. Many not only found this in bad taste or insulting, but also thought this was no less than racism. The jokers were either bewildered because they thought that they, as non-racists, didn’t make racist jokes or felt deeply insulted by the accusation that they were racists. The discussions about Black Pete weren’t new, but were more intense than ever before. Some think of him as a traditional and amusing friend of children, whilst others think of him as a painful reference to the Netherlands’ colonial past and a negative stereotyping of black people.
Is racism widespread in the Netherlands? Is racial discrimination common? Or are things actually not that bad? And what do we actually mean by discrimination? On which mechanisms is racial discrimination based? These questions cannot be answered without first reviewing the nature of the – continuing – debate on racism and racial discrimination in the Netherlands, as well as the forms of its manifestation.
For this reason, this Section begins with a review and then continues with a discussion of what will need to be done to combat discrimination in view of the obligations imposed on the Netherlands pursuant to Dutch law and human rights conventions.
The course of the debate
Reports stating that racial discrimination is a problem in the Netherlands initiated discussions
The debate about racial discrimination in the Netherlands began following a number of occurrences in 2013, including the report on the Netherlands published by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) in October 2013. The ECRI identified racial discrimination in various situations including the labour market, education, the police, the admissions policy of places of entertainment and the political arena. The ECRI issued a series of recommendations to the Dutch government which included the recommendation that a national strategy be formulated to combat racial discrimination. At about the same time, Amnesty International concluded in a report on proactive police actions that (translated from the original Dutch) ‘the practice of ethnic profiling by police in the Netherlands goes beyond the level of isolated incidents.’ In the same period the debate on Black Pete as a racist stereotype also became more intense. In addition, a number of incidents also took place in front of the nation’s eyes that could also be classified as racist.
Defensive reactions
An examination of the reactions and dynamism in this period reveals, in the first instance, a striking characteristic of the reactions: these are usually defensive, deny that there is a problem, or are occasionally complacent. Various politicians stated that they could not identify themselves in the ECRI’s findings, that they did not take the conclusions very seriously and noted, in passing, that the Council of Europe would do better to focus on really urgent problems. The National Ombudsman was one of the few to respond without equivocation: ‘The political tide in the Netherlands is racist. I’m not talking about one party, but about the atmosphere in The Hague. It’s against foreigners.’ The National Ombudsman is of the opinion that a racist attitude has become widespread in the Netherlands and that the political parties are often averse to any criticism of racism. “The political class believes itself to be untouchable. An impression has emerged that the climate in The Hague is one of ‘anything goes’. Criticism is not accepted.”
The tenor of the reactions to the Amnesty International report on ethnic profiling was also one of denial. In his weblog the Chief Constable, Mr Bouman, of the National Police Force wrote that he ‘fundamentally disagrees with the suggestion that the police is structurally and increasingly engaged in ethnic profiling’. He draws attention to the need for a balance between intuition and knowledge of the facts, which is very much an issue when a specific ethnic group is overrepresented in offences of a specific type. However, he does not comment on the statements made by a number of police officers and former officers of non-Dutch origins. They relate how they, outside of their working hours and in plain clothes, were regularly stopped in their car and without any reason whatsoever by their colleagues who then requested them to furnish ID and treated them in an ‘insolent and unfriendly manner.’ In his answer to questions raised in the House of Representatives of the States-General, the Ministry of Security and Justice stated that the Amnesty International report refers to ethnic profiling by the police but does not demonstrate any ‘structural discriminatory profiling’. He awaits the findings from the study of this subject being carried out by Leiden University.
Fierce discussion about Black Pete
This years’ discussion about Black Pete as a racist phenomenon was fiercer and more widespread than in previous years. The media published interviews with proponents and opponents of abolition, and could count on torrents of abuse or historical arguments intended to prove that each speaker was right. A group of indigenous Dutch citizens organised a petition and held a demonstration in The Hague for the retention of Black Pete.
The Black Pete controversy polarised the discussion on racism in the Netherlands. The discussions on TV and in the social and other media increasingly took a ‘them and us’ attitude. Many who cherish the traditional Dutch feast of St. Nicholas saw nothing wrong with Black Pete and thought that coloured Dutch citizens were complaining about discrimination that simply wasn’t there. Those who drew attention to Black Pete’s portrayal of a racist stereotype – with or without a colonial background – that can be a nuisance to black citizens, thought that white Dutch citizens who did not want to change anything were being racist and callous.
Attention from the foreign media
This phase of the debate also drew the attention of the foreign media and academics, who then reviewed the situation. In his article in the Trouw daily newspaper, James Kennedy, a US historian who lives in the Netherlands, noted that the concept of the Dutch Black Pete character is inconceivable in the USA. This is also true for the insensitive reactions towards people who feel offended by the Black Pete character, Jan-Willem Duyvendak, a Dutch sociologist, reported from the USA [1]. The rejection and ridiculing of hurt feelings caused a great deal of surprise outside the Netherlands. The Chair of the UN working group investigating the position of persons of African descent awkwardly became involved in the Black Pete debate in the Dutch media, when she put the fat in the fire by commenting that ‘one Santa Claus should be enough’. Many Dutch felt offended: the feast of St Nicholas is a fun and innocent festivity for children which is rooted in Dutch cultural tradition – and it includes Black Pete.
The Government adopted an aloof attitude and kept a distance. The Dutch Prime Minister, Mr Rutte, simply remarked that ‘Black Pete is black’, whilst Minister Ms Bussemaker stated that the public, not politicians, will need to resolve the Black Pete issue.
Incidents
Humberto Tan and Gordon
Denial and an inability to empathise with the feelings of others were also demonstrated in the responses to two incidents that took place in December 2013. In addition to the comment a TV presenter made about Humberto Tan, who was called ‘not only dark- skinned, but also stupid’, Dutch singer Gordon asked a man of Chinese origin who was taking part in a talent show: ‘So, Chinese takeaway, which one are you going to sing, Number 39 with rice?’ Criticism was warded off with the explanation that these were jokes and were not be meant to be racist, so they weren’t racist. However, these incidents loaded an extra dimension on the dynamics of the current discussions on racism. Didn’t this reveal the blatant racism of white Dutch citizens, which was repeatedly denied and played down? Or, conversely, didn’t this show that some people see discrimination all around them that simply doesn’t exist? Various persons of Chinese origin submitted a complaint to the
Amsterdam Discrimination Reporting Centre, which the reporting centre noted was unique. Gordon’s fellow member of the jury, who was of US origins, called on him to account for the insult, but the broadcasting company saw no reason to attach consequences to Gordon’s behaviour. The foreign media, especially the US media, were completely stunned by and highly indignant about the situation on Dutch TV.
About ‘a darky (nigger)’
An incident around the turn of the year appeared to bring about a change in the discussions. A candidate applying for a job at an electronics company accidentally received a copy of an internal e-mail which stated that he had been rejected, primarily because he is ‘a darky (nigger).’ This e-mail was published on Facebook. Denial was not an option: the evidence was there, in black and white. This resulted in a great deal of indignation amongst both the indigenous and ethnic groups in Dutch society. Minister Mr Asscher publicly denounced this manifestation of racial discrimination. The sender of the message also went into hiding after being threatened. After the incident was reported, at the end of February 2014 the Public Prosecution Service decided to prosecute the sender for discrimination on the grounds of race. The Public Prosecution Service will also prosecute the person who threatened the sender of the e-mail.
About ‘fewer Moroccans’
Condemnation was also apparent in the reactions to statements made by the leader of the Party of Freedom (PVV), Geert Wilders, during a meeting in the evening of 19th March 2014, the day on which the municipal elections were held. Mr Wilders encouraged his public to chant that ‘fewer Moroccans’ should be in the Netherlands and then promised ‘We’ll arrange that.’ The general public and many politicians held that his incitement and statements discriminated against a specific segment of the population and, as a result, crossed a line. A number of members of the States-General and members of the Government, including the leader of the Democrats 66 (D66), Mr Pechtold, and the Prime Minister, Mr Rutte, were extremely critical of Mr Wilders’ remarks. In a formal statement on behalf of the Government the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Asscher, explicitly condemned these remarks. Several members of the House of Representatives of the States-General, members of the provincial council and members of the European Parliament for the PVV left the party. There was also a great deal of consternation within the two local PVV departments. The discussion is far from over, as the Public Prosecution Service has yet to decide whether it will respond to the many reports it has received by prosecuting Mr Wilders for his statements. Mr Wilders stated – alongside many of his supporters – that he saw no problems whatsoever with his remarks.
Harassed out of Duindorp
Later in the year, in April 2014, the news that residents of the Duindorp district in The Hague systematically harassed ethnic residents out of their homes caused a great deal of consternation. Newcomers were threatened, the windows of their homes were smashed and racist messages were scrawled on walls. Pigs heads were also hung up to insult Muslims. Mr Marcouch, Member of the House of Representatives of the States-General for the Labour Party (PvdA) asked questions in the House. He had visited the district and had spoken to people who were openly racist towards him. ‘Although they were prepared to talk, they simply repeated that this was their country and that foreigners didn’t belong here,’ Mr Marcouch said to the NOS TV News. ‘If they come here, then they’re asking for it,’ he was told. The mayor of The Hague and the Minister of Security and Justice referred to was racism that would be dealt with severely. The housing association stated that this harassment was unacceptable.
Interpretation of the debate
Denial of racial discrimination
In 2013, the suggestion that racial discrimination is an issue was met with reactions of disbelief, indignation and – and above all – denial. The potentially discriminatory nature of the conduct of government officials such as police officers was denied, jokes about ethnic groups were not regarded as being racist and, moreover, both Black Pete as a racial stereotype and – more in general – the possibility that there are structural forms of discrimination in the Netherlands were also denied. This gives rise to an important question: What is the cause of these defensive, denying reactions?
At the beginning of 2014, a number of Dutch social scientists published a volume on Dutch racism [2]. They concluded that ‘Dutch racism is a complex, paradoxical and contested phenomenon.’ [3] They regard the taboo on referring to racism and the denial of racial discrimination as a typical Dutch phenomenon. One of the authors of the book, Philomena Essed, illustrated this during the presentation of the book with the observation that even Dutch social scientists try to avoid the use of ‘racism’ and prefer ‘intolerance’.
The book’s authors agree that denial and evasion are consistent elements of the Dutch debate on racism. They offer a number of explanations for this. Some are of the opinion that the denial of racism is associated with the taboo on the racialization of blacks, whilst others hold that this denial is based on the Dutch associating discrimination with ‘racial characteristics’ of Jews and the Holocaust.
Racism refers to the entirety of ideas that people can be classified into a type, in the societal sense of the term, on the basis of their physical characteristics or their origins. Unfavourable characteristics are then assigned to this ‘type’. ‘Race’ in the biological sense is not, as such, a societal category. ‘Race’ in a societal sense is nothing more than a racist category. ‘Race’ as employed in this sense serves as a system of classification that is used to interpret differences between individuals, assign a meaning to these differences and then used to implement or confirm a hierarchical ranking of groups.
Positive self-image and taboo on racial discrimination
The aforementioned theories can be of assistance in understanding the Dutch racism debate. Reproaches of racial discrimination would appear to invoke resistance because this is at odds with the positive self-image that the majority of the – indigenous – public have of the Netherlands: a tolerant, model country with tolerant citizens which calls other countries to account for their discrimination and violations of human rights. Terms such as ‘racial discrimination’ and ‘racism’ as used in the racism debate are not compatible with this positive self-image and, consequently, are held to be too intemperate and insufficiently neutral.
The great societal taboo on racial discrimination also plays a role: its objectionable nature is widely accepted as self-explanatory to such an extent that individuals who are called to account for potentially racist comments almost automatically go into denial – as do the members of the general, indigenous, public. With this combination of non-neutral terms
and the taboo on racial discrimination people readily feel offended and insulted and, consequently, feel that their reputation and integrity have been tarnished. This is not a good starting point for a substantive discussion or an open dialogue on the prevention of discrimination. Moreover, this does not incite these people to stop and think about their actions and decide whether they are actually engaged in discrimination even though this is not their intention.
White victimisation
Foreign social scientific studies of societal developments in the post-colonial period reveal that the ‘denial of racism’ by whites is often linked to another rhetorical figure – the claims of ‘white innocence and victimisation’. This then refers to the good will and intentions of whites who perceive themselves, not coloured persons, as victims of racism.
According to the literature, this feeling of victimisation is a response to the loss of privileges that whites used to enjoy, such as privileged positions in access to education and the labour market. Claiming ‘white victimisation’ [4] can then result to the assignment of the responsibility for the discrimination of blacks to the blacks themselves, a phenomenon that is referred to as ‘blaming the victim’.
The authors of the Dutch Racism book are all of the opinion that the combination of denial and ‘white victimisation’ is a typical Dutch reaction. They explain that the indigenous Dutch regard themselves as victims of their tolerance now that migrants exhibit ‘ungratefulness’ and are beginning to impose requirements rather than adjusting themselves. This could explain why the indigenous Dutch are not inclined to regard themselves as racists or being guilty of discrimination. Moreover, the idea that the Dutch of foreign origin also exhibit little tolerance and commit offences, oppress women and use violence against homosexuals can also contribute to this feeling of ‘innocent indigenous citizens’ with respect to racism.
Irrespective of whether this is or is not typically Dutch, the white victimisation phenomenon certainly plays a role alongside denial in the Dutch discussions, as is revealed by a number of reactions in the Black Pete debate. The director of the public broadcasting corporation refused the request to organise the arrival procession of St. Nicholas without Black Pete, saying: ‘That’s their problem’. Indigenous Dutch submitted a complaint about discrimination to an anti-discrimination agency: they felt themselves victims and ignored, as the feast of St Nicholas — including Black Pete — is part of the Dutch cultural tradition. ‘They can’t take this away from us just like that, it’s ours’.
Nativism
Nativism is a special form of victimisation which is based on the concept that the rights of the original residents — the natives — are stronger than those of newcomers simply because they are older rights. This is, for example, manifested when people think that migrants are given preferential treatment in the allocation of housing, or in migrants finding jobs whilst indigenous Dutch are unemployed. The aforementioned statement of the residents of the Duindorp district in The Hague is also a good example of this concept: ‘This is our country, and foreigners don’t belong here in The Hague.’
Dutch sociologist Jan Willem Duyvendak also perceives nativism in the discussions about Black Pete. The complaints that indigenous Dutch citizens lodged with an anti- discrimination agency in response to the proposal to abolish Black Pete reveals that for
them, the say and emotions of the indigenous Dutch with respect to this tradition count for more than those of other Dutch citizens. In his article in opinion magazine De Groene Amsterdammer, Jan Willem Duyvendak refers to the paradox that people of Surinamese origin are — and against their will — part of a national St. Nicholas tradition but are not allowed to join in on the discussion.
Guises of racism and racial discrimination
Is there a greater taboo on black racism?
The debate on racism caused by Black Pete became fiercer when it shifted to discrimination of persons with a darker-coloured skin, also referred to as ‘black racism’. This increased ferocity would appear to be related to the greater societal taboo on stereotyping and discrimination on the grounds of physical characteristics such as skin colour, curly hair and full lips. This invokes associations with colonialism, the slavery history of the Netherlands and the apartheid of the former apartheid regime in South Africa.
Cultural racism
In recent decades, the Netherlands devoted relatively little attention to racial discrimination on the grounds of physical characteristics. This was due to the great deal of attention given to Dutch citizens of Turkish and Moroccan origins. Discrimination against them usually involves their religion and ethnic or national origins rather than their skin colour. The reproach and lack of understanding of these citizens then relates to them not sharing Western standards and values, their unfamiliarity with the concept of the separation of church and state and to their wearing a headscarf as an expression of their belief. As discrimination against these groups relates primarily to their culture rather than to their appearance, this is also referred to as ‘cultural racism’. What are referred to as ‘cultural differences’ are then regarded as absolutes and, notwithstanding the suggestion of the equality of cultures, the cultures are ranked.
Taboo on ‘black racism’ would appear to be greater
The taboo on discrimination by skin colour and other physical characteristics would appear to be greater than the taboo on discrimination by ethnic or national origins or by religion. In the debate on the integration of residents of Turkish or Moroccan origins in Dutch society, standard practice was to explicitly relate the problems of or with these groups to their ethnic origins and religion. This debate is conducted more openly, and on occasion whole groups of the population are simply classified as troublemakers without any reticence whatsoever.
Both forms of discrimination would appear to share the common factor of origin. This is also manifested in the statutory definition of discrimination on the ground of ‘race’ which, alongside physical characteristics such as skin colour, also encompasses ethnic and national origin. The potentially greater taboo on ‘black racism’ does not imply that other forms of racism do not occur or are less serious (for example, ‘white racism’).
On racism and racial discrimination
Unintended discrimination is also discrimination…
A study carried out by The Hague University of Applied Sciences that the Institute published in 2009, revealed differences of opinion as to what discrimination actually is. Many of the lecturers and students of non-Dutch origins felt themselves discriminated against. Their definition of discrimination referred to the effect: they felt that they were, or occasionally were, ignored, excluded and treated less advantageously than others. They thereby assumed that the lecturers and students of Dutch origin did not discriminate intentionally. The lecturers and students in the last group felt unjustifiably accused of discrimination: they had not discriminated intentionally, so it wasn’t discrimination.
The authors of Dutch Racism draw attention to the tendency of the Dutch to adopt a narrow definition of discrimination: a statement is racist only when ‘it is expressed with the clear intention to injure and to reflect ideological convictions.’ The Institute has observed this same attitude amongst employers who are alleged to have committed discrimination: when they appear at hearings of the Institute, their statements reveal that they do not recognise themselves at all in their classification as ‘culprits’ or ‘perpetrators’ – because they had not intended to discriminate. However, intentions are of no relevance to establishing whether discrimination is an issue in the meaning of the General Equal Treatment Act. This is also the essence of the definitions in international conventions. Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that racial discrimination means any distinction that nullifies or impairs the equal exercising of human rights.
… as is acting according to stereotyping
Although open discrimination does occur, it is not very frequent. As discrimination is often concealed, it is difficult to prove. Studies reveal that more subtle forms of discrimination are often based on subconscious stereotypes. This stereotyping is based on subconscious associations between groups and characteristics, such as ‘Romani’ and ‘thieves’, ‘Moroccans’ and ‘nuisance’ or ‘Dutch’ and ‘blunt’. Not all stereotype concepts are harmful as such: they become harmful only when people cause disadvantage or exclude groups and individuals on the basis of these negative stereotypes. This is discrimination, even when it is subconscious and unintentional.
The Annual Integration Report 2013 of the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP) noted the following on the role of discrimination in the labour market: ‘(negative) images of migrant groups influence decisions about individual job-seekers from those groups. (…) Selection decisions are not ethnically neutral; prejudices play a role.’ The interpretation of the stereotype of Black Pete, the roguish and simple servant of a white master, in terms of a racist stereotype can then – usually subconsciously – result in discrimination against people with a dark coloured skin.
Everyone can have racist concepts without being aware of them. These can in turn result in discriminatory actions or behaviour: although this does not, as such, make the person a racist, the person does discriminate. Self-evidently, people can also make intentional use of negative racist stereotypes in deliberate and intentional discrimination.
Racial discrimination exists, but not everywhere and all the time
Racial discrimination is serious, complex and difficult to prove. This is also evident from the Institute’s practice when hearing individual requests for an opinion on the grounds of the Equal Treatment Act. For this reason, figures on the frequency of discrimination need to be treated with caution. The statement that discrimination is always there, as posited by some, is not tenable – but nor is the converse, ‘we do not discriminate’. Racist stereotypes always play some form of role, although this does not necessarily result in discrimination: people may have stereotypes in their mind but not act in accordance with them. Moreover, when people of non-Dutch origins experience a distinction or a disadvantage this does not always constitute racial discrimination: nor do women who experience a disadvantage always suffer from a distinction on the basis of gender or do Muslims always experience deprivation on the basis of religious discrimination. This is because people are more than just their race, gender and religion, and are also called to account for other elements of their identity.
As indicated earlier, most discrimination is not based on racist or discriminatory intent, but rather on subconscious associations. As this stereotyping is subconscious, this readily results in denial – and even denial of actually having stereotypical ideas. It will be a major step forwards to recognize that although discrimination is often subconscious, unintended and unforeseen and, as a result is difficult to establish, it nevertheless is discrimination. When we are aware of how racial stereotyping works we can do something about it. Denial keeps racial discrimination alive.
It is time that everyone expressly recognises that discrimination on the grounds of race occurs in many situations and in many guises in the Netherlands. This is not only applicable to the highest levels of government and the political arena: it is also applicable to labour relations, residential areas and districts, and people celebrating the feast of St. Nicholas. It will then also be necessary to make sure that feelings of deprivation are not ignored.
And now?
From the recognition of racial discrimination to responsibility for human rights
As the US judge Sonia Sotomayor said, ‘We ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.’ Racial discrimination is a persistent and universal problem that has been the subject of international agreements between states for many decades. The Netherlands enacted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1972. All human rights conventions confirm that everyone has the right to enjoy all the human rights guaranteed by that convention on an equal footing and that discrimination on the grounds of race is prohibited. In the first instance, this might sound like a statement of the obvious: self- evidently, everyone has the right to all human rights. However, in practice discrimination is that which blocks access to human rights. For example, customs officers at an airport may not only select people with a dark skin or non-Western appearance for body searches. This would not only be discriminating as such, but would also be an infringement of physical integrity. Not receiving an invitation for a job interview because of your surname is an infringement of the right to work. When children are bullied at school because of their origins, and consequently drop out, then their right to an education is put in jeopardy.
Therefore, the necessary measures need to be implemented to guarantee all human rights to everyone. The right to an education gives cause to the need for more measures at school. Projects to combat bullying at school need to devote specific attention to children who are bullied because of the colour of their skin to ensure that they also feel safe at school. The human rights framework then contributes to the assessment of a problem and selection of the appropriate solution. Measures that combat discrimination also materialise the right to an education.
Human rights conventions impose the obligation to implement categories of measures including the following:
- – the formulation of adequate legislation and its enforcement;
- – the implementation of a package of policy and other measures that contribute to compliance with human rights in practice;
- – the enhancement of the awareness of what discrimination is and its consequences;
- – the implementation of measures to tackle the structural causes of discrimination. The following examples serve to illustrate these requirements. Existing statutory measures The Netherlands has implemented a broad range of statutory measures to combat discrimination. The Equal Treatment Act prohibits discrimination at work, in education and when offering goods and services. The Netherlands has implemented a good statutory framework with a number of low threshold options for the submission of complaints about discrimination. Complaints can be submitted with municipal discrimination reporting centres, with the Institute in the form of requests for an opinion, and with the police for forms of discrimination that are punishable under the Dutch Penal Code. The Government must guarantee the rights of all persons… The authorities must consistently and repeatedly make clear that racial discrimination is unacceptable. This begins with the tone of the political debate. Self-evidently, politicians
are offered ample scope to express their political convictions and to adopt a position – and, in fierce debates, to seek the limits of the acceptable. However, the authorities are under the obligation to respond to the lopsided political imaging of specific groups of citizens in debates by endeavouring to restore the balance. An excessively passive attitude of members of the Government towards discrimination in politics standardises and legitimises discrimination and racism in society. This is at odds with the Government’s guarantee to the rights of all residents. Members of the Government should, for example, avoid the use of terms such as ‘Moroccan problems’ or ‘Antillean problems’: the use of terms of this nature results in a generalisation that is conducive to the societal deprivation of all persons with these origins – and, moreover, these persons are Dutch citizens.
… including in debates with a racist component
The authorities also bear a responsibility for societal debates on various issues with a racist component. A government prohibition on Black Pete will not resolve the conflict. However, as promoting a respectful national dialogue with the intention of fostering mutual understanding of the manner in which different groups in Dutch society perceive this tradition and endeavouring to accommodate the concerns of everyone can help resolve the conflict, this is one of the responsibilities of the authorities. It is then of relevance that both policy-makers and the general public realise that the manner in which citizens –both ethnic and indigenous – experience statements, behaviour and decisions as forms of societal deprivation is in part based on unequal balances of power.
Demanding rights for yourself and for others
The formulators of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights anticipated situations in which the rights of some could be in conflict with the rights of others. Article 29, paragraph 2, states that: ‘In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.’ The very first declaration of human rights proclaimed on Dutch territory also embodied this same concept. Article 3 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1795, included an explanation of the manner in which people should exercise their freedom rights (translated from the original Dutch), “‘Liberty consists of everyone being able to do anything that does not harm the rights of others, whereby the natural limitation of this ability is embodied in the statement: ‘Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you’.”
Increase awareness and promote expertise
A review of the debate and its interpretation established that denial of the existence of racial discrimination is part of the problem. For this reason, both the general public and people who could be confronted with discrimination during the course of their profession need to increase their awareness of potential discrimination and, more specifically, of that which constitutes discrimination. People need to be made aware that they may unintentionally be perpetrating discrimination. They must, in particular, be made to appreciate that subconscious negative stereotyping plays a role in almost everyone’s thoughts and that the effects of stereotyping need to be combated. The Institute also has a duty to perform in this respect [5].
Address the causes of discrimination
Complaint mechanisms are indispensable for many reasons, including their importance in the prevention of discrimination in the future. However, they are not sufficient for addressing the structural causes of discrimination. It has been established that – conscious and subconscious – stereotype concepts play an important role in causing discriminatory actions. Although little can be done to tackle these – often persistent – stereotypes in the near future, it is possible to address their consequences. For this reason the authorities need to implement measures designed to convince those in the sectors in which the negative consequences are manifested of the problem and, ultimately, eliminate those consequences. The organisation of, for example, recruitment and selection procedures requires initiatives on the part of employers – and on the part of the authorities, who supervise the banishment of discrimination in practice. Promoting the expertise of professional groups can also make a contribution to increasing their awareness of the role and effects of stereotype concepts and the consequences these can have in practice.
Providing information and increasing awareness can combat the indigenous population’s resistance to granting newcomers the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled to only a limited extent. It is also necessary to break through unequal balances of power. The weaker social and economic position of people of non-Dutch origins is an important factor that in part forms the basis of discrimination. Enhancing their position can then also make a contribution to combating discrimination.
In conclusion
2013 was a year of fierce discussions on racial discrimination. Feelings ran particularly high about Black Pete. However, the debate did yield some results. The stories of those who feel hurt by the figure of Black Pete have been heard: they have been able to explain what it means for them to be confronted yearly with a caricature of themselves. This has also resulted in comprehensive discussions on the St. Nicholas tradition as such, the role Black Pete plays and the significance of this cultural tradition for the Netherlands. These discussions then also extended to the discriminatory nature of other occurrences.
The cautious conclusion is that the Dutch have taken a step towards recognizing that racial discrimination also exists in the Netherlands. The authorities have on several occasions demonstrated that they bear a responsibility that extends much further than merely formulating legislation and organising appropriate report-and complaint procedures.
It is also clear that recognising the existence of racial discrimination is only the first step. The authorities need to continue to actively combat discrimination and provide assurances for human rights, without distinction, and all with the awareness that differences in economic or social positions jointly determine whether – and, if so, the extent to which – people experience specific statements and forms of behaviour as discrimination. Within the context of the existing situation, adjustments to an ‘unintended’ or ‘innocent’ occurrence – such as the arrival procession of St. Nicholas with Black Pete – can play a role of significance. The existing balances of power maintain differences in social and economic position. Breaking through this situation requires an approach which addresses all human rights – civil rights, political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. Participation and dialogue are preconditions that must be met for a society in which all its members really do enjoy all their human rights. Although the authorities will need to promote this dialogue and take the lead, everyone in the Netherlands will also have a role to play: they will need to listen to each other and have an understanding of each other’s standpoints. Simply wishing for a society without discrimination is not sufficient: it requires joint efforts.
References
- Jan Willem Duyvendak, in De Groene Amsterdammer, 7 November 2013.
- Philomena Essed & Isabel Hoving (Eds), Dutch Racism. Amsterdam, Rodopi, February 2014. The authors include Evelien Gans, Halleh Gorashi, Gloria Wekker and Pooyan Tamimi Arab.
- Philomena Essed & Isabel Hoving, ‘Innocence, Smug Ignorance, Resentment: An Introduction’. Dutch Racism, Amsterdam, Rodopi 2014.
- See Dutch Racism, 2014.
- Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, Selection without prejudice, 2014. www.mensenrechten.nl/selecteren
Download the file here:
https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/file/8d6243ec-8b3a-4044-bb33-a42cf71409fc.pdf