What if...?

Opinion publiée sur la plateforme New Europe, le jour des élections européennes, le 25 mai 2014, où je tente d'explorer quelques futurs possibles de l'UE et la façon dont les gouvernants anticipent (ou pas!) une montée de la violence envers les minorités. Les questions resteront d'actualité pendant quelques temps encore.

Good governance is essentially about risk management, where all potential scenarios are mapped out and all options are taken into account, including total disaster. But what if it was about protecting ethnic minorities from a worst-case scenario?

ENAR – The European Network Against Racism, along with many other Human Rights organisations, has been drawing attention for many years to the dangers generated by the rise of far-right and xenophobic parties and affiliated groups in Europe. Dangers for the communities we support and defend: migrants as well as ethnic and religious minorities are among their primary targets – Roma in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Romania, but also UK and France; Black Europeans in Bulgaria, Poland; Jews in Hungary and Lithuania; Muslims in Germany, France… to name but a few.

Dangers for other minority communities such as LGBTQI, notably in Lithuania, but also for over half of our population: women. Beyond elusive discourses, many far-right parties support regressive measures with regard to women’s rights, such as bans on abortion, as is the case in France.

Dangers for the whole society: their toxic rhetoric has been adopted to various degrees by mainstream political parties, both on the right and left, trivializing their ideas and their approach, while the far-right has shamelessly plundered key leftist concepts. This has led to increasingly restrictive policies on migration, family reunification, citizenship acquisition; to delays in the implementation of anti-discrimination policies and rejection of any new legislation in the field; and to systemic resistance to even starting to make full equality a reality for communities facing discrimination such as the Roma.

Worryingly, far-right representation in the new European Parliament is set to increase. In particular if they become smart enough to go beyond their bigoted nationalism to constitute a political group that would be entitled to receive public money and to chair decision making committees. What if a far-right or neo-populist rightist advocate was to chair the civil liberties committee, in charge of all fundamental rights issues? Although s/he would probably face a majority opposition which would not let him/her go wild, this would considerably slow down any decision making process.

We are asking democratic political parties: what is your plan B if this scenario happens? We have many reasons to be concerned by the lack of reaction to far-right based toxic ideologies that we have noticed over the last 13 years. Can we still expect a European uproar similar to that which followed the election of Austrian far-right Jörg Haider in 2000 and led to the adoption of EU anti-discrimination legislation? The weak reactions to Jobbik’s recent strong performance in the national Hungarian elections are not particularly encouraging in this regard.

But much grimmer scenarios could be in store. Despite European institutions’ ecstatic state at the view of a few bleeps on the radar of growth, serious analysts that dare go beyond narrow ideological approaches keep ringing the alarm bells. The financial and economic crisis is not yet over – on the contrary, the worst might still lie ahead of us. What if there was an implosion of the Eurozone and a return to national currencies? What if there was massive social unrest due to the increasing impact of austerity measures over time – the break up point will be reached in Greece sooner or later? What if, following a Eurozone crash, there was a disorganised dismantlement of the EU under the pressure of Member States keen to quit the drowning boat – many Member States would have good reasons to do so, starting with Germany? In UK, the conversation has already started with Mr. Cameron’s promise to hold a referendum on the issue in 2015, should his party be re-elected. 

These scenarios are no longer mere fantasies. Anti-racists also have a tradition of looking into the past to draw lessons and inspirations for the future. Let’s be very blunt: European States have never been able to manage such a large scale crisis in the past. Last time something similar happened, millions of Jews, Roma, homosexuals and other so-called “Untermenschen” were massively exterminated. Scary perspective.

Lessons, indeed, have been drawn from this tragedy: a Human Rights framework, the European Union, social democracies. But this was a posteriori, when the damage had irreversibly been done. Twenty years ago, the genocide of Bosniacs barely triggered a consistent response from the EU. It happened not in an exotic place, but 2 hours flight away from Brussels, in what might turn out to become an EU Member State in a matter of years. 

What was the EU institutions’ response to the widespread racism faced by former Italian Minister Cécile Kyenge? It took months and 18 Ministers of the Interior to give birth to a shallow “European Pact against racism” without means nor teeth. Pure political and declaratory “blabla” without any intention of being implemented, the Pact will be buried under the dust of the European election campaign.

This leaves us little optimism on the protection that migrants and minority communities would receive from the EU and Member States in case of a system breakdown, a return to nation states and national currencies, in the midst of all the troubled political waters that this entails. Therefore, in this election period where minorities might hold the casting vote in many constituencies, we want to hear from EP candidates, but also their governments: How are you going to protect us in case things turn bad? We represent 12% of the people living in the EU, we are a key part of the social fabric and one of the driving forces of the European economy. We want to hear from you how you are going to protect us from sectarian, bigoted racist violence when everything breaks loose!

Disponible ici.

Breaking through the rising tide of conservatism in Europe

Opinion publiée le 5 mai 2014, sur la plateforme Euractiv, en collaboration avec ma collègue Evelyne Paradis, directrice de ILGA-Europe, dans le cadre des élections européennes du 25 mai 2014. Nous soulignons comment la vague conservatrice actuelle frappe tant les minorités ethniques & religieuses que les minorités en matière d'orientation sexuelle.

Looking at the state of public discourses and political debates in European countries today, there are indeed many reasons to be concerned with candidates feeding on fears and frustrations to win votes, write Evelyne Paradis and Michael Privot, whose organisations joined forces to push an all-out equality agenda through the EU election campaign.

Evelyne Paradis (ILGA-Europe) and Michael Privot (ENAR)

 Evelyne Paradis is Executive Director of the European LGBTI association (ILGA-Europe), and Michael Privot is Director of the European Network Against Racism (ENAR).

What does a migrant worker in Greece have in common with a gay man in Lithuania today? What does a woman wearing a veil in Belgium have in common with a woman advocating for reproductive rights in Spain? And what do these four people have in common? The answer is a lot.

For they all find themselves at the crossfire in political battles between politicians feeding on fears, frustrations and disillusionment in the population to win votes, and elected officials desperate to hold on to old simplistic ways as they grapple with the complexities of our modern democratic societies. This is why it is more important than ever for citizens to engage to make sure political leaders stand up for the fundamental principles of equality, freedom and dignity.

Looking at the state of public discourses and political debates in European countries today, there are indeed many reasons to be concerned. Human rights organisations like ours are seeing how the progress achieved by the anti-racist and LGBTI equality movements has been capped by a conservative tide in a very short time period.  And this is not limited to the traditional extreme-right corners, but widely shared throughout the political spectrum.

Over the past decade, a specific cultural racism made its way into societal debates under the guise of human rights, in particular a claim for unrestricted freedom of speech and gender equality, with the barely hidden subtitle “Islam”, implying that Muslims are against freedom of speech and gender equality. But this wild drive for unrestricted freedom of speech has extended much beyond the mere criticism of religion: anti-Roma speech and violence have been steadily on the rise. The same goes for Afrophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-migrant discourses, actions and sometimes policies. Obviously, a growing breach occurred in the post-WWII consensus that racist speech and violence have no place in truly democratic societies. 

When it comes to human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people, it is easy to think that it is just a matter of time before all European countries fully recognise equality for LGBTI people across society. But the fierce opposition to the French marriage equality bill or the positive result of the Croatian referendum on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage in 2013 challenged this assumption that the road to LGBTI equality is a linear one. Especially as we witness the emergence of a constellation of groups who, under the guise of protecting values, family and traditions, directly oppose equality for LGBTI people and for women, and in essence, equality in its various forms. In short, all movements that have been crucial to the progress of equality in all walks of life, for all individuals in Europe, are facing a thickening wall of defiance and rejection, which is strong enough to consider our demands as “political correctness gone mad” and is not ashamed of promoting discrimination as making good business sense.

So is it possible that the presumed “progressiveness” of our Western societies infused by values of human rights and dignity for all is just a thin varnish? Have we been complacent in assuming that the tenants of democratic life are well enshrined in our societies? Or have we been too naïve in failing to recognise that those who have been holding power for so long feel threatened by our complex and heterogeneous European societies? The answer is not simple. But what is clear is that we are now paying for the failure of progressive decision makers, over the past decades, to articulate a vision of how we can live in dignity together in democratic and diverse societies. 

Overcoming 30 years of reluctance or resignation from progressives will not happen overnight. But we have to start from somewhere. At a time of growing social and political polarisation of European societies, it is more important than ever to place social justice, dignity and equality at the core of political debates and agenda.

This is why we, at ILGA-Europe and ENAR, are joining forces to push an all-out equality agenda through the EP election campaign. The main democratic European parties have endorsed our pledge to not use homophobic and xenophobic language during the campaign and many candidates are supporting our respective demands for stronger EU action on equality over the next five years. It is the politics of the small steps, with at its core direct engagement of people living in Europe and solidarity with each other. For we firmly believe that the tide will only be reversed by greater civic engagement, and by groups like ours uniting to stand up for an alternative vision of society, a vision of a Europe of justice, equality and dignity for all.

Read more about the campaigns at: www.ilga-europe.org  and www.enar-eu.org

Disponible ici.

Racism: troubling truths

Opinion publiée sur le site OpenSecurity (sous OpenDemocracy), le 22 mars 2014, dans le cadre de la journée internationale contre le racisme.

Fighting racism in Europe is not easy when Europe has two hands tied behind its back—debilitated by neo-liberal policies on the one hand and the securitisation of minorities on the other.

Fifty-four years ago, on March 21st, 69 black demonstrators were massacred in Sharpeville, South Africa. They were demonstrating for equality—they got bullets in return. The date has been declared International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in recognition of the harmful impact of racism, and the violence it legitimises, on those targeted on the basis of visible characteristics of difference. We know racism kills but how far is the insecurity of minorities taken on board?

Insecurity is multi-faceted. The quest for security, and against precariousness, can be conceived anthropologically: human survival has been a struggle to bring stability to existence. Human beings settled and started farming to escape the insecurity of hunter-gathering. They flocked into fortified cities to reduce the insecurity of nomadic or rural life. They invented laws to protect themselves from the insecurity generated by the whims of tyrants and other arbitrary power-holders. Some imagined gods and goddesses to reassure themselves about the Hereafter at least. This struggle against all forms of insecurity has of course increased in complexity, parallel to social development, but efforts at repelling insecurity have been an historical constant.

After World War II Europe was home to the last two major attempts to further public security: in Western Europe via welfare states linked to a degree of redistribution; in Eastern Europe, Russia included, through state appropriation of the means of production with significant redistribution. Both aimed to provide stability for the longer term, with linear career development, assured progress for dependants and general improvement of living conditions. Tremendous progress was made: universal access to health services, improved housing conditions, access to tertiary education for up to 35-40% of the population … Until the 70s, narratives on both sides of the Iron Curtain were highlighting the post-war leap forward by European societies.

Neo-liberal policies

By the early 80s, in Western Europe, neo-liberal policies had gained currency among decision-makers and were on their way to comprising a hegemonic narrative. Some social-democrat leaders, converging in social and economic policies with conservatives and liberals, shifted the terrain to cultural values to differentiate themselves. They thereby opened a broad avenue to far-right and other chauvinist movements, whose core focus is identity politics. (Their social and economic stands, beyond the nativism of “national preference” in employment, are deeply neo-liberal: less “state”, less solidarity and less redistribution but lots of high-octane exclusivist rhetoric.) Since this unfortunate shift in social-democrat politics, the far right and the populists have been on a rising curve and have made electoral gains.

Identity politics, which zoomed in on migration and, as a corollary, on the ethno-cultural and religious aspects of identities, meshed very well with neo-liberal ideology. Counter to the development of mankind over recent millennia, this actively promotes insecurity as a way of life. As a former chair of the French business association MEDEF put it, if life and love are precarious, why should it be otherwise in employment? She was echoing in euphemistic fashion the extreme Thatcherite assault in the UK on trade unions, which would knock down workers’ solidarity in preserving the social acquis for decades to follow.

After 30 years of such politics, with various levels of violence and ensuing popular demobilisation, the insecurity of most Europeans West and East after the fall of the Wall has soared to alarming levels which have severely affected public well-being. Yet the mainstream discourse on security does not address the primary economic, social and existential insecurity generated by neo-liberal policies: the dismantling of states’ obligations with regard to welfare and in sustaining demand, the weakening of workers’ status amid a race to the bottom within EU states and social dumping between them, extensive white collar fraud and tax evasion—estimated at two trillion euro a year in the EU—and so on. All this against the background noise of the incapacity of political decision-makers, faced with ‘the markets’, to bring any progressive paradigm to bear on the deteriorating reality Europeans experience. One in four is sunk in poverty, while the next quartile just breathes with its nose above the waterline, fingers crossed that nothing bad happens before the end of the month.

Unequal protection

The insecurity about which we are constantly informed is rather linked to living conditions in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural neighbourhoods (subtext: “there is a white flight from this area”, “these people don’t want to integrate and live in their ghettoes”), where there is petty street crime (read: by “Roma”, “Arabs”, “Pakistanis” …) and where religious practices are visible in the public space (“Muslims are testing the boundaries of the Republic”). Such narratives about insecurity, or more precisely the feeling of insecurity,[1] address only the purported threats posed by minorities to the well-being of the “historical” majority in any given place.

Among these communities, a feeling of being besieged, without access to protection from the authorities or redress in the face of violence, has been growing steadily over the past decade.

Thus “ghettoes” do not spring from a desire by members of minorities to find themselves together—sometimes at the expense of an increased social control which they had sought to leave behind—but are the result of the failure of the majority to ensure equal protection of minority individuals. When political discourses drive only towards heavier policing, control and securitisation of minorities (for the implicit protection of the majority), they do not in any way protect minorities from violence by members of the majority—one of whose most salient aspects is violence by unaccountable police forces.[2]

Absent from such discourses, including in the mainstream media, is any recognition of the need to protect ethnic-minority individuals from violence in majority neighbourhoods, as a key security concern endangering peaceful coexistence. Such violence is recorded as discrete “racist incidents”—as if the victim were merely unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time—rather than perceived as symptomatic of a lack of protection of minorities in the context of specific discriminatory patterns.

A similar logic is at work in “counter-terrorism”: the stress is on the insecurity supposedly generated by Muslim populations towards majorities and their institutions. Little is said and done to protect members of minorities from organised violence themselves. Thus in the National Socialist Underground case in Germany obsession with the securitisation of Muslim communities diverted resources within the police, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the judiciary from monitoring and controlling extreme-right groups and the threat they represent to ethnic and religious minorities right across Europe—in particular Roma, Muslim and Jewish communities. Since “9/11” such groups have been implicitly considered a low-security threat for the white majority, while the risk they constitute to migrants and other minority members has been completely overlooked.

Among these communities, a feeling of being besieged, without access to protection from the authorities or redress in the face of violence, has been growing steadily over the past decade. In many Eastern countries, the frequent failure of the courts to take into account the racist motivation of crimes committed against Roma has reinforced this sense of insecurity and lack of support from the state—especially when the authorities have been keen to prosecute criminal acts or misdemeanours committed by Roma themselves.

Collective well-being

The “race” factor plays at more than one level in narratives of insecurity. It provides useful diversion from the purposefully organised insecurity deployed to put pressure on workforces and avoid claims for stronger redistribution. And it legitimises systematic discrimination in security policies targeting specific minority groups while failing to protect minorities from majority violence. Racism and related discrimination will only be dealt with consistently if they are inserted in the broader social and economic conversation, applying the right policy levers to decrease their impact.

The bulk of responsibility ultimately lies with the majority when it comes to bringing change which will protect minorities. Instead of blaming minorities for their lack of integration, legitimising increased securitisation, the EU and the member states should turn the tables, recognising—including in terms of cost-effectiveness—that it would be much better to protect equally members of minorities and majorities, to play down tensions in society and move towards inclusion of all. It is about equality, solidarity and, ultimately, our collective well-being.

---

[1] Some interesting studies have been conducted which put the “feeling of insecurity” into perspective, being much higher than the actual insecurity as revealed by police reports of the incidence of crime and studies of victimisation (see, for example, research by the King Baudouin Foundation in Belgium:http://www.kbs-frb.be/publication.aspx?id=294891&langtype=2060).

[2] See among others the Open Society report on ethnic profiling in Europe (www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/ethnic-profiling-european-union-pervasive-ineffective-and-discriminatory), the work of Stopwatch (www.stop-watch.org/) and the observatory of police violence in Belgium (www.obspol.be/).

Disponible ici.

Trade unions must do more to tackle racial discrimination in Europe's job market

Opinion publiée le 21 mars 2014 sur le site Equal Times, proche des syndicats européens, sur la discrimination raciale dans l'emploi et le rôle des syndicats dans ce domaine.

Today we are celebrating the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Unfortunately, from an anti-discrimination and equality perspective, there is not much to celebrate.

It will not come as a surprise that for Black people, Roma, Muslims and migrants from non-EU countries living in Europe, discrimination continues to be a major obstacle when looking for a job and even once in employment.

For women with a minority or migrant background, it’s even worse. This is evident in the European Network Against Racism (ENAR)’s latest Shadow Report on racism and discrimination in employment in Europe.

The ongoing financial and economic crisis which Europe has been facing for the last six years, coupled with the lack of social investment, has not made the situation any better.

It has worsened discrimination against minorities and migrants and increased the employment gap between the latter and the majority population.

African migrants in Spain are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to people from the majority population.

In Finland and Belgium, unemployment rates are three times higher for people born outside the EU than for the native-born population – irrespective of their qualifications.

Migrants and minorities face discrimination when they’re applying for jobs, for instance when the selection is on the basis of names and addresses or when recruitment agencies adopt discriminatory practices.

For example, in the United Kingdom, people with foreign sounding names are a third less likely to be shortlisted for jobs than people with white British sounding names.

Even once they are in a job, ethnic and religious minorities continue to face unequal treatment. Lower wages, glass ceilings, precarious and difficult working conditions, harassment, abuse and dismissals are just some of its manifestations.

In Hungary for instance, wages paid to Roma are lower than the Hungarian minimum wage. In Austria, people with a Turkish background earn 20 per cent less that their Austrian colleagues without a migrant background. In Poland, migrant workers are often forced to work overtime under the threat of dismissal.

These discriminatory practices occur despite the existence of EU legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment.

Regrettably, these laws are not always as efficient as they should be. As a result, many victims of discrimination are left unprotected.

Trade unions

The picture is not all bleak, however. Efforts are being made by institutions and organisations – including trade unions – to tackle this reality.

Trade union best practices include: initiatives to raise awareness regarding discrimination and racism in employment; training for union members on discrimination; adoption of diversity policies in the frame of social dialogue; and initiatives focusing on migrants.

For instance, BECTU, the media and entertainment union in the UK, has been holding networking events for their members, enabling them to meet and make proposals to company representatives.

Since 2003 they have set up over 5,400 individual personal contacts between approximately 1,800 black and minority ethnic professionals and 730 top film and broadcasting executives.

However, this remains a niche development, far from providing solutions to the majority of ethnic minority workers and migrants left on the side of the road of wealth generation.

In addition, in some countries, the level of involvement of trade unions in combating racial discrimination is low, including in the Czech Republic, Finland, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands and Poland.

It is vital that trade unions take ethnic and religious minority workers into account in their work, by developing internal strategies to support delegates in addressing discrimination within trade union structures and affiliates, for example, and in supporting victims of discrimination in the workplace.

It would be timely to reflect with trade unions on why many of them have faced internal resistance to addressing racism and related discrimination in their constituencies.

Analysts have highlighted the evolution of different curves within the labour market, the broader economy and the internal life of trade unions which could explain part of the difficulty trade unions have had in addressing racial inequality at the same level as gender or age inequality.

The rise of identity politics, and corollary racist discourses and policies in society, have coincided with the hegemonic rise of neo-liberal policies which have put a heavy strain on trade unions.

In northern Europe, during the period of economic boom that followed the Second World War, trade unions were much more involved in supporting migrant workers at a time when the issue of racial and religious discrimination in employment was not really on the agenda.

And it’s precisely when those issues increasingly came to the fore that trade unions were forced to go on the defensive with regard to the protection of workers.

While anti-discrimination was mainstreamed in European policy approaches, trade unions were in a more difficult position to push for this agenda internally as it is easier to push for accommodating different workers’ needs in a time of nearly full employment, than when unemployment rates are soaring to around 20 per cent of the working age population.

As a result, trade unions have not been in a strong position to put pressure on employers and policy makers to face their responsibilities in opening up European workforces to diversity.

Political courage

Still, it is not the responsibility of civil society alone to uphold equality.

States across Europe need to show political courage to tackle discrimination in employment.

For instance, they should establish standards on labour inspection, geared towards improving the detection of ethnic and religious discrimination in the workplace, and ensure that labour market regulations respect the “equal status and equal pay for equal work” principle and that all workers (nationals, EU migrants and non-EU migrants) enjoy equal treatment.

It’s time politicians take discrimination seriously, especially in view of the upcoming European elections.

Indeed, unemployment remains the main concern of Europeans and access to quality work will be a high priority among voters – including those with a minority or migrant background, who make up about 12 per cent of the European population.

Politicians should realise that allowing millions of people to be discriminated and excluded from jobs results in a huge waste of talents and skills, ultimately affecting the well-being of all people living in Europe.

Trade unions, in light of their long tradition of fighting for equality in employment and capacity for mobilization, also have a key role to play in making politicians understand that 60 million ethnically diverse Europeans deserve justice and jobs, together with their majority population comrades.

TAGS: WORK • PEOPLE AND POWER • DISCRIMINATION • EQUALITY • HUMAN RIGHTS • RACISM • EU

Disponible ici.

Racism is rife in the workplace right across Europe

Opinion publiée le 17 mars 2014 sur la plateforme Policy Review, à la veille du la journée internationale contre le racisme (21 mars 2014), faisant le lien entre le rapport alternatif d'ENAR sur le racisme dans l'emploi et les choix politiques que cela implique.

African migrants in Spain are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to people from the majority population while in Finland and Belgium, unemployment rates are three times higher for people born outside the EU than for the native-born population – irrespective of their qualifications – writes Michaël Privot

At the end of this week, we will be celebrating the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Unfortunately, from an anti-discrimination and equality perspective, there is not much to celebrate. It will not come as a surprise that for Black people, Roma, Muslims and migrants from non-European Union countries living in Europe discrimination continues to be a major obstacle when looking for a job and even once in employment. For women with a minority or migrant background, it is even worse.

The ongoing financial and economic crisis, which Europe has been facing for the last six years, coupled with the lack of social investment, has not made the situation any better. It has worsened discrimination against minorities and migrants, and increased the employment gap between the latter and the majority population. African migrants in Spain are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to people from the majority population. In Finland and Belgium, unemployment rates are three times higher for people born outside the EU than for the native-born population – irrespective of their qualifications.

Migrants and minorities face discrimination when they are applying for jobs. For instance, when the selection is on the basis of names and addresses or when recruitment agencies adopt discriminatory practices. For example, in the United Kingdom, people with foreign sounding names are a third less likely to be shortlisted for jobs than people with white British sounding names. In the Netherlands, more than half of recruitment agencies complied with a request not to introduce Moroccan, Turkish or Surinamese candidates.

Even once they are in a job, ethnic and religious minorities continue to face unequal treatment. Lower wages, the glass ceiling, precarious and difficult working conditions, harassment and abusive dismissal are just some of the manifestations. In Hungary for example, wages paid to Roma are lower than the Hungarian minimum wage. In Poland, migrant workers are often forced to work overtime under the threat of dismissal.

These discriminatory practices occur despite the existence of EU legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment. Regrettably, these laws are not always as efficient as they should be. As a result, many victims of discrimination are left unprotected.

States across Europe lack the political will to tackle discrimination in employment despite the fact that it is widespread across Europe. It is time politicians took this issue seriously, especially in view of the upcoming European elections. Indeed, unemployment remains the main concern for citizens and access to quality work will be a high priority among voters – including those with a minority or migrant background, who make up about 12 per cent of the European population.

Are there solutions? Yes but they take some political courage as it is about splitting the cake differently to ensure everybody – black and white alike – has access to the benefits of growth. European countries have never been so wealthy in their whole history. In Belgium alone with its 11.5 million inhabitants, private savings accounts soared effortlessly from €245bn to €251bn over the last year. For now, the cursor has been tilted towards massive accumulation of capital – not towards productive and sustainable investment in the economy. This would, however, improve living standards and conditions for all citizens including migrants and ethnic and religious minorities – by the very fact that realising equality in employment would become a business imperative.

A concrete step in the right direction would be to collect equality data to measure racial and religious discrimination in employment, as systematically as we do with gender and age. We know that if we are not counted, we do not count. Without the numbers, how can policy makers monitor the effectiveness of anti-discrimination policies? States also need to establish standards on labour inspection, geared towards improving the detection of ethnic and religious discrimination in the workplace – and to ensure that labour market regulations respect the ‘equal status and equal pay for equal work’ principle so that all workers – nationals, EU migrants and non-EU migrants – enjoy equal treatment.

Finally, non-governmental organisations working on the ground with victims of discrimination need to have sufficient financial resources so that they can collect complaints on discrimination and better support victims seeking legal help. Discrimination in employment is an issue for 60 million Europeans belonging to ethnic and religious minorities. Estimates forecast that addressing discrimination in employment could improve gross domestic product growth. Politicians can no longer turn a blind eye to the fact that allowing millions of people to be discriminated and excluded from jobs results in a huge waste of talents, skills and wealth; ultimately affecting the wellbeing of all people living across the continent.

Michaël Privot is director of the European Network Against Racism, a network of local and national non-governmental organisations. Follow the organisation on Twitter@ENAREurope 

Disponible ici.