Living Together: European Citizenship against Racism and Xenophobia Dissemination of the results of the project 16 June 2010 This project is supported by the European Commission DG Justice, Freedom and Security, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme (2007-2013) Living Together Partners Project Co-ordinator ◦ OBERAXE, the Spanish Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Participating countries ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Spain Portugal Finland The Netherlands Sweden Ireland Statutory bodies, universities, NGOs Living Together Aim Promote European discourse of tolerance recognition free from harmony of racism and and respect difference xenophobia See UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance Living Together Objectives Focus Groups Best Practice Expert Forum • Analyse and identify prejudices, stereotypes, fears • How are racist attitudes generated and legitimised? • Compile best practice • Identify strategies to fight racism and xenophobia • Identify common principles and actions to address racism and xenophobia - Decalogue • Audience – various social agents / experts • Develop transnational monitoring mechanism Network Living Together Methodology Developed by Complutense University of Madrid and Rotterdam University Focus groups Best practice reports National expert forums Living Together Methodology Focus groups Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain 3 focus groups per country FG1 • Upper middle social status FG2 • Young middlemiddle social status - 18-25 yrs FG3 • Lower middle social status Drawback – funding constraints dictated the number of focus groups Living Together Methodology Focus groups Moderation style - conversational 3 phrases to stimulate discussion ◦ Skin colour is of great importance for living together ◦ Both immigrants and ethnic minorities get more (from the country they live in) than they give ◦ Both immigrants and ethnic minorities should maintain their identity and culture of origin Highlights – Focus Groups Sociodemographic profiles Key influences positions on immigrants and ethnic minorities Experience of living together social desirability bias Feelings of competition jobs and public benefits Reflective arguments to neutralise cultural criticism Class racism General tolerance Social context of economic crisis Good and bad experiences impact attitudes FG3 Pros and cons of immigration FG2 FG1 Highlights – Focus Groups Social context of economic crisis Feelings of competition and discrimination Experiences of difficulties living together Highlights – Focus Groups Skin colour • Matters in society (Sweden, Finland, Netherlands) • More about socio-economic status (Portugal, Spain) • Stereotyping – associate skin colour with cultural and religious values. Media plays a role in this context. Get more than they give • Give: economic, cultural and demographic contributions acknowledged • Get: public subsidies, unemployment benefit, housing, jobs Should keep identity and culture • Greater cultural tolerance shown by young people and adults with higher education especially in Sweden and Finland. Highlights – Focus Groups • Negative Discourses • Negative Arguments • Positive Discourses e.g. invasion, damage labour, cultural imposition, anti-social behaviour, reverse discrimination e.g. immigration necessary, human rights, discrimination, cultural wealth contribution e.g. control immigration, abusive & unskilled, immigration, lazy e.g. Necessary immigration, equal rights, citizens, over-qualified, stereotyped • Positive arguments Highlights – Focus Groups Country comparisons Class racism more prevalent in Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands More admissions of racism in Spain and Portugal based on experiences and perceptions Social desirability bias more prevalent across all focus groups in Sweden – less visible racism Discourse of resentment present across all focus groups in Spain – possibly linked to collective memory pre-welfare state Living Together Methodology Choosing best practice 1. 2. 3. 4. Demonstrable effects / tangible impacts Creative / innovative Sustainable Potential for replication Must meet at least criteria 1 and 4 above Based on UNESCO’s International Migration Best Practice Project Living Together Methodology Choosing best practice – other criteria Geographical big city Entity public Private town Timescale Project Type education completed by 2008 improving intercultural tolerance and dialogue social service housing NGO rural Area other employment sport etc Highlights – Best Practice Area – education, sport, legal, employment, public administration etc. Type – awareness raising, tackling racism, cultural mediation, youth, arts, living together, interculturalism and religion etc. Website – http://livingtogether.oberaxe.es/livingtogether/ Living Together Methodology Purpose of expert forums - to provide a basis for the preparation of the Decalogue – i.e. Identify common principles and actions to address racism and xenophobia National expert forums responded to findings from focus groups In the absence of focus groups Ireland’s national expert forum addressed the theme ‘tackling racism and the impact of racist stereotypes’. Living Together Methodology National expert forums to include: 1 - capital city 2 - university / research centre 2 - NGOs 1 - national / regional public administration 1 - business sector 1 - media 1 - trade union 1 - opposition political party Highlights – Expert Forums Finland • More recent change in negative public debate noted Sweden • Discourse of ‘individual tolerance’ explained by political correctness in Swedish society • Expert forum reflected on examples of racism and discrimination in Sweden in practice Spain • Reflection on positive and negative arguments • Context provided by economic crisis noted Ireland • Focus on monitoring, media and best practice as tools to address racism Portugal • Chinese identified as best integrated and Roma the most discriminated Outcome - Decalogue 1. Identify principles on which best practices should be based 5. Foster the mass media role in promoting respect for cultures and in recognising diversity 3. Document and monitor racism and xenophobia 2. Name and recognise all forms of racism and xenophobia as problems 4. Identify effective legal remedies, policy actions, educational programmes and best practice Outcome - Decalogue 8. Promote principles of respect and dialogue, perceiving cultural diversity as enriching 6. Recognise immigrants’ economic, social and cultural contribution 7. Design public services taking into consideration the needs of society 10. Perceive migration as a universal phenomenon and the reflective argument 9. Move from stereotypes to ‘Living Together’ Outcome – Develop Network Warning system to monitor racism and xenophobia Information will be communicated and managed by OBERAXE (Spain) via website Aim – highlight racism and share information Member organisations can provide information – must identify themsevles OBERAXE will verify information Members can be public, private, NGO, media organisations who join the network Further information ...... Website – http://livingtogether.oberaxe.es/livingtoget her/ Comments and Feedback? In general? In relation to the Decalogue? In relation to the network to monitor racism and xenophobia?