National Human Rights Institutions can be powerful vehicles for the promotion of human rights. This Featured Online Dialogue will focus on ways in which these mechanisms have utilized their mandates and resources to address issues of discrimination.
New Tactics is pleased to host these experienced resource practitioners from eight countries (more biographical information).
[Photo found on the City of Salem website.]
Table of Contents
The following table of contents was developed to make the dialogue easier to navigate. Important themes and different discussions have been highlighted for archival purposes and for new users.
Resources mentioned in the Dialogue can be found here.
Topics
- Human Rights Compliance Assessment Tool
- Engaging Civil Society and here
- Methods of Combating and Preventing Discrimination and here
- Mechanisms Available to Citizens and Organizations
- National Courts vs NHRIs
- Key Challenges and Success and here
- NGO Partnerships
- Issue of Discrimination and Institutions Mandates and here
- Key Discrimination Issues and Areas
- HIV/AIDS Discrimination
- Selection Procedure for Human Rights Institutions and here
- Using NHRI mechanisms for Addressing Discrimination Issues
Dear Nancy Pearson,
Thank you for mentioning our Human Rights Compliance Assessment tool (HRCA) and the free access Quick Check version as an example of how NHRIs can play a role as “convenors” engaging businesses in tackling discrimination issues. Feedback from companies, investment institutions and other users do indicate that the tool serves its function well in this regard. A Best Practice Guide to the Human Rights Compliance Assessment, published by the Dutch human rights organisation Aim for human Rights in collaboration with us, elaborates on the “convenor” role of the tool. The HRCA has been translated into several languages, including Chinese. You will find more on the abovementioned publications here: http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/020_project_publications.htm
We are in the process of developing a China-specific version of the HRCA Quick Check, which will highlight discrimination in relation to the huge group of migrant workers in China. This is part of the DIHR programme RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN CHINA, which is approaching discrimination issues from a range of angles.
Recently we issued a tool to help businesses operating in India assess their policies, procedures and performances with regard to the complex issue of discrimination of Dalit. You can find more on that at: https://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/ in the “Check List” scroll menu.
Moreover, we are setting up a global programme for capacity building of NHRIs in developing Human Rights & Business strategies. The role of NHRIs as “convenors” of multi-stakeholder engagement is the core. We currently are in the process of convening a NHRI working group on that now.
Kind regards,
I'm very excited to hear about the progress, growing usefulness and implementation of the Human Rights Compliance Assessment tool (HRCA). How wonderful that is now availalbe in different languages and countries.
This aspect of engaging with business on issues of discrimination can be a very important one. But I think that National Insititutions have the stature and recognition to provide that convenor role in wide variety of areas.
How are others leveraing this kind of "convenor" role in other areas of discrimination?
Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager
In what ways do National Human Rights Institutions
engage civil society in its work on discrimination issues? In what ways does civil society engage Institutions? In what ways can they enhance and provide mutual support to efforts dealing with discrimination?
Christine Jesseman, Senior Researcher/Coordinator: Human Rights and Business Special Programme
South African Human Rights Commission
In developing more effective responses and proactive programmes and projects the SAHRC places emphasis on strategic partnerships with non-governmental organisations, various civil society groups and international organisations in addition to activities with local and national government departments and institutions. Supporting the activities of other Chapter 9 Constitutional institutions is also vital.The organisational structure of the SAHRC, necessitated by its mandate, allows for interactions with a variety of different organisations with varying objectives. For example, our Education and Training Programme may interact with our Parliamentary Monitoring unit (PLLTBM), the Senior Researcher/ Co-ordinator for Children and the Information and Communications Programme to conduct a workshop or seminar on children’s rights issues. The programmes would co-operate in aspects of the planning and execution in working towards their specific strategic objectives, and draw in their network of stakeholders.Interacting directly with the public – with individuals – in a more responsive manner can be facilitated through public hearings, or through complaints formally lodged with our Legal Services Programme. The SAHRC also provides an open platform and a safe space for civil society in that our training centre can be used free of charge for seminars and events. We therefore hope to encourage and facilitate civil society interaction even where we are not the initiator.The SAHRC also views businesses as community stakeholders. Consequently, we engage businesses directly and through various umbrella organisations, and debate their role in the fulfilment of human rights on both the level of legislative monitoring and compliance as well as awareness and education concerning corporate social responsibility.
This is a great idea to provide a free gathering space for NGOs and other civll society to come together. Just having the space and, particularly the resources to pay for that space, is often a barrier to building better collaboration.
Does the SAHRC, or your unit, take a role in convening gatherings in that space to facilitate dialogue among different civil society actors that might be involved in a discrimination issue?
A "convenor" role taken on by National Institutions could provide a powerful motivating force.
For example, when you mentioned engaging businesses directly it made me think about the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) Business Project's work with Danish companies, labor unions, NGOs and government to develop the Human Rights Compliance Assessment tool. Although this tool covers more than discrimination issues, it may be very useful for assessing and preventing discrimination as it takes place in business practice. A quick check version of the HRCA tool is now available on-line.
For an easy-to-read tactic case study featuring the development of this tool and it's uses, read the New Tactics tactical notebook Human Rights and the Corporation: The development of the Human Rights Compliance Assessment - available for free download.
How and in what ways have your National Institutions used that unique status to be a "convener"?
Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager
Lisbeth Garly Andersen, Project Manager, National Department and Mads Holst, Human Rights and Business Department
Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), Denmark
Dear Nancy Pearson,Thank you for mentioning our Human Rights Compliance Assessment tool (HRCA) and the free access Quick Check version as an example of how NHRIs can play a role as “convenors” engaging businesses in tackling discrimination issues. Feedback from companies, investment institutions and other users do indicate that the tool serves its function well in this regard. A Best Practice Guide to the Human Rights Compliance Assessment, published by the Dutch human rights organisation Aim for human Rights in collaboration with us, elaborates on the “convenor” role of the tool. The HRCA has been translated into several languages, including Chinese. You will find more on the abovementioned publications here: http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/020_project_publications.htm We are in the process of developing a China-specific version of the HRCA Quick Check, which will highlight discrimination in relation to the huge group of migrant workers in China. This is part of the DIHR programme RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN CHINA, which is approaching discrimination issues from a range of angles.
Recently we issued a tool to help businesses operating in India assess their policies, procedures and performances with regard to the complex issue of discrimination of Dalit. You can find more on that at: https://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/ in the “Check List” scroll menu.Moreover, we are setting up a global programme for capacity building of NHRIs in developing Human Rights & Business strategies. The role of NHRIs as “convenors” of multi-stakeholder engagement is the core. We currently are in the process of convening a NHRI working group on that now.
At the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we are engaging civil society in our goal to prevent discrimination at different levels. As many of you may be aware, the Canadian Human Rights Act was studied by a Review panel a couple of years ago. This Review Panel made several recommendations to address the concerns expressed by civil society and other groups. As a result, the Canadian Human Rights Commission underwent a major realignment and review of its operations called the Quantum Project.
In a nutshell, Quantum was to bring about a shift in the Commission’s work - from a narrow complaint oriented focus to a broader approach aimed at "advancing equality for all in Canada and eliminating all forms of discrimination, including systemic discrimination."
Three main CHRC programs now support this vision:
1. The Human Rights Knowledge Development and Dissemination Program develops research, policies and legal analysis to foster understanding of , and compliance with the Employment Equity Act and the CHRA. The Program also provides leadership, support and tools both nationally and internationally. As far as this program goes, engagement with civil society is mainly done through consultations. The goal here is to support and stimulate constructive discussions with civil society to increase understanding of how human rights can be integrated into daily practice, as well as gathering intelligence of collective groups experience.
2. The Discrimination Prevention Program works with employers and other stakeholders on prevention and employment equity activities to prevent discriminatory behavior and ensure that there is reasonable progress in representation of the four designated group: Women, Persons with Disability, Aboriginal People and Members of Visible Minority Groups. Civil society are key players for this program in that they can help channel the CHRC efforts to work strategically with key organizations. In this regard, several NGOs and interest groups have been approached to comment and provide feedback on our educational material. Community bridging between employers and NGOs across Canada is now the way to connect and to exchange on common challenges.
3. The Human Rights Dispute Resolution Program works to resolve human rights disputes involving federally regulated employers, service providers and individuals and represents the Commission in public interest cases. The Program focuses on early intervention to settle disputes. Civil society are often representing complainants, sometimes even filing complaints on their behalf. The Commission is presently reaching out to them to hear their views on our processes and new approaches.
As you can appreciate, each of these programs offers different type of opportunities for civil society to engage with the Commission. Some options are perceived as less confrontational than others. This is why the new focus on community bringing seem to appeal to civil society and other prevention stakeholders.
Johanne Lelièvre for
Piero Narducci
Director
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Mrs. Huriye Aydemir Varisli, Legal Policy Officer, Complaints Committee for Ethnic Equal Treatment
Danish Institute for Human Rights
At the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) we have a very close collaboration and dialogue with the civil society.
After the implementation of the EU directives concerning equal treatment and the framework directive into Danish national law DIHR recognised a need for developing a national strategy to combat discrimination in all areas inside and outside the labour market. On the basis of this recognition DIHR started in 2003 to develop a national strategy to combat discrimination and a part of this strategy was to create the Equal Treatment Committee under DIHR's Council for Human Rights. The Equal Treatment Committee started functioning since 2003 and concists of representatives from 22 NGO's covering the areas of race and ethnicity, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion and belief. The national departement functions as the secretariet for the Equal Treatment Committee and anually they meet four times.
The aim with the Equal Treatment Committee is both to use the knowledge and experience the representatives of the different NGO's have in the area of discrimination in the work of DIHR as well as creating a platform where NGO's can come together to join force as well share knowledge, experience and good practice with each other and thus build up their competence.
In 2007 the Equal Treatment Committee held a conference with the outcome of a Consensus Decleration where each NGO represented signed under an action plan to combat discrimination with a follow up hearing at the Danish Parliament where members of parliament were present. This year DIHR is planning to arrange a follow up conference to discuss and look back at the impact of the concensus declaration in the work of the NGO's.
This is however one example of how DIHR engages the civil society in its work. The civil society and especially members of the Equal Treatment Committee are often used in dialogues and feed back faces when DIHR is preparing rapports on subjects of discrimination and equal treatment. The civil society is always invited and present at conferences and seminars held by DIHR.
DIHR is very concious of the importen role the civil society plays or has to play in the engagement and empowering of the rest of the society so DIHR focus on offering support and guidance when ever needed.
Huriye Aydemir Varisli
DIHR
Since 2003 Council for Human rights
Hi Huriye,
KNCHR is working on a similar strategy, as you have worked on, i was wondering, what are some of the challenges you faced in developing the strategy and in collaborating with CSO's and what measures did you put in place as an institution to deal with the challenges?
Christine Njeru, Human Rights Officer , Kenya National Commission on Human Rights
Maria Lourijsen, Policy Advisor
Equal Treatment Commission (CGB), Netherlands
John, at the moment the Dutch equal treatment commission is debating havilly on how to deal with, or firstly, get a grip on systemic discrimination. While in debates on how to deal for example with victimisation in cases concerning racial discrimination, or discrimination of homosexulas (both teachers as students in the field of education) we constantly come back to the question on what forms of discriminations there are, and what kind of mechanism trigger people to discriminate against others. Is this something the Canadian Human rights Commission did reserach on, or do you have some more background information for me?
Many thanks, Maria Lourijsen, m.lourijsen@cgb.nl
I am sure that there is an interesting story to be told about the decision to broaden the mission of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, both legally and institutionally. I wonder if you would be willing to elaborate more about that.
Institutions like the human rights commissions normally arise from a rising awareness of some deep social injustice but with conflicted views about how it should be addressed. The sense of urgency fuels the creation of the institution and the level of conflict places boundaries on the authority of the institution to act effectively. Modifying the mission of any governmental or semi-governmental entity must re-engage that dynamic. Admittedly, the threshold for change in each country may be different, but I believe that the basic dynamic will be similar.
So what changed in Canada or within Canadians’ perceptions about the problem or the Commission itself to allow this broadened mandate? Was the call for review and change led by members of the Commission, by political leaders, or by civil society? And were the forces favoring the broadened mandate also able to secure the appropriate authority and level of resources needed to make the differences that were envisioned?
It may be difficult for people within a national human rights institute to comment publicly about the external dynamics that support or hinder their work. But we cannot avoid thinking about it, for one result may be a strengthened mandate and another a weakened mandate. About five years ago, the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) had to mobilize civil society to defend an attempt by a small political party in the country to narrow its mandate and remove its leadership. Newspaper editorials were able to call on Danish values of fairness, as well as engage national pride by pointing out the leadership the nation provided to the world through their national institution. This and other efforts won the day in Parliament to preserve the DIHR; I understand that the mobilization within civil society and Danish political leadership actually led to strengthening the institution in mandate, resources, and national importance.
At the KNCHR we acknowledge that just as no man is an island, likewise no organization can effectively make a difference in society on its own. KNCHR therefore recognizes that involvement of civil society is paramount due to the uniqueness and expertise of the various civil society organizations. KNCHR engages civil society through
Collaborative work: The KNCHR is currently spearheading the compilation of a report on non-discrimination and equal treatment in Kenya. The report will among other issues identify the level of implementation by Kenya of existent legislation on non-discrimination as well as create awareness on how to deal with discrimination especially among various organizations and institutions working on issues on anti-discrimination. A committee has thus been established comprising of the KNCHR and members from different civil society organizations specializing on various grounds of discrimination including age, sexual orientation, disability, religion, women and children, to mention but a few.
KNCHR also collaborates with CSO's in lobbying government to ratify key international instruments and also enact domestic legislation that will further enhance the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment.
KNCHR also partners with CSO's in the organization of various workshops and seminars and in educating the public and members of other organizations and governmental institutions of the existence of laws catering for the plight of vulnerable groups such as the disabled.
Referral: One of the departments at KNCHR is involved in receiving complaints from members of the public, whose rights have been violated. The KNCHR in turn processes the complaints and in certain cases refers some of the complaints to the CSO that specializes in a particular field and which the KNCHR knows is better equipped and specialized to handle the particular case.
The KNCHR will this year be celebrating five years since its establishment and therefore recognizes the immense potential and expertise of CSO that have been in existence longer.
Christine Njeru, Human Rights Officer, Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)
Lisbeth Garly Andersen, Project Manager, National Department
Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), Denmark
Qualitative interviews with vulnerable groups
DIHR engages civil society in a number of ways, as we have described in the some of the other blog inputs. In relationt to documentation of human rights problems NGOs can do studies on the ground which NHRIs can bring forward, and this is of course very good. However I believe, that NHRIs need to do the studies themselves sometimes and take the time to do it, allthough it can be very time consuming. It is important to get close to the ground and make interviews and get a feel of what is happening in the lives of vulnerable groups.
DIHR is currently carrying out an analysis on rejected asylum seekers in Denmark. The analysis has two parts: one part is a legal review of the Danish Aliens Act and the legal practice in relation to asylum seekers and the other part a qualitative study based on 60 interviews with asylum seekers. The main focus of the review is to analyse whether the Danish Aliens Act and the administrative practice comply with international standards. Following areas have been selected: right to health, right to a proper living standard, right to work, right to education and right to family life.
The qualitative analysis is based on interviews with rejected asylum seekers as well as key stake holders. Eighty interviews have been made all in all, each with a duration of about two hours! The size of the interview material is very big, and much bigger than the Institute would do normally. It is envisaged that the project preparation, interview period in the asylum centers and the analysis and reporting afterwards will take about 12 months all in all.
The analysis on the situation of rejected asylum seekers is an issue the Institute has decided to take up by itself. This means in this case, that it is something we are doing because we consider it as important from a human rights perspective– not because we have been asked by a particular donor, ministry or other to do the study.
The Danish Institute has been doing the interviews with the asylum seekers alone, without help from NGOs. NGOs have however been invited to take part of a review group which is supposed to come with inputs and ideas to the study. The reason why DIHR would like to do the study on our own, is that we think it is important sometimes to make our own data collection and have our own material. It is necessary to get close to the ground and devote time to talk to people and get their views on the consequences the law has on their lives. And it is a good point of departure for the advocacy which will be done in order to try to improve the living conditions of this particular group. It feels different when we have seen the problem with our own eyes and talked to people directly. We will make a report which has not only legal information in it, but which also contains accounts by asylum seekers about their daily lives, their mental state etc.
Lisbeth Garly Andersen, Danish Institute for Human Rights
What methods are National Human Rights Institutions using to address discrimination issues in your
country? For example, do you see any innovative parternships or other endeavors being formed between National Institutions and civil society?
Lisbeth Garly Andersen, Project Manager, National Department
Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), Denmark
www.humanrights.dk) At one point the debate in Denmark on conditions of asylum seekers in Denmark became very heated. Medical experts and a group of grand mothers (they call themselves grand mothers for asylum) kept reporting to the media, that a considerable group of the asylum seekers in Denmark, suffered from mental illnesses. The Danish Institute for Human Rights also participated in the debate, but only to a limited extent, as the Institute did not have the full overview over the enjoyments of rights in the area. In order to be able to participate fully in the debate and have a broader overview, than we already had, The Institute decided to make its own research.
Danish Institute for Human Rights has as a part of its work on a national basis shed focus on a range of key human rights issues, including matters of discrimination, through the use of documentation and analyses. Research, often together with recommendations for law reform, is one of the methods used to combat discrimination in Denmark, but also other forms of human rights abuse.
Some of the research projects the Danish Institute has made include: Analysis of rights of disabled, analysis on the Danish family reunification rules and the implication for especially ethnic minorities and analysis of the use of the special measures used on mentally ill criminals in a human rights perspective.
The mentioned analyses are just some examples of analyses which have been done, in order to document areas where there is a concern that Denmark may not comply with international human rights standards. The analyses usually contain recommendations for a law reform.
The law and administrative practices are most often in focus in the analysis, but the Institute is also at the moment using more qualitative methods for the data collection. The qualitative method includes interviews with the concerned groups suffering from the different problems in the society as well as compilation of relevant data from NGOs in Denmark. In this way, not only the shortcomings in the law are documented, but the experiences of the individuals concerned are also included more clearly in the analysis as well as the effects the law has on their lives all in all.
As mentioned, in the start, The Institute is currently carrying out research on the livelihood of asylum seekers in Denmark. Some of the following blogs will tell more about this research. Apart from that, following analyses are planned:
The analyses are so far only in Danish, but we would like to have them translated. In the next blogs we will tell more about how we do analyses, why we think they are important and how we use them. We will also tell more about the combination of a legal review with more qualitative methods. We would of course appreciate to receive comments, questions and inputs, so please feel free let us know what you think…
The Canadian Human Rights Commission works closely with employers, service providers, and other stakeholders to promote human rights culture change. The Commission shares the credit of its success with its partners who have demonstrated a real commitment to improve or help to improve working environments and delivery centers. One of our method in working towards common goals is to foster partnerships not only between the Commission and our stakeholders, but also amongst stakeholders themselves and civil society.
The Commission through its Prevention Initiative and Liaison Division introduced 2 new models in partnering with civil society:
1. The Prevention Forum
The Commission held its third annual Discrimination Prevention Forum in October 2007. This regular annual forum is an opportunity for the Commission, federally regulated employers and members of civil society from across the country to come together to identify and discuss emerging issues, share knowledge and experience, and develop tools to prevent discrimination. The 2007 forum explored accommodation of mental health issues and religious differences, disability management and return to work, medical information and functional assessments, and the role of community groups in preventing workplace discrimination.
2. The Employer Advisory Council (EAC)
The EAC is comprised of employers and service providers that have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commission to work collaboratively to prevent discrimination. Members benefit from a close working relationship with the Commission. In turn the Commission is informed of emerging issues-trends identified by partners. The Current EAC members are :
Canada Border Services Agency
Canada Post Corporation
Canadian Forces
Canadian Pacific Railway
National Bank of Canada
Penauille Servisair Inc.
Purolator Courier Ltd
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Westjet Airlines
The diversity of the Council is incredible. The collective work of these institutions has the potential to reach and to influence every segment of the Canadian population. The Council facilitates broader communication on prevention-related matters, proven practices, tools and resources. The next step is to foster further community bridging between civil society and these members.
Johanne Lelièvre for
Piero Narducci
Director
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Mexico City’s Human Rights Commission has a specific area within its Technical Secretariat that deals with civil society and NGOs and that has a specific program regarding non-discrimination. In the former, we have achieved lots of strategic alliances either to urge legislation with human rights standards, to promote press releases and statements congratulating or expressing our concern about certain attitudes and policies; to organize workshops and events in order to analyze good and bad practices so that we can have a better strategy to fight discrimination. On the other hand, the “Permanent Campaign Program against Discrimination” has as its main objective the promotion and publication of different actions and strategies in order to make awareness of the right to live without discrimination through institutional work spaces whose main priority is the participation of the whole society. In order to achieve this, the Campaign has been developing in three phases: Phase One: to show the existence of discrimination both in the public and private sectors. Phase Two: To promote and publicize the universal principle of non-discrimination as a human right.Phase Three: To promote and demand legislation regarding the rights to equal treatment and to importance to live without discrimination. PHASE ONE: In order to achieve this objective, the Permanent Campaign Against Discrimination started Phase One on January 29th, 2003. This Phase showed the public the problem of discrimination as a prejudiced and stereotyped phenomenon which affects society both in its public and private environments. The first phase of the Campaign, promoted under the slogan “Yo no discrimino… ¿y tú?” (“I don’t discriminate… do you?), informed 1.491 public servers and 1.341 people of different social, civil, and open community organizations, who multiplied the message. The Permanent Seminar for Reflection and Analysis of Discrimination Matters was founded. This seminar intends to become a forum for analysis, reflection and study about discrimination and related subjects which brings together specialists, public servants and civil society members to approach - from a theoretical-philosophical perspective - the legalisation of the human right to live without discrimination.Along with other institutions, several spaces for reflection and debate were created: events, forums, seminars, fairs and lectures which reached 11.132 people. With help from mass media 24.608 impact sources were generated. In relation with informative material, 20 topic-related publications were edited, and a total of 134.350 copies were made.During this first phase of the Campaign, some discriminating acts which remained anonymous (and indifferent to the State, its institutions and the whole society) were brought to the public eye.
Useful website: http://www.cdhdf.org.mx/index.php?id=nodiscri
The Commission is convinced that one of the better tools for preventing human rights violations –especially discrimination- is promoting those rights through publications. We have publicized several posters as well as pamphlets in order to promote the right to non discrimination. Amongst others, we have done several manuals:
We have also issued informative brochures entitled “All the rights without discrimination” (Todos los derechos sin discriminación) and “Disability free of discrimination” (“Discapacidad sin discriminación”); a Braille brochure called “Disabilities without borders” (“Discapacidad sin barreras”) The Commission also published a four-volume compilation of local, national and international standards regarding non discrimination and also a book called “Discrimination, equality and political difference” (“Discriminación, igualdad y diferencia política”)
It must be said that all of our publications and services are free of charge.
María Alejandra Nuño Ruiz Velasco, Fourth Visiting General
Human Rights Commission of the
What mechanisms are available to
citizens, groups and organizations to address discrimination issues in your
country?
Maria Lourijsen, Policy Advisor
Equal Treatment Commission (CGB), Netherlands
The Dutch Equal Treatment Commission has a dual function. Some of its duties and competencies can be described as semi-judicial in the sense that the CGB gives its judgement about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of conduct, practices or regulations. Other duties and competencies are pro-active, in the sense that the CGB has a role in preventing discrimination or unequal treatment. The specific tasks of the Commission are laid down by the AWGB = Dutch equal treatment act . These involve:
Investigation of complaints and possible plaintiffs: The first and most important task of the Commission is to conduct investigations into complaints that a certain conduct, practice, procedure or regulation is discriminatory and to decide whether this is (legally) the case or not.Request for an assessment of one’s own practice or regulation: Individuals or organisations may also want to know whether their own conduct, policies or regulations fall within the scope of the equal treatment laws.Investigation carried out on the Commission’s own initiative: The Commission does not have to wait for petitions to be filed. It is entitled to investigate on its own initiative in specific areas where systematic or persistent patterns of discrimination are suspected.Legal action by the Commission: The CGB may bring legal action with a view to obtaining a court ruling that certain conduct is contrary to the AWGB or other equal treatment legislation and is therefore unlawful.Advisory and consultative status: The Equal treatment act does not explicitly confer the right or duty on the Commission to advise the Government or others in matters concerning equal treatment legislation or equal opportunities policies. However, this advisory role has been recognised in practice. This means the CGB has taken up this role as part of its general task to promote adherence to equality law and in fact has often been requested to give such advice.
Information and research:In order to participate actively in the effort to combat discrimination, the CGB sees it as one of its remits to gather and disseminate expert knowledge in the field of non-discrimination and equal treatment laws, both at national and international levelFor this reason 9and others) the Commission is part of the European network Equinet (www.equineteurope.org). Equinet is established to ensure that equality bodies can benefit from each other’s experiences and expertise, in their constant efforts to improve the enforcement of equal treatment laws, policies and practices, and that the equality bodies united in Equinet can make their views heard at a European and, where necessary and opportune, national level.There are 28 specialised equality bodies, mostly on the basis of art. 13 Racial Equality Directive and/of art. 8a 2002 Gender Equality Directive and two with observer status.
Through workings groups on different themes the bodies can focus on enhancing the expertise within the network, on enforcement strategies, on dynamic interpretation of EU equal treatment legislation. Furthermore the working groups support the dialogue between European institutions and the specialised equality bodies and supporting strategies for promotion of equality . Through this network we have input to better organise and implement the commsisions work.
For citizens it’s also possible to get assistance bij filing a complaint. For this we have 35 antidiscrimnationbureaus in municipailities all over the Netherlands (www.art1.nl). At this moment a law for the organisation and coordination of these 35 bureaus is send to the Dutch Parliament. Through these bureas it’s also possible to file a complaint at Dutch policestations concerning discrimination mentionned in the Penal code (which subjects don’t fall under the Equal treatment act) by It’s also possible to complain and aks for help about all forms of discrimination on the internet (http://www.meldpunt.nl). My question to others is what there view is on how several organisations in your country work together on dealing and tackling discrimination. And is this cooperationsubject of discussion? Is there interference by ministries on adressing discrimination issues?
Our Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, acknowledges the fundamental rights and freedom of individuals and the need for protection from discrimination. The Constitution makes mention to various grounds from which discrimination upon which individuals should not be discriminated upon. Arguably however the list is not exhaustive. Further to making mention to the rights of individuals, the Constitution also provides for the establishment of a High Court which is mandated to interpret the provisions of the Constitution.
The High Court is therefore one of the mechanisms available to members of the public (individuals and organizations) to seek redress whereby their right to non-discrimination has been breached. The person seeking redress has to establish the existence of a violation of their rights as provided in the constitution; how the violation occurred and what section of the constitution has been violated resulting in the breach of their rights.
Members of the public (individuals and organizations) may seek redress from the KNCHR’s complaints hearing panel. Once a complaint is lodged at KNCHR, and the KNCHR Commissioners (who are of the rank of High Court Judges), feel that after investigations, a complaint merits a hearing, the case is referred to a panel of Commissioners who hear the case and make a decision. The KNCHR complaints hearing panel, unlike the High Court does not charge members of the public therefore the whole process is free and pocket friendly to the public, many of whom live below the poverty line.
Christine Njeru, Human Rights Officer, Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)
Kristin Antin, New Tactics Online Community Builder
Thank you Christine Njeru for your comment on 'available mechanisms' in Kenya. Your remarks make me curious about the relationship and/or dilemma between the National Court system and National Human Rights Institutions. From my experience, I noticed that a victim of a human rights violation would sometimes be forced to choose one of the two possible routes: the National Court system or the National Human Rights Insitution. Depending on the law (or lack of law), a perpetrator of a human rights violation may be punished for their actions - but is this only possible in a National Court? Or can criminal responsibility also occur within a NHRI?
The victim's other choice is to take their case to the NHRI and possibly receive some compensation. In your country, does the victim have to choose between taking their case to the National Court or the NHRI? Can they take the case to both? Is there a reason why someone would take a case to one and not the other?
Certianly, national constitutions and human rights should have an enormous overlap, but I would assume that NHRIs often end up hearing cases regarding rights that are not explicitly covered in the country's legal framework. For example, in Uganda, there is no law prohibiting torture which means that no perpetrator can be punished. There is no criminal responsibility. Therefore, survivors of torture bring their cases to the Ugandan Human Rights Commission in order to receive some compensation from the Government of Uganda.
Furthermore, how do these two systems (National Courts and NHRIs) relate to the issue of discrimination?
Kristin, thanks for your comments and queries. Unfortunately the KNCHR cannot receive or adjudicate on criminal matters. While this is so, that does not deter the KNCHR from investigating human rights violations that are of a criminal nature. On investigation the KNCHR forwards the findings to the Attorney General for prosecution of offenders and where need be, he (through the police department) may engage further investigations prior to refering the case before the law courts, which are mandated to hear criminal matters.
The KNCHR tribunal is equipped to offer compensation and has done so in one case where the victim was subjected to torture and unlawful imprisonment. With regards to choice, the answer is yes, the victim has to choose where to take their case. The KNCHR however does not accept cases that are already in court however if the victim is not satisfied with the procedure followed by the courts then they can bring their case to KNCHR. Worth noting however is that KNCHR decisions are appealable to the highest court of the land namely the Court of Appeal. A victim may opt to come to KNCHR because we do not charge any court fees, however the courts do charge court fees which many people cannot afford.
The KNCHR tribunal is relatively new and has not heard very many cases. We have not however been faced with a situation whereby we had to litigate on a violation which is not prohibited by the laws in Kenya.
The main relation between our NHRI and National Court is that we are friends of the court and where need be, we can advise the court on human rights issues. Further the KNCHR trains members of the judiciary on human rights issues.
Christine Njeru, Human Rights Officer , Kenya National Commission on Human Rights
Kristin Antin, New Tactics Online Community Builder
Thanks, Christine, for your thoughful reply! Now I am curious how the issue of discrimination plays into these two mechanisms. Has the KNCHR heard any cases regarding discrimination? Do you know if the Kenyan courts have? What do these decisions look like? If John Doe was suffering from discrimination because he has HIV/AIDS, would you advice him to go to the NHRI or the courts? Would it depend on the perpetrator? (For example, if it was discrimination by the State I would expect that John would probably rather take his case to the KNCHR. If the perpetrator was a civilian, I would think he would take the case to the courts...)
How does this work in other countries?
Kristin,
Yes, the KNCHR has heard a case of an individual who was discriminated against on the basis of their mental disability. Further we are also dealing with another case whereby an individual who is a hermaphrodite (with both sexual organs) is being victimized because our prisons do not have facilities to cater for this special group of persons.
Kenyan courts have also heard numerous cases on discrimination including individuals who have being terminated from employment because of being HIV positive. As part of our watchdog role, we enciurage such matters to be referred to us hearing and determination, as a NHRI, the commission mainly focuses on state accontability and therefore the perpetrator in all or most cases will be the state or its agents. The main reason behind the formation of KNCHR tribunal is to ensure expeditious disposal of cases concerning violation of rights of a person, however the judiciary being a traditional arm of government has been in existence longer than the commission's tribunal; on this therefore, an individual may have more confidence in the law courts as opposed to the KNCHR, another factor that may make members of the public shun the tribunal is that unlike the courts, the tribunal does not have enforcement powers for its awards and has therefore to rely on the courts for the same.
Christine Njeru, Human Rights Officer , Kenya National Commission on Human Rights
Christine Jesseman, Senior Researcher/Coordinator: Human Rights and Business Special Programme
South African Human Rights Copmmission
In addition to the right to equality entrenched in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, national legislation has also been enacted. This includes the Employment Equity Act and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, commonly known as PEPUDA or the Equality Act. These Acts recognise our unfair past and aim to change the present inequalities and build a society wherein everyone is treated equally. The main objectives of PEPUDA are:
As stated in our recent submission at the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council: “South Africa deserves substantial praise for its creation of the Equality Courts. These courts hear complaints relating to discrimination and are designed to be accessible to the average South African acting without a lawyer. Unfortunately, whilst great strides have been taken on the legislative front and Equality Courts have been set up, it is now becoming apparent that these courts are grossly underutilized and that some appear even to have been closed without notice to the Commission or to the general population. The SAHRC calls on the South African government to commit to taking further measures to popularize these courts and ensuring that discrimination is redressed.” The SAHRC monitors the Equality Courts.
A further mechanism available is the lodging of complaints by individuals etc directly with the SAHRC’s Legal Services Department. The SAHRC is also proactive though and can initiate a complaint and investigation in its own right and the process is therefore not only complaints driven.
Finally, another point raised at the UPRM was that: “Most disappointing, in light of South Africa’s history, it is substantially delayed in the completion of its reporting requirements under the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Thus, the SAHRC calls on the South African government to commit to putting procedures in place to ensure that reports are submitted in a timely manner.”
Kristin Antin, New Tactics Online Community Builder
Thank you, Christine Jesseman, on your comment regarding the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism's statement on the SAHRC. I'm happy to hear such high praise of your 'Equality Courts'!
It is very unfortuante that more South Afrians are not taking advantage of this system. What kinds of activities is the SAHRC currently using to promote these courts? What ideas does the SAHRC have to popularize these courts moving forward?
Christine Jesseman, Senior Researcher/Coordinator: Human Rights and Business Special Programme
South African Human Rights Commission
Unfortunately Equality Courts are severely under utilised by the public and apparently under resourced by the state. Our Education and Training Programme is active through the country (we also have nine provincial offices), and we have encouraged them to disseminate information concerning Equality Courts at interventions and training seminars etc. The SAHRC has published a pamphlet on equality in various languages which we distribute. In addition, the SAHRC is currently finalising a simple and clear user guide on the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), which makes provision for the establishment of the Equality Courts. We do visit Equality Courts and have compiled reports which are intended to be submitted to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. We are however awaiting the promulgation of regulations in terms of PEPUDA. It is envisaged that these Regulations will contain provisions placing specific reporting obligations on companies in addition to those in terms of the Employment Equity Act.
Kristin Antin, New Tactics Online Community Builder
It sounds like many of your NHRIs have the ability to initiate their own complaints and investigations as they deem necessary.
South Africa:
The Netherlands:
This mandate seems to be stated in the Paris Principles (under Methods of Operation (a)). How vital is this ability to initiate independent complaints and investigations? Is its existence a good measure of a NHRI's independence from the Government's authority?
Christine Jesseman, Senior Researcher/Coordinator: Human Rights and Business Special Programme
South African Human Rights Commission
Firstly, this power is essential in order to safeguard our independence and as a monitor of human rights compliance both by the state and private actors (juristic and natural). Secondly, we would limit our effectiveness by purely being reactive. There are also particularly marginalised groups and individuals who may not be specifically empowered or have the necessary information and means to take a matter forward themselves. The SAHRC even has subpoena powers and recently used them to subpoena three government ministers to provide information requested. Finally, our mandate extends to promoting and protecting human rights, and we are very active in general education and awareness activities. Sometimes matters arising from education and training interventions may uncover specific issues requiring further investigation.
Kristin Antin, New Tactics Online Community Builder
Thank you, Christine, for your reply to my questions! I think it is so inspiring that the SAHRC has the power to subpoena government officials! Can you talk about what the circumstance was? This could be a really graet tactic for other NHRIs to utilize. Was this a successful activity? Did you obtain the information you had hoped for?
Has government officials ever been subpoenaed government official for the issue of discrimination?
What are some of the key challenges that National Human Rights Institutions are facing in dealing with discrimination
issues? What are some areas of success that Institutions in your country have been able to accomplish?
The National Human Rights Comission of Mexico is facing the challenges of discrimination and other human rights: such as stigma, discrimination, machism, homophobia, racism, calssism, among other prejudices that foster discrimination and other forms of human rights violations, by creating especial progrmas such as the program that helps victims of crime, the program for families and childhood, the program for HIVAids, the program for missing persons (probably adbucted by the agents of State), the program for gender equality , the program to prevent torture, the program for people in jail, teh program for indigenous people, the program to defend defendors of human rights and journalist from and the program for migrants.
One successful strategy for implementing non-discrimination public policies that the Mexico City’s Human Rights Commission has used is the elaboration of special reports regarding groups or sectors that are in a vulnerable situation or have had plenty history of being discriminated against (indigenous populations, people with disabilities, elderly, etc.). These reports include a wide description on the human rights situation of those persons and groups and then it has a plethora of recommendations for different authorities.
Also the Commission has finished the draft of the first Diagnosis of the Human Rights situation in Mexico City, in collaboration with the local government, tribunal and parliament, as well as with civil organizations, NGO´s and the Office in Mexico of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (which has signed a technical cooperation and training agreement with the Mexican government and issued in 2004 the Diagnosis of the human rights situation in Mexico). In this particular, NGO participation and information had been of the greatest importance: they have nurtured both the diagnosis and the recommendations for the implementation of public policies that respect, promote and guarantee all human rights.
María Alejandra Nuño Ruiz Velasco, Fourth Visiting General
Human Rights Commission of the
Alejandra's comment on the HR Commission in Mexico and its partnership with NGOs made me rethink my assumptions of these partnerships - which is that HR Commissions rely on the work of NGOs. In my experience working in human rights advocacy, the mandates of the HR Commissions always seemed so large and broad that it was a given that the HR Commission would be knocking on our door to obtain human rights data for their annual reports. It was necessary to get the relavent data from the NGOs working in those specific issue areas (such as torture, extrajudicial killings, poverty, etc).
Now I wonder, are there situations in which partnerships with NGOs are more challenging than they are helpful? Do you run into resistence from NGOs on the ground (or not on the ground)? I ask this not to start a debate, but to address those obstacles in order to overcome them. What can NGOs do better to utilize HR Commissions' work? What can HR Commissions do better to utilize NGOs work?
Kristin Antin, New Tactics Online Community Builder
Kantin i totally agree with you, partnership of NHRI's with NGO's no doubt has its challenges and its successes. As you mentioned, obtaining relevant data is one of the successes of partnerships. In addition, some of the NHRI's e.g. KNCHR being a governmental body albeit independent is mandated to engage in investigation and documentation of human rights abuses. Such reports are then required to be tabled before parliament and discussed, however whether that actually happens is a totally different story.
No doubt there are challenges of NHRI's partnerships with NGO's mainly because as an NHRI the KNCHR has a broader mandate to promote and protect human rights of all individuals, therefore while KNCHR may advocate on a certain aspect, an NGO working in that field may feel as though KNCHR is 'encroaching onto their space' in cases where there is no consultation, or even where despite the partnership effort, the NGO perceives the KNCHR to have received more attention from the media or other stakeholders.
I agree that its is a challenge to work in the human rights field without being perceived as though the NHRI is overstepping its mandate by encroaching into the NGO's so called space. I think its about each organization establishing how best it can fulfill its mandate and ensuring effective consultation.
I would however like to get other people's views on this and especially how their NHRI's relate with NGO's without clashing.
Usually, the discrimination is deep-rooted and it is not only the authorities’ obligation to combat it. Therefore, our Commission has worked in designing contests and public campaigns in other to visualize discrimination and engage the society as a whole to denounce it. In relation to that, we have launched an annual contest for journalists because we know the importance that the media as in public opinion. The contest is entitled “faces of the discrimination” and it has been a successful alliance between the local ombudsman, the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination (CONAPRED) and the NGO Manuel Buendía Foundation. The categories for the contest are for press, radio, television and internet and the price for the winners is $ 20,000 Mexican pesos (around US $2,000). This event has been a real challenge for the institutions in charge of its organization. However, it has proven us that we can work not only with civil society -that usually is convinced of the importance of disapproving human rights violations-, but with other sectors that have a great responsibility in this and other issues.
María Alejandra Nuño Ruiz Velasco, Fourth Visiting General
Human Rights Commission of the
This media contest sounds like a great way to build awareness. It gets the media from a wide variety of mediums (press, radio, TV, internet) to put their creativity and energy into developing information that will reach the broad civil society public on discrimination issues. That's raises their own awareness about these issues. But then the added bonus is the production of innovative media spots that are sharing a message that can really reach the public.
I can imagine that it generates a lot to manage but the results must be well worth the effort.
Are there different "themes" chosen for each year? Or is this title, "faces of the discrimination"
used to allow the people developing the materials decide how they want to interpret it? Does that mean that a wide variety of areas of discrimination are then portrayed and highlighted?
Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager
Thank you, Christine. I think this conversation is so interesting! This feeling of 'encroachment' I think is a common problem among relationships between NHRIs and NGOs, as well as NGOs and NGOs!
One of the reasons the New Tactics project tries to bring together human rights practitioners from all perspectives for dialogues such as these, is to come to an understanding that the issues we are working on are very complex and require so many different tactics and strategies, that all practitioners can be utilized to work towards a common goal without having to 'encroach' on anyone!
I know what you are saying, however. In my experience, the NHRI made sure to list the appropriate NGOs as the sources of data in any reports published, etc. This was very important to the NGOs, and the NHRI seemed to respect this and give credit where credit is due.
Mutual understanding of mutually beneficial relationship between NHRIs and NGOs is very important. Yes, the NHRIs might rely on data from NGOs on the ground, but coming up with a mutually beneficial relationship might bring about an activity that will be helpful enough to the NGO that no one is left to feel they are 'encroaching'. Instead, the NGO is happy to share the data because they know that they are not being taken advantage of - they are simply fulfilling their end of the deal (the agreed upon relationship).
One example of this (though not necessarily ideal) is for the NHRI to budget a fee for obtaining this human rights data from NGOs. Certainly, the NHRI does not have the time to find the data themselves, and relies on the NGO. The NGO wants to find the data, but often lacks the necessary resources to obtain it. If the NHRI pays a fee for the data, the NGO will be able to better obtain the data and support its own work. (Yes, I realize that no one in the human rights field has money to spare, but pressing the government for more funding is important)
Hopefully a fee for the services of NGOs isn't the only answer! Does anyone have any other examples of mutually beneficial relationships between NGOs and NHRIs?
Kristin Antin, Online Community Builder, New Tactics in Human Rights
I think Kristin's questions and concerns are more than valid. At least in Mexico there is a wide diversity of NGO’s and I believe that many of the successful and strategic alliances we have achieved have to do with our interest in protecting and promoting all human rights as well as the clarity that both NGO’s and the Mexico City’s Human Rights Commission have in guaranteeing that: The Commission believes that it is great to work with organizations that have different approaches and we will be a part of any alliance if there is a decided objective of what has to be done in order to design or implement public policies; or to adopt or modify legislation…
María Alejandra Nuño Ruiz Velasco, Fourth Visiting General
Human Rights Commission of the
Christine Jesseman, Senior Researcher/Coordinator: Human Rights and Business Special Programme
South African Human Rights Commission
We carefully guard our independence and impartiality. For example, even where we are involved with the UN Global Compact we are not a “member” of the local advisory board, but a “visitor” which is not bound by confidentiality or other constraints where this may conflict with our Constitutional mandate. Where we do form strategic partnerships, it is often with organisations which have similar requirements of openness. We also have specific procurement constraints and we therefore cannot fundraise as many NGOs would want or need to. This is and must be stated very clearly and we do enter into memorandums of understanding concerning conference and workshop collaborations. In the same breath though, it is not necessary that we agree on all aspects of all projects – opening a space for debate and discussing issues is just as important as promoting common understandings where we may find them.Where we have entered into new territory with different types of organisations and NGOs it has been a learning curve. However, the point of departure is always a clear understanding of what the Commission can do, what the Commission cannot do and what the Commission is compelled to do. Partnerships are essential though: They address capacity constraints and add to effectiveness as different stakeholders interact and communicate in different ways, through different networks and reach various groups or members. Another important aspect thereof is that stakeholder involvement encourages ownership of initiatives, a sense of responsibility and of course empowerment in order to achieve more sustainable outcomes.
Myriam Montrat, Director General, Discrimination Prevention Branch
Canada
Moving from participation to real engagement and commitment on the part of federally regulated organizations. We have been quite successful with the Employer Advisory Council (EAC) which allows for information and proven practices sharing. It is an ideal forum to put forward challenges being faced by employers in trying to encourage a respectful work environment. The EAC also looks at issues of common interest via its subcommittees and provides valuable insights to all of its members.
We are limited with our resources and as a result we have to find innovative ways to promote human rights and secure stakeholders engagement. One area we are currently exploring is the development of a maturity model for human rights. We are hoping to achieve greater commitment from organizations as they take the required steps to achieve the next level of maturity.
We are also embarking on a major outreach initiative to build and sustain relationships with all relevant stakeholders.
As the supreme human rights organ of the state, KNCHR is specifically mandated to advise the government on ways to enhance the promotion and protection of human rights in Kenya. The KNCHR Research, Policy and Legislation programme is involved in the review of domestic legislation and making recommendations. The KNCHR has been successful in that many of the recommendations including recommendations on review of legislation and protection against discrimination made to Parliament have accordingly been incorporated in the amendment of the legislation. Further the KNCHR is engaged in creating awareness and has succeeded in resettling women who were discriminated against on grounds of culture. These women were evicted from their homes when their husbands died but due to the efforts of KNCHR some of the women have been resettled. The KNCHR is still very new in its work and has not received full support from governmental institutions.
Christine Njeru, Human Rights Officer , Kenya National Commission on Human Rights
How has discrimination fallen within
the competencies or mandates of your country's National Human Rights Institution? Are questions of discrimination
addressed through any other mechanisms in your country as well? For example, are
there other bodies or institutions (e.g., Ombudsman Office, legislative
committees, etc.) mandated to address discrimination issues? If so, does your
country's Human Rights Institution coordinate or work together with these other
bodies?
Being Mexico a federal country, the first issue to address is the jurisdiction that both ombudsman´s office and other specialized institutions have. At the national level, there is the National Commission on Human Rights (Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos), but there is also a National Council to Prevent Discrimination (Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación). The two institutions have mandate to investigate complaints regarding violations alleging discrimination. The former has a restricted mandate regarding violations committed by federal public or government officials (as well as suggest public policies to prevent discrimination) whereas the later can also investigate complaints against individuals and companies. There are also other specialized institutions in charge of designing, implementing and evaluating public policy vis-à-vis certain topics (such as women’s rights). At the local level, there are also bodies similar to the ones just described: The Mexico City’s Human Rights Commission (Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal) has the mandate, inter alia, to investigate complaints regarding local authorities. But it can also elaborate publications, emit press releases, give training to authorities or organizations, etc. On the other hand, there is the Mexico City’s Council to Prevent and Erradicate Discrimination (Consejo para Prevenir y Erradicar la Discriminación en el Distrito Federal) which has a limited mandate compared to the federal Council because it’s mandate is to deal with public policy regarding non-discrimination. In short those mandates have to be seen as complementary between them and not as exclusion to analyze the situation of discrimination with wide and integral vision. However, nowadays there isn’t an institution that coordinates the work and activities done regarding non-discrimination. Useful websites: http://www.conapred.org.mx, www.cndh.org.mx, www.cdhdf.org.mx
María Alejandra Nuño Ruiz Velasco, Fourth Visiting General
Human Rights Commission of the
Just to point out that the National Commission for Human Rights in Mexico and the 32 State Commissions (one for each of the 31 States and one for the Federal District), integrate the Mexican Ombudsman System, these are the autonomous public agencies that defend the people for discrimination an all other forms of abuse caused by public officials of the Federal, State and Municipal levels of government; whereas the National Council to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination (CONAPRED), is an office of the Federal Government created to promote policies to eliminate discrimination. Both can file cases, but only the ombudsman institution can send public recommendations to authorities. The ombudsman has mandate to file cases of any kind of violations of human rights, not only discrimination. The CONAPRED (the government institution) can conciliate between private individuals in a case of discrimination.
You are absolutely right! The explanation is very clear. Another difference between the CONAPRED (national institution regarding non-discrimination) and the local Council for the Prevention of Discrimination is, amongst others, the composition. The local council is composed of one representative of the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches as well as the Mexico City’s ombudsman (there is also participation of civil society as well as some Executive ministers).
María Alejandra Nuño Ruiz Velasco, Fourth Visiting General
Human Rights Commission of the
What kind of civil society participation takes place in these local councils? Do they power to bring cases to these bodies? Are there civil society represenatives also at the CONAPRED level? If not, how might NGOs or other civil society organizations engage with both this body but also the Commission?
Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager
Maria Lourijsen, Policy Advisor
Equal Treatment Commission (CGB), Netherlands
As Maria Alejandra Nuno explaiend about Mexico; we also have on the one hand the National Ombudsman and on the other the Equal treatment Commission (us). In the Netherlands discriminationissues can be raised at national level (CGB, Courts) and at local policestations or also local, at the socalled antidiscriminationbureaus. These bureaus assist people on what to do wit their complaint, either go to the police, or come to us, the CGB. Also they provide information on discriminationissues. The bureaus our financed bij the government. I guess that the CGB ican be comapred with CONAPRED ?
Civil society particiaption is organised so different in various provinces and municipalities. I the four biggest cities they are more active then in smaller places.
Myriam Montrat, Director General, Discrimination Prevention Branch
Canada
The Canadian Human Rights Act protects people living in Canada against discrimination from federally regulated employers or service providers, such as:
federal separtments, agencies and crown corporations
banks
airlines
television and radio stations.
Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is against the law for any employer or provider of a service that falls within federal jurisdiction to discriminate on the basis of:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission investigates and tries to settle complaints of discrimination. It also fosters the respect of human rights by using different mechanisms such as Memorandums of understanding, training, advisory councils, discrimination prevention forums, etc.
Provinces and territories have similar laws prohibiting discrimination in their own jurisdictions.
Pages