CIVIL RIGHTS

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982, with the aim of preventing all types of overt discrimination based on gender, physical ability, ethnic origin, social status, political view or religion. Today, cases of overt or observable discrimination are extremely rare. The so-called notwithstanding clause contained in the Charter has only rarely served to limit the document’s impact. Of course, this does not mean there are not instances of covert or hidden discrimination in Canada reflecting the prejudices of certain individuals. Groups believing they suffer from the effects of discrimination continue to emerge. Basing their claims on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some have taken their cases to the courts, often winning. For example, the weight-challenged have recently demanded that an additional seat be provided them on planes at no cost.

The major tensions in this area are whether rules related to the customs of certain religious groups constitute discrimination. For example, while Sikhs employed by the government can wear a turban, even in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), they are not permitted to carry the ceremonial dagger. Some see this as discrimination, while others consider it to be merely an issue of public safety. In another example, the Quebec government has proposed to restrict the provision of public services to women wearing the niqab, the Muslim headgear that covers the complete face except the eyes. It is believed that to be fully integrated into society one’s face must not be covered. This is a very controversial issue, but affects only a very small number of persons. It will likely end up in the Supreme Court.

The Canadian government has established policies such as employment equity and pay equity to protect and promote the rights of disadvantaged groups (often called equity groups) such as women, visible minorities, Aboriginals, and persons with disabilities. These positive discrimination measures are controversial and their effectiveness is a subject of debate.

Rights of ethnic and religious minorities are as a rule well protected in Finland, and the criminal code covers ethnic agitation as well as penalizes anyone who threatens a racial, national, ethnic or religious group. The rights of the Swedish-speaking minority in Finland are widely respected and Finnish and Swedish are the two national languages of Finland. Implemented and still pending reforms of the regional administrative apparatus, however, are in some violation of the rights of the Swedish-speaking population. The Aland Islands, whose inhabitants speak Swedish, have for historical reasons extensive autonomy and a parliament of their own, as well as one permanent seat in the national legislature. All in all, Finland has often been seen as a forerunner concerning its efforts to put forth an effective minority protection policy.
Cases of discrimination are rare. However, ethnic minorities and asylum seekers report occasional police discrimination, and Finland has on occasion been found in violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Roma individuals, who make up a very small part of the population, are widely marginalized.

The constitution guarantees every person equal human rights without regard to gender, religion, opinion, national origin, race, color, property, birth or other status. More specific provisions are to be found in the Penal Code (Almenn hegningarlög No. 19/1940), the Administrative Procedure Act (Stjórnsýslulög No. 40/1993) and the Equality Act (Lög um jafna stöðu og jafnan rétt kvenna og karla No. 10/2008). The Supreme Court can rule and has ruled in accordance with those acts and the constitution. The Equality Act states that equal gender rights must be guaranteed in all areas of society, and that discrimination in pay, hiring and employment is against the law. The Center for Gender Equality (Jafnréttisstofa) is intended to monitor the implementation of these laws and is obliged to refer all major cases to the courts. However, despite the fact that equal rights are guaranteed by law, the reality is that discrimination occasionally occurs in Iceland, especially against women, disabled persons and foreigners. Apparent discrimination may in many cases reflect market outcomes rather than willful discrimination.

There are strong antidiscrimination provisions on the Irish statute books. The 1998 Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the Equal Status Act, 2000 outlaw discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services, and other opportunities to which the public generally has access, on nine distinct grounds. These are gender; marital status; family status; age; intellectual and physical disability; race; sexual orientation; religious belief; and membership in the Traveler community. The Equality Authority is an independent body set up under the Employment Equality Act,1998 to monitor discrimination. It is active in the areas listed above. Cases of discrimination have been successfully pursued in the courts and the threat of such actions is effective. The Office of the Director of Equality Investigations (ODEI) – the Equality Tribunal – was established as an independent statutory office under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 to offer an accessible and impartial forum to remedy unlawful discrimination. It investigates or mediates complaints arising under employment-equality and equal-status legislation. Complaints of discrimination, including harassment, may be made with reference to the nine grounds listed in the act. The areas covered include employment, the disposal of goods and property, the provision of services and accommodation, and certain aspects of education.
These agencies have been active in recent years and successful in prosecuting cases on behalf of parties who felt they had been discriminated against.

the Netherlands is party to all of the important international agreements relevant to counteracting discrimination. A non-discrimination clause addressing religion, life philosophy, political convictions, race, sex and “any other grounds for discrimination” is contained in Article 1 of the Dutch constitution. An individual can invoke Article 1 in relation to acts carried out by the government, private institutions or another individual. The constitutional framework has been specified by several acts that also refer to the EC Directives on equal treatment. In total there is a high degree of protection even though the definition of indirect discrimination that is provided by the EC has not been adopted by the Dutch legislator (Holtmaat 2009).

In terms of policy, the Dutch government is not pursuing any forms of affirmative action to tackle inequality and facilitate non-discrimination. Generally, the government relies on “soft law” measures as a preferred policy instrument.

The Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) quite recently condemned the religious right-wing Reformed Political Party (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij, SGP) for discrimination against women because they prohibited women from running for office on the SGP ticket on religious grounds. The Supreme Court argued that the non-discrimination principle in certain cases outweighs the freedom of religion principle. It is generally believed that this verdict by implication reflects beliefs about women in Islam.

Anti-discrimination legislation is outlined in a number of acts, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Privacy Act 1993, and the Human Rights Amendment Act 2001. Even more important, the Human Rights Commission actively promotes anti-discrimination measures such as, in recent times, discrimination against Maori and women. Cases of discrimination are rare, but they do occur. Maori are disproportionally represented in the prison population, which may point to problems of discrimination as has been highlighted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Equality of opportunity and equality before the law are firmly established. There is an ombudsperson for civil rights. The Sami minority living in the north of the country has some limited self-rule. Some contention exists over the use of natural resources in the Sami areas in the north, and legal issues over the entitlement to land and water resources in these areas remain unresolved.
Men and women have essentially identical educational levels. Labor force participation rate by women, at 72%, is very high. There is some evidence of gender discrimination in wages, as women earn on average just 84.7% of what men earn. However, once the number of hours worked, occupation, education and experience are taken into consideration, there are no significant differences between the earnings of men and women. This evidence does not per se imply that there is no gender discrimination at all in the labor market (e.g., men may find it easier to be hired in high-paid occupations). On the other hand, affirmative action in favor of women has been used extensively in the labor market, in particular in public sector employment. Even so, the labor market remains by international comparison strongly segregated by gender/occupation.
Day care services are widespread and heavily subsidized and the price of day care has been lowered under recent governments. Full day care coverage for all parents seeking it has by and large been achieved. In 2006, a law went into effect introducing affirmative action in the selection of board members for publicly listed companies. Under this regulation, at least 40% of board members must be women. This goal was achieved in two years with surprisingly little difficulty.
Some discrimination against non-Western immigrants seems to persist. Immigrants find it harder get work, earn lower wages and have substantially higher unemployment rates than native Norwegians. Although discrimination against immigrants (including in the labor market) is illegal, in practice very few cases are prosecuted.

Together with Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, Sweden ranks as one of the most egalitarian societies in the world. Sweden has in many ways led the struggle for equal opportunities, equality in political representation and in the labor market. However, there are, for example, still wage differences (which are in fact increasing) between men and women doing the same job; there are few women on the boards of major corporations, and so on. Sweden’s ombudsman system includes an ombudsman for gender discrimination cases. While cases of gender discrimination are rare, they still exist.

In terms of physical ability, in 1994, Sweden introduced a rights-based legislation stating that people with severe dysfunctions should be entitled to a personal assistant to help her/him through his/her daily routines. This legislation marked a significant financial commitment by the state in the excess of SEK 10 billion (approximately €1 billion) per annum but seems not to have significantly improved the lives of people with physical dysfunctions. More recently, the National Agency for Social Insurances has begun to reassess the conditions under which physically challenged people should be entitled to a personal assistant. There are reports in the media about people with severe handicaps who are now about to lose their personal assistant.

Sweden is an increasingly heterogeneous society in terms of ethnicity. Integration policies are highly contested in the public debate. The Discrimination Ombudsman, however, ensures the visibility of ethnic discrimination and boosts the public debate. In this respect, the Swedish government critically reports on the degree of unsuccessful ethnic integration. After the election in 2006, the centre-right government installed for the first time in history a non-native citizen (Mrs. Nyanco Sabuni) as Minister of Integration and Gender Equality.

The legal framework protecting against discrimination has been extended since the 1960s and nowadays covers not only racial minorities and gender cases, but also the aged and disabled, and in some state and local contexts, homosexuals. It not only applies to the public sector, but plays an enormous role in labor and contract law, giving extraordinary protection to minorities or groups threatened by discriminatory behavior. It has practically rendered ineffective any mandatory retirement age limits. The penalties, including job protection guarantees, are substantial. Nevertheless, in view of persisting social and economic disadvantage among minorities and women, the prevalence and importance of current discrimination in education, labor markets, and various social contexts is highly controversial. Affirmative action policies seem to be in decline. There were some expectations among minority civil rights groups that President Obama, as the first black president, would deliver renewed emphasis on issues of racial discrimination. But he deliberately chose not to place racial discrimination near the top of his agenda which was dominated by other concerns such as health care and the financial crisis. According to recent polls, black Americans feel race relations have not improved under Obama. In a 2009 CNN poll, 55% of respondents said that discrimination is still a problem, up from 38% in 2008, and a return to the levels before Obama appeared on the political scene. The deterioration may represent disappointment over weak job prospects. White Americans saw a greater improvement in race relations than blacks during the same period.

Australia has developed a substantial body of anti-discrimination legislation, covering sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, pregnancy and disability. The body charged with overseeing this legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission (previously the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) is a statutory body. With the exception of the Disability Discrimination and Other Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2009, there have been no significant changes in the legislation overseen by the Commission, or in the functions or operation of the Commission, during the period under review.
The Discrimination and Other Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2009 amended earlier anti-disability discrimination legislation passed on 1992, to ensure that someone accompanied by a caregiver, assistant or aid, is not discriminated against.

Like in most countries, discrimination exists in practice. Citizens of foreign origin, for instance, have a harder time finding jobs or performing well in school, and are often concentrated in poorer living areas in urban regions. A significant proportion of the population openly expresses racist opinions (about 30% according to a recent study) and exhibits ethnocentric attitudes.
With regards to the disabled, despite a number of initiatives it has proven difficult to provide equal opportunities. (In this regard, Belgium performs less well than other northern European countries.) Again one reason for the lack of success in this area is the poor coordination between authorities at different levels (local, provincial, regional/community and federal).
Belgium never fully ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of the Council of Europe, as the issue of minorities is tightly linked with linguistic disputes around Brussels and the country’s “linguistic border.”
Positively, Belgium has been rather proactive against racism. The government created the Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, an organization that is easily accessible, visible to the public, and active on many fronts.
Belgium is also one of the most advanced countries in granting equal rights to homosexuals (such as legal rights, the right to marry and so on). On the other hand, Belgium fares less well in terms of gender-based disparities, particularly in terms of job opportunities and salaries, despite many efforts and policies to address this discrepancy.

The Basic Law stipulates that every person, irrespective of parentage, sex, race, language, ethnic origin, disability, faith, or religious or political belief has the same rights. The 2006 General Equal Treatment Act added age and sexual orientation to that enumeration. The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (FADA) monitors compliance with anti-discrimination norms and principles, supports persons who have experienced discrimination, mediates settlements, informs the public about infringements, and commissions research on the subject of discrimination. FADA reports about 9,600 contacts with people feeling discriminated against in the period August 2006 to March 2010. Discrimination on the ground of age (23.6%), gender (21.3%) and handicap (17.9%) were most frequent.
An initiative by several federal states to incorporate a ban on discrimination based on sexual identity in the Basic Law was rejected by the Bundesrat in November 2009. In April 2010, several legal scholars confirmed that the existing article and the General Equal Treatment Act together guarantee sufficient protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. A draft provision aimed at reducing the wage gap between women and men was dropped after the inauguration of the second Merkel administration. It is debatable whether a law-based approach is promising on this issue. Critics argue that it is methodologically difficult to prove the existence of a discrimination-based wage gap, given that many determinants beyond gender can legitimately cause wage differentials. These difficulties can leave a law-based solution ineffective, and risk creating an expensive and useless new bureaucratic burden for companies and employees. Nevertheless, the issue remains on the agenda because the previous strategy of voluntary agreements between the government and leading private-sector associations has turned out to be insufficient.
In the courts, several important verdicts were rendered in favor of persons subject to discrimination, including on the issue of the unequal treatment of marriage and (same-gender) civil partnership with respect to a dependent’s pension. The Federal Constitutional Court ruled the previous legal situation to be unconstitutional (cf. Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes (ed.) 2010: 20). Other judgments supported existing law such as the ban on religious head-scarves in public buildings, or the distinction between disability and illness in the context of permissible questioning during job interviews (cf. Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes (ed.) 2010: 11p.).
More broadly, international non-governmental organizations recently criticized the German government for rejecting an EU Council of Ministers draft measure concerning equal treatment and equal opportunity. Again, the fear of imposing additional bureaucratic burden in return for questionable benefits was among the reasons for this rejection.

Obvious cases of discrimination are very rarely reported as Luxembourg public culture traditionally condemns manifestations of xenophobia. In contrast, until very recently, institutional protections against discrimination were very weak and Luxembourg was condemned by the European Court for non-implementation of various directives in this area. Meanwhile the EU Directive on equal treatment between men and women (76/207/CE and 2002/73/CE) was adopted in the law of May 13, 2008.
The EU Directive on equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2000/43/CE) had already been adopted by a law of November 28, 2006 and led to the creation of the Center for Equal Treatment (CET) in 2008. Its purpose is to promote, analyze and monitor equal treatment between all persons without discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion or beliefs, disability or age, but its activity has almost exclusively focused on awareness-raising campaigns.
The activity of the CET has been very modest and awareness of it is not widespread, as shown by a survey it commissioned itself, in which only 1% of the respondents indicated the CET among institutions fighting against discrimination.

In general terms, Spanish institutions continue to offer effective protection against discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnic or religious minority status, and sexual orientation. Nevertheless, there have been cases of discrimination against these groups reported, as well as more frequent cases of discrimination against immigrants, the disabled and the elderly. The Office of the Ombudsman annually reports several specific cases and denounces the governmental inability to prevent them.
Since 2007, the European Social Fund anti-discrimination program of has been implemented, and in early 2010 the government announced a bill aimed at improving the legislation on religious freedom. This bill is designed to avoid any discrimination against minority non-Catholics, although some technical problems, as well as resistance from the Spanish Catholic Church, have arisen during its preparation.
During the period under review, two very important legal measures originally passed in the previous legislative term (Law 13/2005 legalizing same-sex marriage, and Organic Law 3/2007, on effective equal rights for men and women) have come into force without major problems. The first of these represents a path-breaking regulation in the southern European context, while the second one includes positive discrimination measures for women in political and business settings. However, according to a recent opinion poll conducted by the human resources company Adecco, 42% of Spanish businesswomen said that such legislation was ineffective in ensuring women equal payment and professional opportunities in the labor market.

In Switzerland, constitutional law and a consociational political system ensure the autonomy, freedom from discrimination, and rights to political participation of Swiss linguistic, ethnic and religious minorities. Article 8 of the country’s constitution states: “Nobody shall suffer discrimination, particularly on grounds of origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, lifestyle, philosophical or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability… Men and women have equal rights.”
Nonetheless, a number of problems with regard to discrimination exist. As already mentioned (see also Candidacy Procedures), the sheer size of the foreign population and its contribution to the wealth of the nation brings up the question as to whether withholding political rights such as voting can be regarded as an indefensible variety of discrimination. Nonetheless, Switzerland’s conception of non-citizens’ voting rights is similar to that of other Western democracies, and undoubtedly protects the civil and human rights of foreigners without any discrimination. The Swiss People’s Party, the strongest party in the country, and one represented in the government, has repeatedly resorted to openly xenophobic or even racist discourse. Finally, there is still considerable discrimination against women with regard to labor market entry opportunities (lack of adequate family policies), wage equality and equal career opportunities.

The Labour government introduced a number of measures to combat discrimination in the years following 1997, and considerable change has been achieved both in terms of policy and practice. However, difficulties persist in implementing that change in the face of sometimes deeply rooted societal behavior.
The Race Relations Act 2000 imposed on all public authorities a duty to promote race equality and tackle discrimination. The initial focus on race was extended to gender and disability in 2006. But there is evidence that members of ethnic minorities are still more likely to be stopped and searched than are members of the majority white population; similarly, there is a massive discrepancy with respect to how frequently different ethnic groups’ have their data entered into the national DNA database: 40% of the black male population has been registered in the database, while the corresponding shares for Asian and Caucasian males are respectively 13% and 9%.
The number of high-profile cases of “institutionalized racism” in the police force, as well as of sexist and homophobic attitudes, seems to have declined in recent years; with respect to disability, the effects of the nondiscrimination legislation have also become more visible, but leave room for improvement, as is the case for gender mainstreaming. Indeed, a telling verdict on developments in recent years was delivered by incoming Prime Minister David Cameron, who said in his statement on arriving at 10 Downing Street that, “This country is more open at home and more compassionate abroad.”

While negative attitudes towards minorities repeatedly surface, sometimes fuelled by comments in the right-wing press, a reasonable interpretation of developments in the last two years is that tolerance has increased and discriminatory behavior or activism has declined. Although the extreme-right British National Party (BNP) succeeded in securing two European Parliament seats in 2009, largely as part of widespread protest voting against the mainstream political parties, fuelled by the revelations about excessive expense-report claims, their star appears to have waned. Recent results have gone against the BNP. However, concern about immigration has grown, albeit without resulting in any obvious upsurge in discriminatory attitudes.

Denmark is traditionally an open and liberal society, and has been at the forefront in ensuring the rights of sexual minorities, for example. Basic rights are ensured in the constitution and supplemented with additional laws focused on specific areas, including ethnicity and the labor market. Citizens can file complaints concerning issues of discrimination to the Board of Equal Treatment or opt to bring discrimination cases before the courts.
Discrimination can take various forms and can be perceived differently depending on position, history and social context. A key issue is the extent of discrimination in the labor market. Denmark is a country with high-labor force participation for both men and women, and therefore labor market participation should be seen in this perspective.
Gender-based discrimination in the labor market relates primarily to wages but also more generally to hiring and career options. Child care is a particular point in this context. Rules dealing with child leave have been expanded to extend the right (and duty) of fathers to take paternity leave, and financing arrangements have been changed to share the costs across employers. Since 2006 all employers are to contribute to a paternity fund which finances paternity leave, and thus avoids that such costs disproportionally fall on employers with a high level of female employees. A commission (Ligelønskommission) has been appointed to analyze the issue of gender-based wage discrimination in the labor market.
Frequently cases of discrimination in the labor market are reported in the press, with example of persons having difficulties in finding a job due to ethnic identifiers, such as the person’s name. Discrimination in the labor market can be statistical or racial. An employer may be more reluctant to hire a person with a foreign background, based on the assumption that such people have on average weaker job qualifications and thus infer that the job candidate in question does too. Discrimination can also be racial in nature. There is no thorough academic analysis that has attempted to separate these causes and evaluate the extent of discrimination in the labor market.
Indirect discrimination can appear in various forms. A notable area is in terms of rules and regulations which, on the one hand, are general and apply to all citizens, but on the other hand, targets particular groups and where the latter is the motivation for the regulation. One example is the requirement (introduced 2007) that for couples to qualify for social assistance they should show having worked at least 450 hours over the year (originally the law stipulated 300 hours), otherwise the state assumes that one member of the couple is not considered to be actively interested in work and the right to social assistance is lost. While a universal law, the incidence of couples where both people claim social assistance is highest among immigrants with a background from poorer countries, and hence this rule de facto targets this group. Similar reasoning applies to the change in eligibility for social assistance, which now requires residence in Denmark for seven of the eight previous years. If this condition is not met, a lower level of assistance is offered. This can be seen as a breach of the universality principle that underlies the social safety net.
Immigration laws were tightened after the liberal-conservative government came to power in 2001. One particular controversial law was the tightening of rules for family unification. To bring a spouse to Denmark it is required that both persons in the couple are at least 24 years old, in additional to a number of other requirements; there is also an economic test. This rule has several motivations. One is to prevent arranged marriages, in particular involving very young girls. Another is to restrict family unification in particular, and thus immigration in general. While the political support for this rule was related to Denmark’s immigration issues, the rule also affects Danish citizens. Hence, there are many examples of Danes being unable to bring their spouse into the country, and also of young couples settling in southern Sweden and commuting to work in Denmark.
A European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in 2008 against a somewhat similar Irish law has since put pressure on the Danish legislation.
Political support for tighter immigration laws has come from the fact the minority government’s parliamentary base relies on cooperation with the Danish People‘s Party. However, most political parties have adopted more strict immigration views in recent years.

Legal rules aimed at preventing discrimination both in general and on the basis of specific individual characteristics are well developed. However, their practical implementation is often much less satisfactory, and cases of discrimination on the basis of gender, physical ability and ethnic origin are significant. In the public administration there is an increasing effort to monitor the impact of gender discrimination on a regular basis. The 2009 report of the Department for Equal Opportunities, containing data for 2008, indicates a persistent and significant imbalance in gender representation in the higher levels of the state administration, as well as the limited extent of affirmative action programs aiming to change this state of affairs.
Discrimination against Muslims has been given rhetorical support by the Northern League. A lack of effective welfare state elements such as sufficient child care in practice results in discrimination against women and mothers. The presence of women in the higher ranks of the public administration and of private businesses remains an exception.

Compared to its predecessor, the Tusk government has paid more attention to the fight against discrimination. In particular, it re-established the Plenipotentiary for Equal Treatment, a position that had been abolished by the previous government. However, Poland has not yet implemented the EU anti-discrimination directive, and the European Commission lodged a complaint against Poland at the European Court of Justice in May 2009 for not implementing three EU directives on gender discrimination. Moreover, the Plenipotentiary for Equal Treatment lacks autonomy and does not have a mandate to take complaints. Sexual harassment of women and homophobia are frequently observed, and the wage gap between men and women is still relatively high. Finally, the government, like its predecessors, has refrained from challenging the Catholic Church’s monopolistic position. Only about 2% of all Polish public schools offer classes in ethics, thus effectively denying most pupils the right to take such classes instead of classes in religion.

Cases of discrimination are rare. Generally, the Portuguese are extremely tolerant. However, Portugal is home to 500,000 legal immigrants, about 5% of the population, and also about 50,000 gypsies. These are large numbers, and there are some cases of discrimination. To prevent, discourage and punish discrimination, the government has done a number of things, including: passing a law prohibiting racial discrimination; creating programs to integrate immigrants and gypsies into societal, work, and educational settings; promoting increased awareness of human rights issues among police and judges; and giving the Commission for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Comite para a Eliminacao da Discriminacao Racial, CERT) authority to analyze and call attention to cases of racial discrimination.
There has been little change in terms of the gender pay gap. The World Economic Forum’s 2009 Global Gender Gap Index ranks Portugal 46th out of 134 countries – below such countries as Mozambique, Costa Rica, Mongolia, Botswana, Uganda, Panama and Peru. This represents little change as compared to the 2006 – 2008 period, either in terms of Portugal’s ranking or its absolute score on the index.
In the SGI 2009 report, we highlighted the lack of legislation mandating access for disabled people to private businesses or other facilities. According to the Department of State Report on Human Rights Practices in Portugal for 2009, this lacuna still persists.

A law protecting against discrimination was passed in 2004. The tendency to legally protect against discrimination is in line with the general European trend. One example is that same-sex unions have gained legal status in Austria, even if the term “marriage” is not used and adoptions by same-sex couples are not (yet?) possible.
The debate over gender discrimination demonstrates that the main issue is not formal but informal discrimination, such as de facto discrimination on the labor market.
Despite the existence of an anti-discrimination law, discrimination based on ethnicity, ethnic origin, social status, political view, sexual orientation and religion are, in practice, still possible. However, by and large, the Austrian public has become more sensitive to discrimination issues in recent years.

Political rights are protected by the law and by government policy. While all citizens – including members of ethnic minorities – are entitled to these rights and guarantees, some ethnicities are not constitutionally recognized as separate population groups. Indigenous ethnic groups are not constitutionally recognized. Active anti-discrimination legislation in the form of affirmative action laws (quotas for minorities in schools, or for women in parliament or in government) does not exist.

The Mirek Topolánek and Jan Fischer governments launched a number of anti-discrimination measures. The Topolánek government established a new cabinet portfolio, a minister for human rights and minorities, in charge of better coordinating the activity of advisory boards, authorities and NGOs dealing with human rights, national and ethnic minorities, in particular the Roma minority. The new ministry helped to put issues of discrimination on the agenda, but often lacked support from other parts of government. The effects of the new anti-discrimination law, which ultimately took effect in September 2009 following strong EU pressure, have also been limited. As finally approved, the law covers employment, housing and other spheres. It outlaws discrimination on grounds of sex, race, nationality, sexual orientation, age, disability and religion, but not political views. It specifies how an individual can complain, but there is no obligation for employers or public bodies to monitor their own practices to eliminate discrimination. As the law met with strong opposition, it is clear that part of Czech society is either unaware of discrimination or is comfortable with what exists. It therefore remains an open question to what extent this relatively weak measure will help in overcoming the prevailing discrimination, most notably against women and Roma.

In principle, any discrimination based on gender, race, ethnic origin, religion and so on is banned by the constitution and fundamental principles of law. The principle of equality and the refusal to admit specificities of certain community minorities goes as far as excluding positive discrimination measures. For the same reasons, the attempt by parliament to authorize mild forms of ethnic or minority statistics in France has been struck down by the Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel). The persisting culture of formal legal equality conflicts with real differences and inequalities. For instance, gender equality is more a dream than a hard fact. The most spectacular problem is the discrimination of immigrants. While predominantly French citizens, many immigrants face discrimination with respect to housing and work. Access to the labor market is a key issue for minority or racial groups, in particular for the younger, better-educated generation. To address these concerns, a high authority was established in 2004. It deals with individual cases and makes general recommendations. Several thousand cases are brought to this body every year.

In Greece there is no discrimination based on social status or political views. In regard to religion, however, there is some discrimination. The Greek constitution protects religious freedom, but at the same time recognizes the dominant position of Greek Christian Orthodox dogma. This amounts to providing that dogma with a position effectively like that of a state religion.
The preponderant position of the Greek Christian Orthodox Church in the Greek state and society is evident in the very close relations between church and state, reflected in tax breaks enjoyed by the Greek Orthodox Church before the new taxation legislation was introduced in March 2010; in the financing of the Church through the state budget; and in assigning a specific and important secretariat of the Ministry of Education the task of overseeing religious matters – in effect, the affairs of the Greek Orthodox Church (notably the ministry’s full official name is the Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs).
All other religions and dogmas are equally protected, but proselytization is prohibited. The Greek government and bureaucracy have long posed various obstacles to the building of a mosque in Athens, with the result that Muslim residents of Athens must resort to private or makeshift places of worship. Officially, there is still a regulation requiring representatives of dogmas other than the Greek Christian Orthodox to petition their local Orthodox bishop for his opinion when constructing a new place of worship. However, the country’s highest administrative court (the Council of the State) has decided that the bishop’s opinion, even if negative, cannot prevent town planning authorities from issuing such a building license.
The situation is better in regard to education. There are state-owned, mixed, Greek-and-Turkish-language primary schools for children belonging to the Turkish-speaking Muslim minority in northeastern Greece (the Thrace region). The schools are staffed by Turkish-speaking Muslim teachers. In the same region, in the cities of Xanthi and Komotini, there are also two Greek and Turkish language high schools with teachers who are Turkish-speaking Muslims (minority members) and Turkish nationals. The limited number of places available, however, means that a majority of Turkish-speaking pupils still cannot attend such a school. Turkish-speaking Muslims who are graduates of these schools and are also Greek citizens are admitted by Greek state universities on the basis of a quota. On this matter, more can be done to facilitate the flow of pupils from primary to secondary education, and to attract more members of the minority to Greek state universities.
Officially there is no discrimination on the basis of gender and physical ability. The Greek government has transposed the relevant EU directives on gender equality in the workplace, and has passed legislation to protect the disabled. In practice, however, there remains a persistent wage and salary differential between male and female employees. Women are still pensioned off much earlier than men, and disabled persons encounter substantive difficulties in terms of their everyday physical mobility (for instance, the headquarters of public services continue to present problems of access).

Legal provisions against discrimination are largely appropriate. Hungary implemented all EU anti-discrimination directives in the early 2000s and has a functioning Anti-Discrimination Office, now called the Equal Treatment Authority. Defying international recommendations calling for the independence of this body, the Authority is formally part of the government administration. Despite the comprehensive legal and institutional framework, there is still considerable discrimination. Women face substantial career disadvantages. The Roma population suffers from widespread discrimination in fields like employment, housing, or access to political posts. The accessibility of public buildings and public transport for the disabled is improving only slowly.

The three million descendants of the so-called burakumin, outcasts of the feudal period, still face informal social discrimination, though it is difficult for the government to counter this. Korean and Chinese minorities with permanent resident status also face some social discrimination, a situation true also for more recent Brazilian and Philippine immigrants. Naturalization rules were eased somewhat during the reporting period, and among the roughly 600,000 ethnic Koreans in the country, some 10,000 are being granted citizenship per year. However, even if a person does not want to or cannot become a Japanese citizen, he or she should be treated fairly.

Japan has a rather serious human trafficking problem with respect to menial labor and the sex trade. This also refers to underage foreigners facing such exploitation. Based on the number of cases prosecuted by the government, the authorities seem to have become somewhat harsher with traffickers, some of whom are involved with organized crime (yakuza).

Women still face some discrimination, particularly in the labor market. The wage differential with men has not significantly decreased in recent years, and the recent recession has not helped in this respect. While many observers expect that the DPJ-led government will introduce additional measures aimed at addressing these problems, progress may be slow. In recent months, the topic of whether married women may legally use their former maiden name has been discussed. While some use of nonregistered names is already evident in society, the coalition government, due to divergent opinions among its various constituent parties, seems unable to move forward on this issue.

In theory, the state is expected to protect citizens against discrimination. In practice, there are geographical variances given the decentralized and federalist nature of the Mexican polity. Mexico has substantially increased its level of decentralization in the last two decades. Today, more public employees work at the state and municipal level than at the federal level. Government discrimination, mainly on grounds of ethnic appearance and social status, does exist in places, but is in general more of a local than a national phenomenon. That said, people of Indian background do face discrimination in some parts of Mexico, and state institutions have not always been effective in dealing with the problem. Mexico’s business and political elites still come almost exclusively from mainly European backgrounds.

Discrimination is frequent in Korea. Women remain underrepresented in almost all important fields in Korea. The wage gap between men and women is on average 38%, the biggest such gap in the OECD. The unequal treatment of Korean women is reflected in various UNDP data compilations. While South Korea ranked 25th in the UNDP’s 2006 Human Development Index (HDI), and 26th in the 2006 Gender-Related Development Index (GDI), the country ranked only 68th (out of 108 countries) with respect to the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), which focuses on women’s roles in economic and political life.
Discrimination against gay and lesbians remains pervasive. Discrimination against irregular workers and migrant workers is also frequent. In addition to discrimination at the workplace, many migrant workers have to submit to an HIV test in order to get a work visa. Discrimination against people with handicaps has improved, although barrier-free entrances to buildings and public transportation services remain rare.
The government has tried to address discrimination based on gender and other characteristics, but with little effect. The establishment of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in 2001 under the presidency of Nobel Peace Price laureate Kim Dae-jung was an important step, but this organization is not part of the executive branch, and has no direct enforcement authority. The enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in April 2008 constituted another important step toward better protection against discrimination. According to official data from the NHRC, a total of 1,390 cases pertaining to disability discrimination have been filed with the commission since the DDA took force, accounting for up to 50% of the total number of discrimination cases filed. The number has increased dramatically compared to the 14% share of previous years, as the DDA was expected to be relatively strictly enforced.

When the Fico government came to power, concerns were raised about an increase in the discrimination of Hungarians, Roma and Jewish people. These concerns have largely been confirmed. On the positive side, the government amended the Anti-Discrimination Act in February 2008 and expanded the ban on discrimination. Moreover, the new School Act, adopted in May 2008, clearly prohibits discrimination and segregation in education, and the government presented a comprehensive medium-term program in 2008 targeting improvements to the Roma population’s situation. However, the Fico government stuck to its racist political discourse and did little to ensure that existing anti-discrimination legislation was enforced. With respect to the Hungarian minority, the government even adopted new discriminatory legislation, which was heavily criticized inside and outside Slovakia. The 2009 State Language Act introduced sanctions for violating the standard rules of the Slovak language. The 2010 Patriotism Act calls for “patriotic” education in schools and for placing the Slovak national emblem, flag and anthem, as well as the preamble of the Slovak constitution, in every classroom and every local or regional parliament. As a result of the government’s discourse and measures, public attitudes against minority groups, especially Hungarians, have apparently deteriorated (ECRI 2009). There is also evidence of an increase in racially motivated violence against ethnic minorities.

Article 10 of the Turkish constitution states that “all individuals are equal without any discrimination before the law, irrespective of language, race, color, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such considerations.” However, no separate act exists combating all forms of discrimination. Turkey has not yet passed a special anti-discrimination law to protect ethnic and religious minorities, disabled persons, persons with non-mainstream sexual orientations, women or elderly people. Some provisions to tackle discrimination are included in a number of laws dealing with specific issues such as labor, disabled persons, or the penal code. However, there has been little progress in terms of improving the status of disadvantaged groups in Turkey, particularly with respect to women and children. Gender discrimination at the workplace is still a major issue. The problem of street children has been a special focus for the state ministry in charge of women and family. The situation of Alevis, Roma and some officially accepted religious minorities (Greek and Armenian Christians and Jews) have been repeatedly underlined by the EU progress reports. According to the EC’s 2009 progress report, “the acquis concerning discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation has not yet been transposed.” There is still no equality body in Turkey, although a Parliamentary Commission on Equal Opportunities for Men and Women was established. Turkey adopted a national action plan for gender equality for 2008 – 2013.
Although the Court of Cassation ruled against the closure of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite and transgender (LGBTT) Lambda Istanbul Solidarity Association in April 2009, the court’s decision included a statement that the association should not “encourage lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite and transsexual behavior with the aim of spreading such sexual orientations.” In this context, S.A. Kavaf, the (female) state minister in charge of women and family affairs, stated in March 2010 in an interview granted to Turkey’s second largest quality newspaper that, “I think homosexuality is a biological disease, an illness, something that has to be treated.” The statement aroused vociferous protests from gay and lesbian organizations in Turkey as well as the broader media, as attacks on homosexuals occur frequently in Turkey.