Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Living Together: European Citizenship against Racism and Xenophobia Dissemination of the results of the project 16 June 2010 This project is supported.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Living Together: European Citizenship against Racism and Xenophobia Dissemination of the results of the project 16 June 2010 This project is supported."— Presentation transcript:

1 Living Together: European Citizenship against Racism and Xenophobia Dissemination of the results of the project 16 June 2010 This project is supported by the European Commission DG Justice, Freedom and Security, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme ( )

2 Living Together Partners Project Co-ordinator ◦ OBERAXE, the Spanish Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Participating countries ◦ Spain ◦ Portugal ◦ Finland ◦ The Netherlands ◦ Sweden ◦ Ireland Statutory bodies, universities, NGOs

3 Living Together Aim See UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance Promote European discourse of tolerance harmony and respect recognition of difference free from racism and xenophobia

4 Living Together Objectives Focus Groups Analyse and identify prejudices, stereotypes, fears How are racist attitudes generated and legitimised? Best Practice Compile best practice Identify strategies to fight racism and xenophobia Expert Forum Identify common principles and actions to address racism and xenophobia - Decalogue Audience – various social agents / experts Network Develop transnational monitoring mechanism

5 Living Together Methodology Developed by Complutense University of Madrid and Rotterdam University Focus groups Best practice reports National expert forums

6 Living Together Methodology Focus groups Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain 3 focus groups per country Drawback – funding constraints dictated the number of focus groups FG1 Upper middle social status FG2 Young middle- middle social status yrs FG3 Lower middle social status

7 Living Together Methodology Focus groups Moderation style - conversational 3 phrases to stimulate discussion ◦ Skin colour is of great importance for living together ◦ Both immigrants and ethnic minorities get more (from the country they live in) than they give ◦ Both immigrants and ethnic minorities should maintain their identity and culture of origin

8 Highlights – Focus Groups positions on immigrants and ethnic minorities Socio- demographic profiles Feelings of competition - jobs and public benefits Experience of living together social desirability bias Key influences

9 Highlights – Focus Groups FG1 Pros and cons of immigration Reflective arguments to neutralise cultural criticism Class racism FG2 General tolerance Social context of economic crisis Good and bad experiences impact attitudes FG3 Social context of economic crisis Feelings of competition and discrimination Experiences of difficulties living together

10 Highlights – Focus Groups Matters in society (Sweden, Finland, Netherlands) More about socio-economic status (Portugal, Spain) Stereotyping – associate skin colour with cultural and religious values. Media plays a role in this context. Skin colour Give: economic, cultural and demographic contributions acknowledged Get: public subsidies, unemployment benefit, housing, jobs Get more than they give Greater cultural tolerance shown by young people and adults with higher education especially in Sweden and Finland. Should keep identity and culture

11 Highlights – Focus Groups Positive arguments Negative Arguments Positive Discourses Negative Discourses e.g. invasion, damage labour, cultural imposition, anti-social behaviour, reverse discrimination e.g. immigration necessary, human rights, discrimination, cultural wealth contribution e.g. Necessary immigration, equal rights, citizens, over-qualified, stereotyped e.g. control immigration, abusive & unskilled, immigration, lazy

12 Highlights – Focus Groups Country comparisons Class racism more prevalent in Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands More admissions of racism in Spain and Portugal based on experiences and perceptions Social desirability bias more prevalent across all focus groups in Sweden – less visible racism Discourse of resentment present across all focus groups in Spain – possibly linked to collective memory pre-welfare state

13 Living Together Methodology Choosing best practice 1.Demonstrable effects / tangible impacts 2.Creative / innovative 3.Sustainable 4.Potential for replication Must meet at least criteria 1 and 4 above Based on UNESCO’s International Migration Best Practice Project

14 Living Together Methodology Geographical big citytownrural Entity publicPrivateNGOother Area educationsocial servicehousingemploymentsport etc TimescaleProject Type completed by 2008 improving intercultural tolerance and dialogue Choosing best practice – other criteria

15 Highlights – Best Practice Area – education, sport, legal, employment, public administration etc. Type – awareness raising, tackling racism, cultural mediation, youth, arts, living together, interculturalism and religion etc. Website –

16 Living Together Methodology Purpose of expert forums - to provide a basis for the preparation of the Decalogue – i.e. Identify common principles and actions to address racism and xenophobia National expert forums responded to findings from focus groups In the absence of focus groups Ireland’s national expert forum addressed the theme ‘tackling racism and the impact of racist stereotypes’.

17 Living Together Methodology National expert forums to include: 1 - capital city 2 - university / research centre 2 - NGOs 1 - national / regional public administration 1 - business sector 1 - media 1 - trade union 1 - opposition political party

18 Highlights – Expert Forums Finland More recent change in negative public debate noted Ireland Focus on monitoring, media and best practice as tools to address racism Portugal Chinese identified as best integrated and Roma the most discriminated Spain Reflection on positive and negative arguments Context provided by economic crisis noted Sweden Discourse of ‘individual tolerance’ explained by political correctness in Swedish society Expert forum reflected on examples of racism and discrimination in Sweden in practice

19 Outcome - Decalogue 1. Identify principles on which best practices should be based 2. Name and recognise all forms of racism and xenophobia as problems 3. Document and monitor racism and xenophobia 4. Identify effective legal remedies, policy actions, educational programmes and best practice 5. Foster the mass media role in promoting respect for cultures and in recognising diversity

20 Outcome - Decalogue 6. Recognise immigrants’ economic, social and cultural contribution 7. Design public services taking into consideration the needs of society 8. Promote principles of respect and dialogue, perceiving cultural diversity as enriching 9. Move from stereotypes to ‘Living Together’ 10. Perceive migration as a universal phenomenon and the reflective argument

21 Outcome – Develop Network Warning system to monitor racism and xenophobia Information will be communicated and managed by OBERAXE (Spain) via website Aim – highlight racism and share information Member organisations can provide information – must identify themsevles OBERAXE will verify information Members can be public, private, NGO, media organisations who join the network

22 Further information Website – her/ her/

23 Comments and Feedback? In general? In relation to the Decalogue? In relation to the network to monitor racism and xenophobia?


Download ppt "Living Together: European Citizenship against Racism and Xenophobia Dissemination of the results of the project 16 June 2010 This project is supported."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google