Over Straatsburg en Stereotypen: Gelijke Behandeling en de Jurisprudentie van het EHRM Alexandra Timmer Universiteit Utrecht;
[email protected] Vereniging voor Vrouw en Recht, Leiden 4 februari 2015 Titel Proefschrift: Strenghthening the Equality Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights: the Potential of the Concepts of Stereotyping and Vulnerability
I.
Artikel 14 EVRM
“Discrimination for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations.”1 “the right not to be discriminated . . . is also violated when States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.”2 -
II. -
III.
Accessoir karakter van Art 14 EVRM Margin of appreciation en de “very weighty reasons” doctrine Assepoester is naar het bal gekomen
Verschillende concepties van gelijkheid Formeel Materieel Transformatief
Theorie over stereotypen
Wat zijn stereotypen? • Neutrale definitie: stereotypen zijn opvattingen over groepen mensen • Rebecca Cook & Simone Cusack, Gender Stereotyping: “a stereotype is a generalized view or preconception of attributes or characteristics possessed by, or the roles that are or should be performed by, members of a particular group”.
1 2
E.g. Aksu v. Turkey (GC), App. Nos. 4149/04; 41029/04, 15 March 2012, ¶ 43. Thlimmenos v. Greece (GC), App. No. 34369/97, 6 April 2000, ¶ 44.
1
Waarom stereotyperen we? • Wereld simplificeren / begrijpelijk maken • ‘In-’ en ‘Out-Groups’: goed voelen over onszelf Stereotyperen is tot op behaalde hoogte onvermijdelijk en ook legitiem: “not all stereotypes are bad” Verschillende vormen stereotypen: Gebaseerd op de jurisprudentie van het US Supreme Court, onderscheid ik vier soorten stereotypen: 1. Role-types 2. Descriptieve / statistisch correcte stereotypen 3. Foutieve stereotypen (statistisch incorrect of gebaseerd op vooroordelen) 4. Prescriptieve stereotypen NB: één stereotype valt vaak in meerdere van deze categorieën tegelijkertijd!
IV.
EHRM jurisprudentie over stereotypen
Alajos Kiss v. Hungary (2010) Onderwerp: Ontneming van kiesrecht van mensen die onder curatelen staan r.o. 42: if a restriction on fundamental rights applies to a particularly vulnerable group in society, who have suffered considerable discrimination in the past, such as the mentally disabled, then the State's margin of appreciation is substantially narrower and it must have very weighty reasons for the restrictions in question […] The reason for this approach, which questions certain classifications per se, is that such groups were historically subject to prejudice with lasting consequences, resulting in their social exclusion. Such prejudice may entail legislative stereotyping which prohibits the individualised evaluation of their capacities and needs […].
Kiyutin v. Russia (2011) Onderwerp: Weigering verblijfsvergunnig omdat verzoeker HIV-positief was r.o. 68: Excluding HIV-positive non-nationals from entry and/or residence in order to prevent HIV transmission is based on the assumption that they will engage in specific unsafe behaviour and that the national will also fail to protect himself or herself. This assumption amounts to a generalisation which is not founded in fact.
Konstantin Markin v. Russia (Grote Kamer; 2012) Onderwerp: Weigering ouderschapsverlof mannelijke militair r.o. 143: The Court agrees with the Chamber that gender stereotypes, such as the perception of women as primary child-carers and men as primary breadwinners, cannot, by themselves, be considered to amount to sufficient justification for a difference in treatment, any more than similar stereotypes based on race, origin, colour or sexual orientation.
2
Aksu v. Turkey (Grote Kamer; 2012) Onderwerp: stereotype weergave van Roma in een boek en een woordenboek r.o. 58: [A]ny negative stereotyping of a group, when it reaches a certain level, is capable of impacting on the group’s sense of identity and the feelings of selfworth and self-confidence of members of the group. It is in this sense that it can be seen as affecting the private life of members of the group.
Biao v. Denmark (dissent JUDGES SAJÓ, VUČINIČ AND KŪRIS) (2014) Onderwerp: family reunion R.o 7-8: Different treatment of citizens based on ethnic or national origin (the latter meaning, inter alia, origin related to citizenship) may amount to discrimination on grounds of ethnicity or nationality […]the paramount concern of a human rights court should be whether such criteria have the disparate adverse impact of a stereotype on a minority group, no less important than the actual individual impact, which in every case is absolutely necessary for victim status to obtain. The difference in the treatment of a group raises fundamental human rights concerns, especially if it reflects or reinforces existing patterns of social stereotyping related to one or other “natural feature”. It is impossible to think of Article 14 of the Convention as permitting second-class citizenship, especially within the ambit of Convention rights
SAS v. France (Grote Kamer; 2014) Onderwerp: het boerkaverbod in Frankrijk r.o. 149: the Court is very concerned by the indications of some of the third-party interveners to the effect that certain Islamophobic remarks marked the debate which preceded the adoption of the Law of 11 October 2010 […] It is admittedly not for the Court to rule on whether legislation is desirable in such matters. It would, however, emphasise that a State which enters into a legislative process of this kind takes the risk of contributing to the consolidation of the stereotypes which affect certain categories of the population and of encouraging the expression of intolerance, when it has a duty, on the contrary, to promote tolerance […]. The Court reiterates that remarks which constitute a general, vehement attack on a religious or ethnic group are incompatible with the values of tolerance, social peace and non-discrimination which underlie the Convention and do not fall within the right to freedom of expression that it protects […]
M.D. v. Ireland (ontvankelijkheidsbeslissing; 2014) Onderwerp: strafbaarstelling seks tussen minderjarigen (alleen jongens strafbaar voor penetratieve seks) r.o. 33: Very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before a difference of treatment based on gender could be regarded as compatible with the Convention. In particular, references to traditions, general assumptions or prevailing social attitudes in a particular country are insufficient justification for a difference in treatment on grounds of sex (see, with many further references, Konstantin Markin v. Russia […]
3
V.
In plaats van een conclusie: suggesties/bevindingen/vragen
Twee voornaamste problemen met de jurisprudentie: Stereotypen worden vaak niet benoemd (benoemen is voorwaarde voor veranderen) Art 14 EVRM wordt vaak niet in de analyse van het Hof betrokken Lastigste vraag blijft: wanneer is een stereotype schadelijk? Hoe de schadelijke van de “acceptabele” stereotypen te onderscheiden? Er zal een contextuele analyse nodig blijven.
Stereotypen en discriminatie zijn met elkaar verbonden in een vicieuze cirkel:
Manifestation of discrimination
Cause of further discrimination
-
Rationalization of discrimination
De cirkel toegepast op de casus van Konstantin Markin t. Rusland: Stereotypen: women do not play an important role in the military women have a special social role associated with motherhood
Meer weten? Literatuurlijst: o o
o
o
Eva Brems and Alexandra Timmer (eds.), Stereotyping as a Human Rights Issue (Antwerp: Intersentia, accepted: will be published in Winter 2015) Alexandra Timmer, Judging Stereotypes: What the European Court of Human Rights Can Borrow from American and Canadian Equal Protection Law, 63 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW (accepted: will be published February 2015), 37 pages. Alexandra Timmer, From Inclusion to Transformation: Rewriting Konstantin Markin v. Russia, in: Eva Brems (ed.), DIVERSITY AND EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS: REWRITING JUDGMENTS OF THE ECHR (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 148-170. Alexandra Timmer, Toward an Anti-Stereotyping Approach for the European Court of Human Rights, 11 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW (2011), p. 707-738.
4
o
Eva Brems and Alexandra Timmer, Written Submissions by the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Konstantin Markin v. Russia, May 17, 2011 (Available at: http://www.ugent.be/re/publiekrecht/en/department/humanrights/publications/amicus.pdf).
5
