FRA Opinions EU-MIDIS II Muslims

The following FRA opinions build on the key findings of the second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) on first- and secondgeneration Muslim immigrants. They should be read against the EU’s Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy adopted in 2004 and, in particular, against the policy priorities set out in the European Commission 2016 Action Plan on the integration of third-country nationals.

Living together in the EU: citizenship, trust and tolerance

EU-MIDIS II shows that most Muslim respondents feel attached to the country they live in, trust its institutions and are comfortable interacting with people of different religious or ethnic origins. The majority of respondents (76 %) feel strongly attached to their country of residence. Overall, they indicate higher levels of trust in public institutions than the general population did in the European Social Survey 2014 – particularly first-generation Muslims, who could be influenced by negative experiences with public institutions in their countries of origin. On average, respondents most trust the police and the legal system, followed by the national parliament. They are neutral towards the European Parliament and tend not to trust national politicians and political parties. However, on average, second-generation Muslims trust the police and the legal system less than first-generation Muslims do.

Just over half of Muslim respondents (53 %) hold citizenship of their country of residence and therefore enjoy the full set of rights for nationals or EU citizens. However, 15 % either hold a residence permit valid for fewer than five years or (temporarily) hold no residence permit. Having an insecure legal status can subject immigrants to particular risks, increasing their vulnerability to discrimination.

These findings suggest that meeting the EU’s goals set out in the European Commission’s 2016 Action Plan on the integration of third-country nationals will be a challenge. The EU acknowledges that migration is a permanent feature of European societies and recognises the importance of migrant integration for social inclusion and growth. However, effective measures to ensure the active contribution of immigrants – including Muslims – in the political, cultural and social life of European societies still need to be implemented. Many EU Member States have put into place a national integration action plan and/or strategy. FRA’s recent report on living together in the EU9 highlights, however, that these action plans and strategies often correctly expect immigrants to comply with the host societies’ legislation and values while rarely promoting their meaningful participation, especially that of youth, in the society in which they live. Creating a sense of belonging will contribute to building socio-economically thriving societies.

Muslim respondents are generally open towards other groups of people in the sense of feeling comfortable with having neighbours of a different religion, the same or another ethnic background, or persons with disabilities. Nine out of 10 respondents say that they have friends with a different religious background, and almost all (92 %) tend to feel comfortable with having neighbours of a different religious background. Further underlining the Muslim respondents’ open attitudes towards other religions, almost every second respondent (48 %) indicates they would feel ‘totally comfortable’ with a family member marrying a non-Muslim person. Fewer Muslim respondents feel uncomfortable with a family member being married to someone of a different religion (17 %) than the general population, based on the latter’s responses in the Eurobarometer survey 2015, according to which 30 % would feel uncomfortable if their son or daughter were to have a ‘love relationship’ with a Muslim person.

However, 23 % of Muslim respondents feel uncomfortable with having lesbian, gay or bisexual people as neighbours – compared to 16 % of the general population indicating, in the European Values Study 2008, that they would not like to have “homosexuals as their neighbours”. Also, 30 % of Muslim respondents are uncomfortable with having transgender or transsexual persons as neighbours. In general, female Muslim respondents tend to be slightly more open, showing higher average comfort levels with different groups as neighbours, particularly LGBT persons – a gendered finding that is often replicated in other surveys conducted on the general population.

This calls for a consistent application of the Council of the EU’s Common Basic Principle referring to integration as a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants, including Muslims, and residents. In this respect, the February 2015 Paris declaration10 by the EU’s ministers responsible for education, and the Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, points to an urgent need to strengthen the key contribution that education makes to personal development, social inclusion and participation, by imparting the fundamental values and principles that constitute the foundation of our societies. Similarly, the European Commission noted, in its 2016 Communication on the Action Plan on the integration of third-country nationals, that understanding and subscribing to the EU’s fundamental values – the rights to equality and nondiscrimination, as well as to freedom of religion – is an essential element of living together and participating in society. At the same time, these rights also protect immigrants, foster their inclusion into society and allow communities to thrive.

Discrimination and rights awareness

EU-MIDIS II results show that Muslim respondents face high levels of discrimination because of their ethnic or immigrant background – including skin colour, ethnic origin or immigrant background, and religion or religious belief. Four out of 10 Muslim respondents (39 %) felt discriminated against in the five years before the survey because of their ethnic or immigrant background in one or more areas of daily life, and one in four (25 %) experienced this in the 12 months preceding the survey. Those who felt discriminated against reported that this happened, on average, at least five times a year, which shows that discrimination is a recurring experience.

When asked specifically about religious discrimination in their daily lives during the five years preceding the survey – whether when looking for work or at work, in access to housing and when in contact with school authorities as parents or guardians – nearly one in five Muslims surveyed (17 %) reported such experiences in EU-MIDIS II. In 2008, in EU-MIDIS I, one in 10 Muslims (10 %) felt discriminated against on this basis. In EU-MIDIS II, second-generation Muslim respondents mention religious discrimination more often than first generation Muslim immigrants do (22 % and 15 %, respectively). These findings signal that much remains to be done before Muslims can fully enjoy their rights to non-discrimination and freedom of religion.

Muslim respondents’ first or last names, and their skin colour or physical appearance, prompt discrimination in all areas of life, but especially when they look for work or housing. More than half of Muslim respondents (53 %) who looked for housing felt discriminated against because of their first or last names, and slightly less than half (44 %) of those who looked for work.

As in the previous survey, many Muslim respondents report experiencing unequal treatment in employment: 13 % of those who looked for work in the 12 months before the survey, and 9 % of those at work. In this context, Muslim women feel particularly discriminated against because of their clothing: 35 % of Muslim women who looked for work, compared with 4 % of Muslim men, mention clothing as a reason for discrimination; 22 % of Muslim women, compared with 7 % of Muslim men, mention it when at work. Around 12 % of Muslim respondents who were at work in the five years preceding the survey were not allowed to take time off for an important religious holiday, service or ceremony, and 9 % were prevented from expressing or carrying out religious practices and customs, such as praying or wearing a headscarf or turban.

Experiencing discrimination affects Muslims’ social inclusion: those who felt discriminated against and/or experienced harassment or violence show lower levels of trust in the country’s legal system and the police. They also expressed lower levels of attachment to their country of residence.

This suggests that, although non-discrimination is a requirement anchored in Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and specific EU legislation such as the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC), much needs to be done to ensure the effective and practical enforcement on the ground. The EU’s third Common Basic Principle on Integration, for example, specifically mentions that “employment is a key part of the integration process and is central to the participation of immigrants, to the contributions immigrants make to the host society, and to making such contributions visible”. At international and regional level, the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination is linked to the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

These rights are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

EU-MIDIS I found that 79 % of Muslim respondents did not report their experiences with discrimination. Similarly, most Muslim respondents surveyed in EU-MIDIS II did not report such incidents to any organisation or office where complaints can be made, or at the place where the discrimination occurred. On average, only 12 % of Muslim respondents who felt discriminated against reported the incident. Muslim women report such incidents more often (15 %) than Muslim men (10 %). Respondents who did report discrimination incidents mostly addressed their employer (39 %), followed by the police (17 %) and trade unions (16 %), since many of these incidents were related to work. Only 4 % of all Muslim respondents who reported a discrimination incident filed a complaint or reported the incident to an equality body, which could be explained by the very low awareness level about these bodies’ existence. Similar to the findings of EUMIDIS I, according to which 80 % of Muslim respondents were not aware of any organisation that offers support or advice to discrimination victims, the majority of Muslim respondents (72 %) covered in this report were also not aware of any such organisation, while most (65 %) did not recognise any of the equality bodies in their country.

These findings suggest that clear gaps persist in the practical implementation of the EU’s equal treatment legislation, namely in terms of public awareness of organisations providing independent assistance and support to victims of discrimination. Although Article 10 of the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) obliges Member States to ensure that provisions adopted pursuant to the directive, together with those already in force, “are brought to the attention of persons concerned by all appropriate means throughout their territory”, rights awareness among the public, especially of persons who are at particular risk of discrimination, remains low. In this respect, one should take into account the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Achbita (Case C-157/15) and Bougnaoui (Case C-188/15) cases which, when interpreting the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC), held that an internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination.

Harassment and violence motivated by hatred

EU-MIDIS II shows that over one quarter (27 %) of Muslim respondents experienced harassment because of their ethnic or immigrant background in the 12 months preceding the survey, with another 2 % having been physically assaulted on this basis in that period.

Some Muslim respondents (1 %) experienced physical assault by a police officer because of their ethnic or immigrant background during the 12 months preceding the survey (2 % did so in the preceding five years).

Generational differences can be observed. About one fifth (22 %) of first-generation respondents say they experienced harassment motivated by hatred, compared to more than one third (36 %) of second-generation Muslim respondents.

Concerning the experiences of Muslim women, EU-MIDIS II shows that just under one third (31 %) of Muslim women who wear a headscarf or niqab in public experienced harassment because of their ethnic or immigrant background, compared to just under one quarter (23 %) of women who do not wear a headscarf or niqab. More than one third (39 %) of all Muslim women who wear a headscarf or niqab in public experienced inappropriate staring or offensive gestures in the 12 months before the survey because they did so, with more than one fifth (22 %) experiencing insults or offensive comments. Two percent were physically attacked.

In the majority of instances, the respondents identified the perpetrator(s) of harassment and violence motivated by hatred as someone they did not know and as someone without a minority ethnic background. Only in a few cases (3 % to 5 %) did the respondents identify perpetrators as being members of an extremist or racist group. Just under one half (48 %) of Muslim women in the survey identify the perpetrator(s) as being someone from another ethnic minority group, compared to just over one in four (26 %) for Muslim men. The same pattern can be observed among second-generation Muslim respondents, who identify nearly four in 10 perpetrators (38 %) as someone from another ethnic minority group, compared to nearly three in 10 for firstgeneration respondents (28 %).

As found in other FRA surveys, non-reporting remains an issue of concern, with just under one tenth of respondents (9 %) reporting harassment to any relevant authority. The reporting rate for physical attacks is also low, with less than a quarter of respondents (23 %) reporting such attacks to the police or other organisation. The majority of incidents perpetrated by police officers (70 %) were also not reported. The main reason Muslim respondents give for not reporting incidents is that nothing would change or happen as a result of reporting (47 %).

This is consistent with findings of other victimisation surveys. FRA’s research has consistently shown that victims of hate crime are reluctant to report incidents to the police – sometimes because they do not know where to turn for help, sometimes because they simply do not believe reporting will make a difference. Victims can also suffer from feelings of fear, guilt or shame. This means many cases of racist harassment and violence are not investigated or prosecuted. As a result, offenders go unpunished, and victims are prevented from gaining redress and experiencing justice being served.

Those who do report incidents are often dissatisfied with the police’s handling of the matter. The majority of Muslim respondents (81 %) who reported a physical assault to the police were dissatisfied, while only 13 % said they were satisfied with how the police dealt with their case. This contrasts with findings of FRA’s survey on violence against women in the EU, which show that 66 % of women were satisfied with the way police handled the most serious incident of physical violence perpetrated against them by someone other than their current or previous partner.

Hate crime can affect anyone in society, and affects not only the individuals targeted, but also their families, their communities and the entire society. It is the most severe expression of discrimination and a core fundamental rights abuse. Since 2008, the EU has put in place criminal law provisions in the form of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, offering protection against incitement to hatred and hate crime targeting a person or persons belonging to a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.11 This protection is complemented by the provisions of the Victims’ Rights Directive, which establishes minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of hate crime, among others, to meet obligations under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.12 To strengthen the implementation of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the European Commission also created, in June 2016, the EU’s High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance, which brings together all EU Member States, the European Commission and FRA, as well as intergovernmental and civil society organisations. The group’s initial priorities include countering online hate speech and improving methodologies for recording and collecting data on hate crime.

Police stops

EU-MIDIS II finds that of all Muslim respondents 16 % were stopped by the police in the 12 months preceding the survey and 8 % say that this was because of their immigrant or ethnic minority background. Of those Muslim respondents the police stopped in that period, 42 % believe this was because of their immigrant or ethnic minority background. On average, the police stopped young Muslim respondents more often than those who are older, and men more often than women. Among the different groups of Muslims surveyed, Muslim respondents from North and Sub-Saharan Africa more frequently say that they were stopped by the police because of their immigrant or ethnic minority background.

Muslim men and women who at least sometimes wear traditional or religious clothing in public were, in the five years preceding the survey, more often stopped by the police because of their ethnic or immigrant background (39 % stopped) than those who do not wear such clothing (29 % stopped). In this context, the findings also show gender differences: nearly one in five Muslim men (47 %) who at least sometimes wear traditional or religious clothing in public believe they were stopped by the police because of their ethnic or immigrant background, compared with one in two Muslim women (20 %) who do so.

Law enforcement based on equality and nondiscrimination is a cornerstone of democratic societies including increasingly diverse communities. Law enforcement has a duty to treat everyone respectfully; they should not only fight crime, but also address the needs and rights of victims, witnesses and their wider communities. It should be taken into account that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its judgment in S.A.S v. France (No. 43835/11, 2014) and subsequent judgments in Belcacemi and Oussar v. Belgium (No. 37798/13, 2017) and Dakir v. Belgium (No. 4619/12, 2017), held that the French and Belgian laws and decrees banning the wearing of clothing that fully or partially conceals the face in public places are not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In another case, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed its views under Article 5, Paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (108th session) concerning Communication No. 1928/2010 submitted by Mann Singh. The committee concludes that the regulation of the State Party (France) requiring persons to appear bareheaded in their passport photographs is a disproportionate limitation that infringes freedom of religion and constitutes a violation of Article 18 of the Covenant.

The practice of discriminatory ethnic profiling – police stops based solely or mainly on an individual’s personal characteristics rather than their behaviour – is unlawful and can have damaging effects on community relations and public cooperation with law enforcement, undermining trust in law enforcement. Embedding fundamental rights considerations into the design of security measures can help limit their potentially adverse effects on the rights of individuals and reduce the risk of alienating entire communities with measures that could be perceived as discriminatory, as FRA has shown in 2015.14 Social alienation brought about by experiences of discrimination, including discriminatory treatment by authorities, could provide fertile soil for grievances to flourish, which may be exploited by those intent on radicalising vulnerable individuals. EU-MIDIS II results reveal that Muslim respondents have a high level of trust in the police, compared with the general population. However, this finding needs to be read alongside the very low reporting rates for hate crime incidents, which could indicate a lack of confidence in the ability of criminal justice responses to tackle such incidents effectively.