Идва ли краят на анклавите от имигранти на Стария континент

Идва ли краят на анклавите от имигранти на Стария континент
 

ПАСЕ се връща към предложение на Лъчезар Тошев за радикална промяна на европейския обществен модел

Силвия Стефанова

В.Лечител, 20, 21 май 2015г.

http://www.lechitel.bg/newspaper.php?s=8&b=488

1. Големите въпроси

Застрашени ли са европейските ценности от притока на имигранти, които изповядват исляма?
Има ли начин застаряваща и християнска Европа да заживее в хармония с пришълците от другите части на света, без да бъде използвана (единствено) като резервоар за социални помощи?
Кога един имигрант става европеец? Когато стъпи на континента, когато получи политическо убежище, когато си намери работа и дом и вземе гражданство… Или когато той и децата му научат езика на приелата ги страна, опознаят нейната култура и история и с уважение я предадат на своите потомци?
А може би е важно и ние, кореняците на майката Европа, да престанем да виждаме в преселниците от Африка, Азия, от Близкия и от Далечния изток натрапници и втора категория хора, напъплили като скакалци по благоденствието, стандарта и трудовия ни пазар.

Всеки човек иска да живее добре и е достойно да се бори за това. Освен правото на живот, вода, въздух, храна и подслон право на човешката душа е да има мечти. И ако Европа се е превърнала в мечта за много хора по света, трябва ли това да поражда самозатваряне, омраза, противопоставяне и страх сред европейците?
Различието не означава непременно варварство.  Страхливото премълчаване на проблемите обаче не е благородство, нито решение. Уравнението на хармонията, каквото е съвместното съжителство между хора от различни етноси, религиозни и социални общности, винаги има две страни. Важно е кой от коя страна застава, с кого иска да се срещне, с какъв багаж от предразсъдъци или разбиране му протяга ръка. Или я вдига, за да го удари.
Няма среща без опознаване. Там, където хармонията липсва, има дефицит на справедливост и мир. 

 

Затова естествен е въпросът - вярно ли е, че сблъсъкът между религиите е исторически заложен и че хората, изповядващи исляма, християнството, будизма и юдаизма, не могат да живеят заедно и в мир?
Не искам да приема това за вярно. Надявам се страната ни да продължи да бъде позитивният пример, който, освен че опровергава мрачните прогнози, е извор на идеи и решения.
Но тогава следващият въпрос е - нормално ли е противопоставянето между религиите, или то умишлено се подклажда от крайни групировки чрез терористични актове и провокативно сквернословие?
Има опасност, ако не бъдат предприети така необходимите институционални мерки, пролятата  кръв и тлеещата омраза да предизвикат верижни конфликти, нови етнически сблъсъци и дори опустошителна война.
Гласът на мира е глас на далновидната мъдрост. Негови инструменти са законодателните и политическите решения, които предлагат правила, взаимни компромиси (а какво е компромисът, ако не съобразяване с част от аргументите на другия) и перспективи там, където неразбирането, инерцията, страхът и ­конфронтацията раждат само насилие.
Отредено ни е да живеем заедно и вместо да бягаме от тази истина, е по-разумно да я осмислим. За да я облечем в цивилизован регламент и развиващи се международни норми. Защото, както е казал един от най-значимите римски историци, политикът Гай Салустий Крисп още в I в. преди Христа, всеки е ковач на своето щастие и докато при съгласие малките дела растат, при несъгласие великите дела се разрушават. “Concordia parvae res crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur.”  

 

2. Миграция и  демография на исляма

 

Според изследване на американския  Pew Research Center, оповестено през януари 2011 г., през следващите 20 години  делът на мюсюлманското население в Европа ще нарасне с почти  1/3 - от 6% през 2010 г. на 8% през 2030 г. Или казано по друг начин -  от  44,1 млн. души през 2010 г. през 2030 г. мюсюлманите на Стария континент ще бъдат 58,2 милиона.
Предимно заради продължителната миграция най-голямо увеличение се очаква в Западна и Северна Европа. Във Великобритания например мюсюлманите ще достигнат 8,2% от цялото население срещу 4,6% към момента на проучването. В Австрия от 5,7% ще станат 9,3%. В Швеция кривата е по-стръмна - от 4,9% към 9,9% през 2030 г. В Белгия прогнозата е за 10,2%, а във Франция - за 10,3% срещу съответно 6% и 7,5% към момента на допитването.
Очакванията са през 2030 г. мюсюлманите да бъдат над 10% от цялото население в 10 европейски държави: Косово (93,5%), Албания (83,2%), Босна и Херцеговина (42,7%), Македония (40,3%), Черна гора (21,5%), България (15,7%), Русия (14,4%), Грузия (11,5%), Франция (10,3%) и Белгия (10,2%). Както днес, така и през 2030 г. в абсолютни числа Русия ще продължи да има най-многобройното мюсюлманско население в Европа.
Ето и още факти. Само през 2010 г. Франция е приела  66 000 имигранти мюсюлмани предимно от Северна Африка. Те се равняват на 68,5% от общия имиграционен поток към тази държава. Същата година Испания дава убежище на 70 000 мюсюлмани, те са 13,1% от имигрантската вълна, която я залива. В посочената година 28,1%, или близо 64 000 души от имигрантите във Великобритания се кланят на Аллаха и Неговия Пророк.
Според доклада на Pew Research Center страните от Близкия изток и Северна Африка, в които има високи имиграционни нагласи спрямо Европа, продължават да лидират по процент мюсюлмани сред своето население. В анализа се сочи, че през 2030 г. от 20 държави и територии в тези райони всички освен Израел ще имат не по-малко от 50% мюсюлмани. В 17 от тях се очаква мюсюлманите да бъдат над 75% от цялото население. Изключенията са  Израел, Ливан и Судан, но предвижданията са към 2030 г. 23,2% от израелското население да изповядва исляма срещу 17,7% през 2010 и 14,1% през 1990 г.
През 2030 г. се очаква Ирак да стане втората по численост (след Египет) на мюсюлманското си население държава в региона. Причината е в по-високата раждаемост, отколкото в Алжир и Мароко. Определението за мюсюлмани в доклада е гъвкаво. Но целта е да се обхванат всички индивиди и общности, които се самоопределят като изповядващи тази религия.

3. Религиозна карта на света

Нов доклад на Pew Center, излязъл на 2 април т.г., огласява първото по рода си изключително мащабно изследване за развитието и разпространението на религиите до 2050 г. в световен мащаб. Според него религиозният профил на света се променя бързо. Това се дължи главно на различията в раждаемостта и размера на младежките групи от населението сред големите световни религии, както и на хората, които променят вероизповеданията си. През следващите четири десетилетия християните ще останат най-голямата религиозна група, но ислямът ще расте по-бързо от всяка друга основна религия. Ако сегашните тенденции се запазят, до 2050 г. броят на мюсюлманите почти ще се изравни с броя на християните по света.
Атеистите, агностиците и хората, които не са приобщени към никаква религия – независимо от отчетения ръст в САЩ и Франция, - ще намалеят като дял спрямо общия брой на населението в световен мащаб.
Глобално будисткото население ще бъде приблизително със същата численост както през 2010 г., докато индуистките и еврейските общности ще бъдат по-големи, отколкото са днес.
В Европа мюсюлманите ще съставляват 10% от цялото население.
Индия ще запази хинду мнозинството си, но ще надмине Индонезия по броя на мюсюлманите..
В САЩ християните ще намалеят от над 3/4  от населението през 2010 г. до 2/3 през 2050 г., а юдаизмът вероятно вече няма да бъде най-голямата извънхристиянска религия, отстъпвайки на исляма. Четири от всеки 10 християни в света ще живеят в Субсахарска Африка. Очакванията са динамичният растеж на исляма и християнството да се случи именно тук. От друга страна, голяма част от населението, декларирало религиозна обвързаност, днес е концентрирано в местата с ниска раждаемост и застаряващо население като Европа, САЩ, Китай и Япония.
Специално за Стария континент тенденциите изглеждат така:
Въпреки че християнската популация ще остане най-многобройна, до 2050 г. тя ще намалее със 100 млн. души – от 553 млн. до 454 милиона. Християните ще продължат да са най-голямата религиозна група, но вместо 3/4 ще обхващат 2/3 от населението. През 2050 г. близо една четвърт от европейците, или 23%, няма да имат религиозна принадлежност, а мюсюлманите ще представляват 10% от популацията срещу 5,9% през 2010 година. За същия период броят на индуистите в Европа вероятно ще се удвои от почти 1,4 милиона (0,2% от населението) на близо 2,7 милиона души (0,4%) предимно заради притока на имигранти. Будистите  също ще отбележат бърз ръст – предвижда се броят им в Европа да нарасне от 1,4 млн. на 2,5 милиона. Според проучването през 2050 г. 56,2% от населението в Македония ще изповядва исляма. За сравнение през 2010 г. 59,3% са били християните. 
През 2050 г. мюсюлманите ще съставляват над 50%  от хората в 51 държави. Очаква се в Нигерия и Македония мнозинството да е мюсюлманско, но същевременно Нигерия ще продължи да има една от трите най-големи християнски популации в света след САЩ и Бразилия.
През 2050 г. най-големите групи във Франция, Нова Зеландия и Холандия ще бъдат религиозно необвързаните лица.
Посочените прогнози  почиват на демографски данни за развитието на човешките ресурси в държавите и континентите от целия свят. Те показват, че в световен мащаб мюсюлманите имат най-висок коефициент на плодовитост - средно 3,1 деца, родени от една жена. Той е доста над прага за възпроизводство на поколението (от 2,1), необходим, за да се поддържа стабилна популация. Християните са на второ място по раждаемост, средно с 2,7 деца на една жена. Хиндуисткият коефициент на плодовитост (2,4) се доближава до средния в световен мащаб (2,5). Възпроизводството при евреите - 2,3 деца на една жена - също е над прага за запазване на популацията.
Казаното дотук очертава условията, в които Европа ще трябва да търси и реализира един нов модел в отношението си към другия. Бил той бежанец, имигрант първо и второ поколение, незаконно пребиваващ, сезонен работник, чуждестранен студент и т.н.
Картината няма да бъде пълна без врящото гърне от терористични актове, които подкопаха вярата в намирането на трайни политически решения и непрекъснато дават храна за крайния национализъм.

4. Когато се пролива кръв

След масовия разстрел на журналисти от списанието “Шарли Ебдо” в Париж Франс прес публикува статистика за най-жестоките атентати, извършени в страната през последните 40 години. Фактите показват, че ислямски тероризъм е имало и преди, и след падането на Берлинската стена. И преди, и след разпадането на блоковото разделение на света.
Агенцията припомня, че на 11 и 15 март 2012 г. 23-годишният Мохамед Мера застрелва трима военни на улицата в Тулуза и Монтобан, а на 19 март убива три деца и един преподавател в еврейския колеж в Тулуза.
На 3 декември 1996 г. при бомбен атентат в метростанцията Порт Роаял в Париж са убити четирима души, 91 са ранените.
На 25 юли 1995 г. при експлозията на бомба във вагон на метрото на станция Сен Мишел в Париж загиват 8 души, а 119 са ранени. Атентатът е приписан на алжирските ислямистки екстремисти и е сред най-смъртоносните. Същото лято във Франция има девет терористични нападения, в които жертвите са осем, а над 200 са ранените. 
На 17 септември 1986 г. при бомбен атентат пред магазина „Тати” в Париж са убити 7 души, а 55 са ранени. Атентатът е част от серията терористични актове – 15 на брой (три от тях осуетени), - извършени през 1985 и 1986 г. от проиранската терористична мрежа на Фуад Али Салех. В тях убитите са 13, а ранените са 303.
На 31 декември 1983 г. двама души са убити и 34 са ранени на гара Сен Шарл в Марсилия при експлозията на бомба. Минути преди това с друга експлозия във влак по линията Марсилия - Париж са убити трима души, а други трима са ранени. Сред поелите отговорност за двата атентата е „Организацията за арабска въоръжена борба”.
Прекалено мъчително е изброяването на целия списък от терористични зверства. Въпреки това не могат да бъдат пропуснати нападенията, с които в най-новата ни история тежко бяха засегнати Испания и Великобритания.
На 11 март 2004 г. мощни взривове избухват в четири влака в Мадрид. Загиват 192 души, близо 1800 са ранените. Сред убитите има четирима български граждани. Отговорност за атентата поема  терористичната мрежа „Ал Кайда”.
На 7 юли 2005 г. при четири бомбени атентата в Лондон са убити 52 души, над 700 са тежко пострадали. Взривовете  задействат четирима терористи камикадзе.
Разтърсено от жестокостта на атентатите, общественото мнение в Европа и САЩ за пореден път се изправи пред ужаса на едно насилие, за  което няма рационално обяснение.

5. Три гледни точки

В излязлата през 2004 г. книга “Силата на разума” известната журналистка Ориана Фалачи, независимо от предизвикалите полемика тези и дори съдебен процес и обвинения в ксенофобия срещу нея, написва:
”Западът изгуби страстта си и трябва да си я възвърне. Да възвърне силата на страстта си. Бог знае, че това е истина, защото, за да живееш, трябва да имаш страст. Да откажеш да се предадеш, да откажеш да се покориш и подчиниш, значи, че живееш със страст. Но Европа се предаде, покори се, страхливо размаха бялото знаме на раболепието и примирението. А това е самоубийство. Стигнахме дотам, че днес за нас е по-важно да оцелеем, отколкото да живеем. Оцеляването има нужда от страст, но повече се нуждае от разум. Ето защо този път не призовавам за ярост и гордост. Дори не призовавам да си възвърнем страстта. Призовавам да си възвърнем разума”.

По същото време отвъд Океана един друг анализатор, Уолтър Лакьор, водещ член на вашингтонския Център за стратегически и международни изследвания, също надига глас. В “Терорът, който идва” (2004 г.) той търси връзката между радикализирането на младите мюсюлмани и нерешените социални проблеми на тези общества, за да стигне в изводите си отвъд обясняването им с бедността и липсата на житейска перспектива. Според Лакьор “бедността, комбинирана с масова безработица сред младите хора, действително създава онзи подходящ социален и психологически климат, в който процъфтяват ислямизмът и различни други популистки и религиозни секти, което пък на свой ред осигурява терен за използващите насилие (в рамките на един или друг вътрешен конфликт) групи“.
Позовавайки се на редица прогнози, анализаторът предупреждава, че броят на младите безработни в арабския свят и Северна Африка може да стигне 50 милиона през следващите двайсет години. Ситуация, която според него ще предизвика нестабилност, мощен ръст на демографския натиск към Европа, а в политически план - растящо недоволство срещу  управляващите в мюсюлманските държави – аятоласите в Иран или умерените режими в Египет, Йордания и Мароко.

От дистанцията на времето виждаме, че тези прогнози се сбъдват. Само че Лакьор не спира дотук, а продължава да задава въпроси, без обаче в крайна сметка да намира истинския политически отговор.

В “Терорът, който идва” четем:

“Кои всъщност са истинските причини за изостаналостта и стагнацията в тази част на света? И защо държавите, постигнали най-значителен икономически прогрес – като Китай и Индия, Южна Корея и Тайван, Малайзия и Турция, – съумяха да го направят без масирана чуждестранна помощ?

Всичко казано по-горе действително сочи наличието на дълбока депресия и нарастваща опасност, но липсва пряка връзка между икономическата ситуация в т.нар. Трети свят и международния тероризъм.
От друга страна, едва ли фанатизмът, типичен за днешните мюсюлмански радикали, ще се разгаря вечно. 

Религиозният или националистически фанатизъм се характеризира с различни степени на интензивност през различните периоди. В Египет например наричат този феномен “изчерпването на салафизма”, свързвайки го с постепенното улягане на радикално настроените млади хора и отслабването на първоначалния фанатичен натиск. 

Подобно на други движения в историята, месианските групировки стават жертва на постепенното рутиниране на дейността им, на смяната на поколенията и на политическата ситуация, както и на внезапни или постепенни промени в интензивността на изповядвания от тях религиозен фанатизъм. Като това може да бъде както резултат от победите, така и от пораженията им. 

Така че някой ден “умиротворяването” на войнствения ислямизъм действително може да стане възможно – но не и днес, в периода на растящата му агресивност, когато фанатичната вяра на ислямистите в глобалната победа все още не е пречупена”.

Различен поглед върху болезнената тема предлага и един от значимите интелектуалци на нашето време, философът, литературовед и семиотик Цветан Тодоров, който от 1963 г. живее във Франция. През 2008 г. в Париж излиза книгата му “La peur des barbares: au-delа du choc des civilisations”. Една година по-късно “Страхът от варварите” се появява и на българския книжен пазар благодарение на издателство “Изток-Запад”. 

Освен със задълбочения исторически преглед на схващанията за “варварството” този труд привлича вниманието с опита да се рационализират страховете на европейците и с усилието да се потърсят онези психологически и културни механизми, които биха могли да възстановят комуникацията между европейците с техните ценности и общностите, които изповядват исляма.

За да бъде ефикасен, диалогът трябва да отговаря на две изисквания, пише в книгата си Цветан Тодоров.

От една страна, според учения той трябва да отчита различието на събеседниците и да не предпоставя, че единият от тях олицетворява нормата, а другият се отклонява от нея, изостава или проявява недобросъвестност. От друга - диалогът няма да доведе до нищо, ако участниците в него не приемат една обща формална рамка на дискусията, ако не постигнат съгласие относно естеството на използваните аргументи и възможността да търсят заедно истината и справедливостта, подчертава той.

В същото време философът предупреждава, че “диалогът между хора от различни страни и с различни култури не протича в някакъв вакуум”. Не е възможно, пише той,  да се заличат вековете история, които го предхождат и през които „страхуващите се страни” са господствали над „страните, изпитващи неприязън”.

Това обаче, изтъква Тодоров, в никакъв случай не означава, че западните страни трябва да се откажат от принципите, които са определили за основополагащи в техния обществен живот. “За да бъдат третирани другите справедливо, суверенитетът на народа, свободата на индивида, утвърждаването на равни права за всички, признаването на плурализма на човешките общества трябва да се утвърждават, а не да се изоставят. За сметка на това трябва да се изостави ограничената представа за другите, която се налага, ако не изцяло, то най-малкото преобладава в медиите и в официалното говорене.”

Според писателя тази ограничена представа се проявява в три отношения. Първото от тях е, че близо едномилиардното мюсюлманското население в света се свежда до исляма, сякаш мюсюлманите, за разлика от останалите човешки общности, правят всичко в живота си само от религиозни съображения.

Второто ограничение според Тодоров е, че ислямът се свежда до ислямизма и до политическата програма на няколкото войнстващи днес групировки.

Третото ограничение, разсъждава философът, е, че ислямизмът се свежда до тероризма, въпреки че той възприема най-различни пътища на политическо действие, някои от които не престъпват действащите закони.
Изходът според писателя е не мюсюлманите да бъдат капсулирани в своята религиозна идентичност, а напротив, да бъдат зачитани наравно с останалите членове на общността. Защото, твърди авторът на “Страхът от варварите”:

“Разделянето и затварянето на културите или на общностите стои по-близо до варварщината, докато взаимното им признаване е цивилизационен напредък”. 
Добре известно е, че интелектуалецът има дарбата да улавя и дори да предвижда тенденциите, но неговата сила спира дотук. За да се случи промяната, са нужни хора от света на политиката. Личности с потенциала да задвижват международните институции чрез умението си да формулират по убедителен начин своите идеи, да създават коалиции от съмишленици и да не се отказват дори когато в очите на песимистите усилията им изглеждат обречени. Такива политици сякаш по предначертание свише печелят парламентарните битки и творят една различна история на бъдещето. Прави го и един български политик.

Името му е Лъчезар Тошев.

6. ПАСЕ: След терористичните атаки в Париж накъде?

Асамблеята обсъжда връщане към идея на Лъчезар Тошев, приета през 2011 г.

След терористичните атаки в Париж в самото начало на 2015 г., на 28 януари т.г. Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа (ПАСЕ) провежда спешен дебат и приема препоръка към правителствата в Европа, озаглавена: Заедно за демократичен отговор! Важните решения, които се вземат, са засенчени от новината за лишаването на руската делегация от правото на глас и от другите санкции срещу нея и за съжаление остават встрани от общественото внимание.
Както в дебатите, така и в приетия документ, наред с препоръчаните мерки срещу тероризма е засегнат и въпросът за причината за неговата поява.

Жозет Дюрио, Сенатор

Френската сенаторка Жозет Дюрийо (от Групата на социалистите) и ръководителят на делегацията на Мароко Мохамед Ятим, чийто парламент е със статут “Партньор за демокрация” в ПАСЕ, както и други депутати поставят въпроса за интеркултурния подход и възможността да живеем заедно в XXI век, в една мултикултурна общност.

Централният проблем, дебатиран в Европа през 2011г.

Този въпрос е централният дебат в Европа, проведен в ПАСЕ през 2011 г., а докладчик е българският депутат Лъчезар Тошев. У нас по темата не се написва нито ред. Вероятно за да не научи някой, че Европа дебатира по доклада на един български политик и че неговият проект за решение е одобрен от ПАСЕ с мнозинство от две трети.
Нали ние не почитаме своите приживе!

Моделът „мулти-култи“ и неговият провал

Този модел предоставя на новодошлите в Европа лица от други държави (главно гастарбайтери с различна култура) права и възможности и ги оставя те сами да решават как да се възползват от тях. С течение на времето се оказва, че на много места, вместо да оползотворят предоставените им шансове, тези групи формират паралелни общества с различна ценностна система, не се интегрират в социума и по този начин полека-лека се превръщат в рисков контингент. Такива паралелни общества се оформят сред турците в Германия, арабите във Франция и сред различни етнически групи в Обединеното кралство. Проблемът, макар и в по-малка степен, е валиден и за останалите европейски страни.
В края на 2010 г. трима лидери на ЕС – Дейвид Камерън, премиер на Великобритания, Никола Саркози, президент на Франция, и Ангела Меркел, канцлер на Германия - с почти еднакви думи обявяват, че мултикултурализмът в Европа се е провалил. Това предизвиква реакцията на Съвета на Европа.

Генералният секретар Тьорбьор Ягланд възлага на група от видни бивши държавници начело с Йошка Фишер да изготвят доклад за правителствата на 47-те страни - членки на организацията. Фишер е един от създателите на модела „мулти-култи“ и съвсем логично неговата група от видни личности не успява да предложи нова идея. ПАСЕ трябва също да даде своята гледна точка по този въпрос. Затова през април е избран докладчик. За такъв ПАСЕ определя Лъчезар Тошев от ЕНП, избран от Комисията със значително мнозинство в конкуренция с Андреас Грос - шеф на социалистите в ПАСЕ, подкрепен и от групите на комунисти, на консерватори и тази на либералите (16 гласа за Тошев, 12- за Грос и 2 бели бюлетини при тайно гласуване) .

Тошев внася предложение за промяна на обществения модел в Европа по този въпрос, което очаквано предизвиква бурни разисквания, състояли се на 22 юни 2011 г.

Предложение за промяна

Докладът „Тошев“ предлага „мулти-култи“ моделът да се замени с интеркултурен подход към новодошлите под надслова “Живеем заедно”.

След като става Решение на Парламентарната асамблея, новата визия трябва да се има предвид в работата на политическите лидери, неправителствените организации, синдикатите, младежките сдружения, представителите на различните деноминации, медиите и т.н.

В заключителния документ по разискванията ПАСЕ заявява своята готовност да подкрепи необходимите промени, така че всеки в европейското общество да се възползва пълноценно от тях.

Европа е мултикултурна и европейските народи са доказали способността си да живеят заедно и да конструират своето общо бъдеще.


Въпреки че мултикултурализмът преживява нарастващи трудности на национално ниво в отделните държави, Парламентарната асамблея остава убедена, че асимилацията не е решение, се казва в доклада. Отговорът на тези трудности е в интеркултурния подход, който има два аспекта. Първо би трябвало да се въведат изисквания към идващите законно (!) в друга държава граждани, които ще работят и ще живеят там. Тяхната идентичност (култура, език и вяра) ще бъде запазена, но те ще трябва да знаят езика и историята на държавата, в която отиват.

Да познават ценностите, традициите и принципите на приемащото ги общество. Да разбират културата на страната и да признават демокрацията, правовата държава и спазването на правата на човека, включително правата на жените, като своя ценност. Твърде важно е изграждането на култура за спазване на закона като част от европейската култура, изтъква в доклада си Лъчезар Тошев. Както е казал някога Хораций в древния Рим:

„Напразни са законите, ако няма нрави!“.

Обществото се формира от гражданството, което от своя страна създава свободата и чак тогава държавата фиксира обществените отношения в закони, заявява в речта си при откриването на дебатите в ПАСЕ Лъчезар Тошев. От друга страна, приемащото общество също има отговорности спрямо тези, които идват. То също трябва да се запознае с културата, историята и обичаите на новодошлите, за да не се допусне изолиране или самоизолиране на тези групи и формирането на паралелни общности с различна ценностна система. Целта е да се създаде разбиране и от двете страни на това взаимодействие, че различията са нормални и обогатяващи. Това е повече от толерантност, аргументира се българският политик.
През 1999 г. по инициатива на стария емигрант и първи български посланик в Страсбург д-р Светлозар Раев Комитетът на министрите приема Декларация и Програма за обучение в демократично гражданство, основано на правата и отговорностите на гражданите. Тази инициатива довежда до създаването на Европейската харта за обучение в демократично гражданство и в права на човека. На базата на тези рамкови документи в учебните програми, в дейността на медиите, общините, неправителствените организации, църквите и пр. би следвало да се включат конкретни дейности за постигането на тази цел, е позицията на Лъчезар Тошев.

Интеркултурният подход е активно взаимодействие между две културно различни групи в обществото, така че да се изгради най-добрият модел за тяхното мирно съжителство. Той не може да се налага като социално инженерство, а трябва да се постига чрез диалог и разбиране.
Визирайки борбата срещу екстремизма и идеята за инициирането на интеркултурен диалог, ПАСЕ отправя препоръки и към Комитета на министрите. Като приоритети са предложени:

По-активното включване на чужденци в обществения живот на местно ниво;
Лансирането на широка кампания за популяризиране на  “Живеем заедно”;
Поощряване на гражданите да изучават и опознават културата на имигрантите;



Взимане на спешни мерки за изпълнението на препоръката на Асамблеята “Да преборим бедността” и др.

Дебатите

По това предложение за радикална промяна на обществения модел в ПАСЕ има остри дебати. Социалисти, комунисти и част от либералите се противопоставят, защитавайки досегашния „мулти-култи“ модел. Същата позиция заемат и турските депутати, и тези от Азербайджан... Разбираемо! Християндемократите, консерваторите и друга част от либералите подкрепят идеята на Тошев. Думата взима и Генералният секретар на Съвета на Европа – норвежецът Тьорбьорн Ягланд, който заявява, че този въпрос е сърцевината на европейския модел, и призовава докладът и съдържащата се в него проектопрепоръка до правителствата да бъдат приети. За да се приеме такава препоръка обаче, правилникът изисква мнозинство при гласуването от 2/3 от гласовете, което в случая е трудно постижимо. След целодневните дебати в края на деня препоръката е приета дори с повече от необходимите гласове.

И след това...

Правителствата на Европа отговарят на Асамблеята, но от това кой знае какво развитие до този момент няма. Може би защото сред европейските кабинети все още се срещат политици с ляво мислене, които робуват на стария модел. 
След терористичните атаки в Париж въпросът за интеркултурния подход пак става актуален! В новия документ, гласуван от ПАСЕ, той се  поставя отново с конкретни препоръки. Изисква се да се осигурят и необходимите условия и средства за въвеждането на модела „Живеем заедно!“.
В България, разбира се, всичко това ще дойде като европейска политика. Кой у нас се интересува от въпросите, които поставя Лъчезар Тошев - от интеркултурния подход, от създаването на български форум за бъдещето, предложението за създаване на Пакт за стабилност за Югоизточен Кавказ и пр.

Слаба утеха е, че Центърът за европейски изследвания на името на Вилфрид Мартенс отдавна е оценил иновативното мислене на този български политик, който остава неразбран от повечето си колеги в родината. ( Линк към страницата на мрежата за европейски идеи към ЕНП: 
http://www.europeanideasnetwork.com/living-together-21st-century-europe  )

“Лъчезар Тошев е скромен човек, дори когато свърши нещо, което обръща поведението на една европейска институция и следователно на всичките участващи страни в нея, той прави това скромно, така че някой може и да не е забелязал”, казва за него бившият премиер и лидер на СДС Филип Димитров при представянето на книгата “Историята на един документ”, проследяваща инициираната от Тошев и приета от ПАСЕ Резолюция за осъждането на престъпленията на комунистическите режими в Европа.

Но нека отново се върнем към интеркултурния подход и Решението на ПАСЕ от 2011 г., които са сред безспорните български приноси в развитието на международните отношения.

За разлика от София, на следващата сесия на Парламентарната асамблея на Съвета на Европа британският премиер Камерън идва, за да обясни позицията си и да отговори на критиките. Публични изявления прави и премиерът (тогава), а сега президент на Турция Ердоган...

У нас, изглежда, се смята, че чрез политиката на откриване на будки за дюнери тези проблеми ще изчезнат от само себе си.

БЕЛЕЖКА НА РЕДАКЦИЯТА

Вестник “Лечител” публикува за първи път в България предложението на Лъчезар Тошев за радикална промяна на европейския обществен модел, представено и обсъждано на дебати в ПАСЕ още през 2011 г.
Поради особената актуалност на проблема и настоящата тревожна ситуация в Европа отделяме шест страници, посветени на темата.

 

ИЗВАДКИ ОТ СТЕНОГРАМАТА НА ДЕБАТИТЕ, ПАСЕ, 

22 юни 2011 г.

В разискванията взеха участие 40 оратори от различни страни и политически групи

Докладчик: Лъчезар Тошев

Почитаеми дами и господа,
Още с първите стъпки към обединението на Европа отците основатели се обединиха около виждането, че това ще бъде мултинационален и мултикултурен съюз, основан на общи ценности. Европейският мултикултурен модел, така както е бил приеман по онова време, е повече от простото събиране на различни идентичности. Той включваше националните различия и особености в общата воля за споделено бъдеще, за общи действия и за основаване на наднационални общи органи със справедливо представителство – модел, интегриращ различията, без да ги премахва. Трите основни стълба на тази Обединена Европа са демокрацията, върховенството на закона и защитата на човешките права. Въпреки това казаното не е достатъчно, за да се опише съвременният европейски модел, който включва също някои конкретни решения, идващи от историята и културата на всяка страна членка, обединени в общата воля за бъдеще. Ние също трябва да си припомним, че на историческия конгрес в Хага през 1948 г. бяха оставени символично няколко празни места, запазени за бъдещите страни членки от Централна и Източна Европа, които по онова време не бяха в състояние да присъстват на това изключително събитие. Тези отсъстващи страни по това време страдаха от комунистически диктатури и попаднаха от другата страна на вече издигащата се “желязна завеса”. След 1989 г. и разрушаването на Берлинската стена тези страни бяха приети в Съвета на Европа, а много от тях - и в Европейския съюз и така заеха местата, които бяха запазени за тях в европейското семейство. Промените, които се случиха след 1989 г., засегнаха не само страните от Централна и Източна Европа, но в значителна степен се отразиха и предизвикаха промени в западноевропейските държави. Сплотяването и адаптирането на Обединена Европа продължава и сега. Бидейки наясно с различните култури, ние мислехме, че мултикултурният европейски модел е добре установена, безспорна и общоприета система, която силно защитавахме. Само преди няколко месеца обаче политическите лидери на Германия, Обединеното кралство и Франция с почти еднакви думи поставиха на съмнение успеха на мултикултурализма.
(…)
Главният въпрос днес е “Ако мултикултурният модел не работи добре в някои европейски страни, какво е решението?”. Асимилацията очевидно не е възможно решение - ние всички сме съгласни с това. Някои хора смятат, че ако приемем необходимите закони и осигурим възможности, това ще реши всички проблеми. Очевидно това не е достатъчно. Не са законите, които създават обществото. Обществото първо се създава от гражданството, което на свой ред създава свободата и едва тогава е ред на държавата да закрепи това в закони. Култивирането на спазването на закона е част от европейската култура, но и другите елементи са важни. Quid leges sine moribus vanae proficiunt! “Напразни са законите, ако няма нрави”, е написал Хораций преди повече от 2000 години и това и сега е валидно.
(…)
Ако законите и условията не са достатъчни за истинска интеграция  на новодошлите и на другите маргинализирани групи, какво трябва да се направи? Групите, които не могат да се интегрират успешно в обществото, имат нужда от нашата активна подкрепа, за да се възползват от възможностите, които са им предоставени. В това взаимодействие те също трябва да бъдат активни участници. Те не са обект, а субект! От хората, идващи законно да живеят в една страна, не се очаква да изоставят елементите на своята идентичност - вяра, език и култура. Но от тях се очаква да демонстрират желание да се интегрират в обществото на новата си страна - не само чрез научаване на езика, но и с придобиване на познание  и разбиране за местната култура, и да  спазват демокрацията, човешките права – в т.ч. правата на жените, и да приемат върховенството на закона. От своя страна обществото, от което произлизат, не трябва да ги остракира (изолира), ако те пожелаят да сменят вярата си или културата си. Ние трябва да изградим културни мостове, окуражавайки европейските граждани да се запознават с културата, езика, традициите и историята на новопристигналите и да се отнасят с уважение към тях. Това активно взаимодействие ние наричаме интеркултурен подход. Той включва в активно взаимодействие културно различни групи с цел да намерят най-добрия модел, за да могат да живеят заедно. Подчертавам, че предлаганите мерки не биха могли да бъдат постигнати чрез глобален подход на социално инженерство. Това категорично би било неприемливо! Целта, която сме си поставили, може да бъде постигната само чрез диалог, разбиране и  общо съгласие.
(…)
Подчертавам, че в днешните дебати няма място за конфронтация или използване на процедурни похвати, за да се провали решението, а само за искрен принос по тези толкова важни проблеми. Искрено вярвам, че ще можем да намерим обща позиция по отношение на тези въпроси. Като докладчик на Комисията по политически въпроси, поканих всичките четири комисии, които оценяваха моя доклад, да допринесат чрез предоставяне на своите идеи още в началния етап на изготвянето на документа. Благодарен съм на всички тях, че успяхме да намерим широко съгласие по текста на проекта за препоръка (до правителствата на страните членки - б.р.).

Линкове към всички документи и стенограмите на сайта на ПАСЕ по темата (на английски език) :
 

Living together in 21-st Century

The Cluster with all documents – i.e. the Report, Opinions of the Committees, the adopted Recommendation and the Reply of the Committee of Ministers on it :
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-DocDetails-EN.asp?FileID=13044&lang=EN

Verbatim Records of the debates:

 22 June 2011, 10 am, item 2 of the Agenda:

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/Records/2011/E/1106221000E.htm

continuation – last item of the afternoon Agenda:

22 June 2011, 3 p.m. , item 5 of the Agenda

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/Records/2011/E/1106221500E.htm

ПЪЛНИЯТ ТЕКСТ НА ДОКЛАДА С ПРОЕКТА ЗА ПРЕПОРЪКА КЪМ КОМИТЕТА НА МИНИСТРИТЕ

Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe

Report | Doc. 12631 | 06 June 2011
Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy



Rapporteur : Mr Latchezar TOSHEV, Bulgaria, EPP/CD



Origin - Reference to committee: Reference 3752 of 11 March 2011. 2011 - Third part-session

Summary

The Political Affairs Committee welcomes as most timely the report of the Group of Eminent Persons on “Living together – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe” and their proposals as a basis for further reflection on Europe’s future, against the backdrop of the Organisation’s ongoing reform process. It notes that on several issues the Group’s findings corroborate positions already taken by the Assembly. The challenge has been, and still is, to ensure implementation.
The present report suggests that the Parliamentary Assembly is ready and willing to contribute to the changes which are needed to ensure greater cohesion in European societies, so that everyone may fully benefit from living together. It therefore proposes that, inter alia, the Assembly reflect on ways to overcome the current “crisis of leadership” in Europe; encourage politicians and elected representatives at all levels to speak out on the challenges currently raised by the threats to the European project; reflect on the proposal for an annual Forum against extremism; address the demographic crisis in Europe, as well as continue to address the challenges raised by extremism and the rise of xenophobic or racist parties.
Among many other specific recommendations addressed to the Committee of Ministers in the fields of migration, intercultural dialogue, education, the role of the media, youth and women, as well as social cohesion and gender mainstreaming, the report also recommends that the Committee of Ministers consider launching a major “Campaign on living together” along the lines of the two “All different – all equal” campaigns.

A. Draft recommendation

1. The Parliamentary Assembly takes note of the Group of Eminent Persons’ report on “Living together – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe”, presented on 11 May 2011, on the occasion of the 121st session of the Committee of Ministers in Istanbul. The Assembly expects that the report will give a fresh impetus to, and generate a higher political commitment for, a range of current and future Council of Europe activities, against the backdrop of the Organisation’s reform process.

2. The analysis of the Group of Eminent Persons provides a basis for further reflection on Europe’s future which should involve politicians, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions, youth organisations, academics, as well as representatives of religions, the media and local authorities from different backgrounds and countries. On several issues, the Group’s findings corroborate positions already taken by the Assembly, while in some cases suggesting different ways of achieving similar goals. The challenge has been, and still is, to ensure implementation in a situation which the Group correctly refers to as a “crisis of leadership”.

3. For its part, the Assembly is ready and willing to contribute to the changes which are needed to ensure greater cohesion in European societies, so that everyone may fully benefit from living together. It therefore wishes to share with the Committee of Ministers its own reflections on the matter and propose concrete ways of implementation of the proposals within the remit of its competences and priorities.

4. Europe is multicultural and European peoples have proved their capacity to live together in diversity and build together their common future. Although multiculturalism is facing increasing difficulties at national level in various European countries, the Assembly firmly believes that assimilation is not an alternative. The response to these difficulties is an intercultural approach which implies an active interaction of the culturally different groups within society in order to develop the best model of living together. The strengthening of common European values and identity should be promoted in a way which does not eliminate the different cultures of specific groups, but preserves and incorporates their specificities in the common European framework. This process can be endangered by growing populist, xenophobic and identity politics and similar such rhetoric coined for short-term electoral purposes and the Assembly therefore calls on member states to develop policies to prevent such negative practices.

5. Respect of one's own culture helps to understand the culture of others and accept differences as normal and enriching. Apart from respect for the law as an important part of the democratic culture, other cultural elements should also be taken into account.

6. People coming lawfully to live in a country should not be expected to leave elements of their identity (faith, language, culture, etc.) behind. However, they are expected to show willingness to integrate into the society of their new country, by not only learning its language, but also gaining knowledge and understanding of the local culture, and they must respect democracy, human rights, including the rights of women, and the rule of law. The communities of origin should not ostracise those who choose to change their faith or culture.

7. As the Assembly has stressed time and again, education is the main tool – but not the only one – against misleading information and stereotypes about specific groups. Moreover, education is indispensable to individual and societal welfare and cultural development, without which democracy, human rights and the rule of law would lose their foundations. The capacity to be open to and value diversity is highly dependent on quality education. An emphasis on teacher training should be added to the specific recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons in this area. The work of the Council of Europe in areas such as education for democratic citizenship or history teaching should be enhanced.

8. In this context, the Assembly recalls the 1999 Committee of Ministers Declaration and Programme on education for democratic citizenship based on the rights and responsibilities of the citizens, and believes that their implementation could substantially contribute to the development of a European spirit within society. It thus urges member states to strengthen the implementation of the 1999 Programme as well as the more recent Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 2010, taking concrete steps adapted to their local specificities.

9. The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1754 (2010) on the fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures, in which it “regrets that the challenge of establishing a more ethical attitude in politics when dealing with issues related to race, ethnic and national origin and religion is still to be met”. Elected representatives have a special responsibility to change the situation both as individuals and as members of the bodies to which they are elected, be it at local, regional, national or international level. The Assembly reiterates that politicians have a special responsibility to eliminate from political discourse negative stereotyping or the stigmatising of any ethnic, minority or migrant group, be they present or not within the borders of their states. They should promote a message of non-discrimination, tolerance and respect for people from different backgrounds.

10. The Assembly regrets that, as stated in several passages of the report of the Group of Eminent Persons, women from minority groups are particularly affected by marginalisation. This situation must be addressed as a priority, not only to ensure gender equality but also to strengthen women’s potential to act as a bridge between their communities and the society at large, by educating children in a culture of diversity and dialogue and helping them reconcile multiple identities.

11. The Assembly wishes to stress the need to focus on youth and implement youth rights as an investment in Europe’s cohesion and future. Youth policies should be at the core of member states' strategies aimed at building up “Living together” societies. In this respect, national authorities should adopt specific measures to encourage youth participation in economic and democratic life, and offer to all young people equal opportunities to contribute to the development and well-being of their societies. In addition, more attention should be paid to the potential of sport as a powerful tool to further intercultural dialogue and living together among young people.

12. The Assembly also stresses the central role the media can play in strengthening democracy, the respect of fundamental rights and the development of culture. It believes that the Council of Europe should strengthen its relations with the media world.

13. The Assembly considers that an important role can and should be played by the European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (North-South Centre); appropriate means should be given to it in order to develop a specific comprehensive “Living together” programme, including the educational, intercultural and youth policy dimensions, to support development in non-member countries of the Mediterranean region.

14. The Assembly, prompted by the relevant proposals and recommendations made by the Group of Eminent Persons, resolves, for its part, to:

14.1. initiate its own reflection on ways to encourage politicians and elected representatives at all levels to speak out on the challenges raised at present by the threats to the European project and solidarity;

14.2. pursue reflection on the proposal for an annual Forum against extremism, while keeping in mind the necessity for the Assembly to maintain its capacity for rapid reaction in the face of new disturbing developments;

14.3. consider organising jointly with the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), as appropriate, and in co-operation with all relevant sectors of the Organisation and, possibly, the European Parliament, a Conference to take stock of best practices and shortcomings in the implementation of the 2003 Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist society, as well as the 2005 Declaration on the use of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic elements in political discourse and the earlier Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (97) 20 on “hate speech”;

14.4. consider organising an Assembly campaign to promote the Convention on Nationality (ETS No. 166) and the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No. 144);

14.5. address the issue of ageing societies in Europe, inter alia through appropriate family support policies.

15. Recalling that in Recommendations 1927 (2010), 1933 (2010) and 1962 (2011), the Assembly addressed a number of concrete proposals to the Committee of Ministers with respect to the fight against extremism and the promotion of intercultural dialogue calling for “a new culture of living together”, it urges the Committee of Ministers to consider those proposals also in the light of the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons.

16. The Assembly further recommends that the Committee of Ministers, in implementing the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons, give priority to the following issues:

16.1. promote further the Council of Europe Conventions on Nationality (ETS No. 166) and on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No. 144);

16.2. consider launching a major campaign on “Living together”, along the lines of the two “All different – all equal” campaigns;

16.3. explore the possibility of enhancing the role of the Council of Europe Development Bank in integration projects in member states;

16.4. call on member states to build cultural bridges by encouraging their citizens to familiarise themselves with and respect the culture, language, traditions and history of immigrant groups;

16.5. consider the development of guidelines addressing both the rights and responsibilities of migrants and the links between them through, as a minimum, a code of good practice on living together, possibly leading at some stage in the future to a framework convention;

16.6. take urgent measures to implement Assembly Recommendation 1963 (2011) on combating poverty, to improve access for people experiencing poverty, in particular from migrant and minority communities, to all human rights (civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights);

16.7. reinforce all its programmes aimed at assisting member states in the design of sound educational policies and the proper implementation of the right to education, with no discrimination, in particular as regards people from disadvantaged, minority or migrant backgrounds, in order to combat the educational and cultural divide in our societies;

16.8. enhance the work of the Council of Europe in the areas of education for democratic citizenship based on the rights and responsibilities of the citizens, which should include education in multiculturalism, and history teaching with a special emphasis on teacher training;

16.9. establish pilot projects on intercultural dialogue with local authorities, schools and higher education institutions and media in member states, including, where possible, a multilateral dimension in such pilot schemes;

16.10. call on representatives of religions to contribute, when appropriate, to the debates on common values, common heritage, protection of religious freedom, respect for human rights and democratic citizenship, the fight against terrorism, xenophobia and intolerance;

16.11. create a regular process to assess the development of intercultural dialogue in member states, including a thematic European forum on intercultural dialogue to be organised periodically;

16.12. have regular contacts with the main European media networks, with a view to further implementing the Council of Europe recommendations on training, ethical and content production issues;

16.13. fully integrate gender mainstreaming in the implementation of the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons;

16.14. propose positive measures to member states to avoid the risk of women from minority groups being subjected to double discrimination – compared to men and compared to other women – and to promote their active participation in social, economic and political life;

16.15. promote the signature and ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No. 210).

17. The Group of Eminent Persons proposes to appoint a high-level special representative mandated to bring the content of the report to the attention of political leaders and monitor its implementation. In this respect, the Assembly recalls that, in its Recommendation 1928 (2010) on democracy in Europe: crisis and perspectives, it proposed that “a high-profile personality, a sort of a Delegate for Democracy, be entrusted with the task of … disseminating, on a permanent basis, the Council of Europe’s message on democracy-related issues of major current interest”. The Assembly believes that the two proposals are not mutually exclusive and that a possible way forward would be for one and the same person to embrace both the actions proposed by the Group and those proposed by the Assembly and invites the Committee of Ministers to examine this proposal.

18. The Group of Eminent Persons proposes to offer a special status in the Council of Europe to countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores and of Central Asia. The Assembly recalls its status of “Partner for Democracy” for parliaments of countries in neighbouring regions and its Resolution … (2011) on the request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco and Resolution ... (2011) on the situation in Tunisia. In view of recent developments on the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores, the Assembly wholeheartedly supports ways of bringing countries from that region closer to the Council of Europe.

19. The Assembly resolves to pursue its reflection on this matter, inter alia by organising a conference, involving the Secretary General, representatives of the Committee of Ministers and of the Group of Eminent Persons, the rapporteur and other members of its Political Affairs Committee, as well as the rapporteurs of the other committees seized for opinion, in order to deepen and enlarge the debate related to the development of our multicultural societies.

B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Toshev, rapporteur

1. Introduction

1. At the initiative of the Turkish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General appointed, in the summer of 2010, a Group of Eminent Persons, headed by the former German Foreign Minister, Mr Joshka Fischer,  “to prepare a report on the challenges arising from the resurgence of intolerance and discrimination in Europe”.

2. At the request of the Political Affairs Committee, the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly authorised the committee to prepare a report on “Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons”, to be debated at the Assembly’s June 2011 part-session, with the following committees seized for opinion: Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee; Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population; Committee on Culture, Science and Education; and Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. The Political Affairs Committee appointed me rapporteur in April 2011. 

3. The Group of Eminent Persons’ report on “Living together – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe” was presented on 11 May 2011, on the occasion of the 121st session of the Committee of Ministers in Istanbul. 

4. This allowed an extremely short period of time to prepare the present report, not least considering that four other Assembly committees should contribute to it.

5. As a consequence, I will make some general and some specific comments on the areas of competence of the Political Affairs Committee, leaving it for the rapporteurs of the other four committees to comment on their respective areas. This is all the more appropriate as the report raises a number of important issues related to migration, the role of the media, as well as, even if to a lesser extent, education, intercultural dialogue, social cohesion and challenges faced by women belonging to the groups mentioned in the report.

6. Mr Martin Hirsch, President of the Civil Agency in France and member of the Group of Eminent Persons, was invited to the committee's meeting in May 2011 to present the main findings of the Group and respond to our questions. We also invited the rapporteurs of the four committees seized for opinion who were thus able to acquire first-hand information on the discussions in the Political Affairs Committee and inject ideas into the draft recommendation.

2. General comments

 

7. To begin with, I would like to make it clear that I welcome the report by the Group of Eminent persons as a basis for further reflection on Europe’s future, which should involve politicians, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), youth organisations, academics, as well as representatives of religions, the media and local authorities from different backgrounds and countries.

8. Taking stock of the challenges arising from the resurgence of intolerance and discrimination in Europe, the report analyses “the threat” and proposes “the response” for “living together” in open European societies.

9. Referring to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Group highlights eight specific risks to values upheld by the Council of Europe: widespread intolerance; growing discrimination (especially against Roma and immigrants); rising support for xenophobic and populist parties; parallel societies; Islamic extremism; loss of democratic freedoms; presence of a population without rights and the potential clash between “religious freedom” and freedom of expression. 

10. The report underlines some of the reasons behind “the threat”: insecurity deriving from the Old Continent’s financial crisis and a sense of relative decline; distorted perceptions of large-scale immigration; detrimental stereotypes of minorities in the media and public opinion; and a clear leadership deficit in shaping Europe's present and future.

11. “The response” envisages 59 “proposals for action”, the first 17 of which are labelled “strategic recommendations” to European Institutions and their member states. The Group identifies the main actors for change in public attitudes.

12. Amongst its 17 guiding principles, the Group insists on the fact that, provided they obey the law, immigrants should not be “expected to renounce their faith, culture or identity”.

13. It is worth recalling that, in the history of the Council of Europe, several groups of external personalities have been occasionally invited to reflect on major challenges facing European society and to propose initiatives to be taken by our Organisation, as did the Committee of Wise Persons of the 1990s and the “Colombo” Commission set up in the mid-1980s, which were also asked to identify the challenges facing European society and which also formulated a number of recommendations. A slightly different, albeit comparable, exercise was the 2006 Juncker report on the relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union.

14. We are aware that the society we live in is far from perfect. In recent years, in particular, we have witnessed frequent displays of negative phenomena and deeds which indicate the need not only to reflect upon, but also to act and to do something about our common future. The media keep reporting on displays of intolerance, racism and xenophobia. Manifestations of anti-Semitism have also occurred. Frequently we witness tolerance towards intolerance. Failure to come to someone else’s aid or to attend to strangers’ needs is hardly an exception anymore. Ethnic and religious conflicts still constitute unsettled questions and potential sources of trouble. Egoism, egocentrism, apathy towards social advancement and diminishing voter turnouts should cause serious concern.

15. In 1999, in order to address these negative developments, the Committee of Ministers adopted the Declaration and Programme on education for democratic citizenship, based on the rights and responsibilities of the citizens. I believe that the continuation of their implementation could be a substantial contribution of the Council of Europe to the development of a European spirit within the society. In this respect, a strong impetus given to the implementation of the Council of Europe’s Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 2010, could also be very instrumental in achieving this goal.

16. As Ms Brasseur pointed out recently in her report on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, which I commented on in our committee’s opinion, the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue – “Living together as equals in dignity” of 2008 is an important contribution by the Council of Europe to the issue of living together.

17. In preparing its report, the Group of Eminent Persons exchanged views with different bodies of the Council of Europe, the European Union, other international organisations and civil society.

18. A number of relevant Assembly documents are quoted in the report, for instance Resolution 1760 (2010) on the recent rise in national security discourse in Europe: the case of Roma  or Resolution 1754 (2010) on the fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures. Some other recent texts are also relevant, such as Resolution 1746 (2010) on democracy in Europe: crisis and perspectives  or Recommendation 1962 (2011) on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue,  adopted only a month before the publication of the report of the Group of Eminent Persons, in which the Assembly called for “a new culture of living together”.

19. The report has the merit of presenting a comprehensive approach and concrete proposals. Many of the proposals are dictated by common sense and should indeed be followed up. On several issues, the findings corroborate positions taken by the Assembly, while suggesting different ways of achieving similar goals. That said, the main challenge has been and still is to ensure implementation in a situation which the Group correctly refers to as a “crisis of leadership”. And I believe that the Assembly should in particular play a role in this respect, that is by suggesting concrete ways of implementing proposals in the specific areas dealt with in the report, either by itself, the Committee of Ministers, or other actors. However, I believe that all these steps should not be seen as reflecting a holistic social engineering approach which, in the history of mankind, has never produced other results than disasters. On the contrary, any proposed measures should be adapted taking into account local specificities, on the basis of wide acceptance, understanding and agreement.

20. Values should be cultivated, but not imposed through administrative means. They can be nurtured by education and training at family level, school level and at local level, where the role of media is also essential.

21. The challenges we face today in our society cannot be addressed properly by renouncing the values of European culture. It is a widely spread view that culture forms society. Therefore the society forms citizenship and establishes freedom in its turn. Respect for culture makes it possible to understand the culture of others and to consider the differences as something normal, which enrich society. Respect for the law and the acceptance of free market rules are important elements of culture, but culture is much more than that.

22. To quote an example, among the various specific recommendations, the Group has suggested that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe should appoint a high-level special representative to bring the content of the report to the attention of political leaders and to monitor its implementation.

23. I would recall in this context that, in its Resolution 1746 (2010) and Recommendation 1928 (2010) on democracy in Europe: crisis and perspectives, the Assembly had proposed that “a high-profile personality, a sort of a Delegate for Democracy, be entrusted with the task of leading and animating the Strasbourg Democracy Forum, as well as disseminating, on a permanent basis, the Council of Europe’s message on democracy-related issues of major current interest”. I believe that the two proposals are not mutually exclusive and that a possible way forward would be for one and the same person to embrace both the actions proposed by the Group and those proposed by the Assembly. The Committee of Ministers, which has not so far taken position on the Assembly’s proposal, could reflect on this possible way forward. In any event, the Assembly is supportive of the idea of a Task Force to be set up by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for ensuring coherence in the implementation of the recommendations of the report within the Organisation and is ready to be associated with it.

24. The demographic crisis, which is also one of the outstanding issues for Europe, could be addressed by pro-family and pro-life policies – issues to which the Assembly has contributed through numerous resolutions and recommendations.

25. Concerning the proposal by the Eminent Persons to offer a special status in the Council of Europe to countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores and of Central Asia, I should like to recall that the Assembly recently created the status of Partner for Democracy for parliaments of countries in these regions and has organised six Interparliamentary Conferences of the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins, which offered the opportunity for a constructive dialogue between representatives of the non-European states from this region and the Assembly. So far, Morocco and the Palestinian National Council have officially requested the status of “Partner for Democracy” and the report by my colleague Luca Volontè on the Moroccan request will be debated by the Assembly at its June 2011 part-session. In addition, my colleague Jean-Charles Gardetto is currently preparing a report on co-operation between the Council of Europe and the emerging democracies in the Arab world. In view of the recent developments on the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores, I believe that the Assembly should support ways of bringing countries from this region closer to the Council of Europe as a whole. The Assembly should also continue its dialogue on these issues within the United Nations framework as part of a dialogue between Europe and the rest of the world.

3. Multiculturalism and integration

26. Diversity and integration policies have faced a backlash in many Western democracies, particularly in Europe. They remain, however, a popular idea at the international level, actively promoted by influential international organisations, including the Council of Europe. The European model is multicultural by definition. At the Congress of Europe, in The Hague in 1948, the founding fathers of Europe made it clear that the people from central and eastern Europe had their place in a United Europe, once they were liberated from the communist dictatorships and achieved democracy. Since the destruction of the Berlin wall by the people of Germany in 1989, important changes have taken place in eastern Europe, but also in Western societies. As a consequence, the Council of Europe has expanded to 47 and the European Union to 27 member states. Currently the new member states and their citizens are in a process of active dialogue with the other members of the European family. The cohesion between Western and Eastern Europe and the North and South of the continent is still in progress.

27. The preservation of cultural differences of the various European nations goes hand in hand with the participation of all of us in a common European culture, which should not annihilate national cultures but incorporate them in a harmonious way.

28. Due to the great number of immigrants to Europe, many more cultural traditions are present on the European territory, from Asia, Africa and South America, which are very different from the traditional European cultures. Radical Islam has played its role in fuelling the fears of Europeans of little known newcomers.

29. In respect mainly to these newcomers, the political leaders of Germany (Angela Merkel’s speech to members of the Junge Union, Potsdam, 16 October 2010), the United Kingdom (David Cameron, speech to the Security Conference in Munich, 5 February 2011) and France (Nicolas Sarkozy, Interview, Paroles de Français – TF1,11 February 2011) have, in recent times, cast doubt about multiculturalism in almost identical terms and in particular the perceived failure of national multicultural models in these states, which, according to such leaders, have not led to an acceptable state of living together.

30. In the German case, when the Gastarbeiters started to come to Germany in the 1950s-1970s, mostly from Turkey, they did not intend to remain there for a long time. Their plan was to return to Turkey after 10 years or so. But the large German employers were not keen to train their workforce over and over again and the contracts of their workers were prolonged. This led to the permanent settlement of whole families, which remained even after retirement, thus forming a community. The concept of the German Greens widely spread in Europe under the slogan “Multikulti” was based on the understanding that the different cultures should be respected and these people would integrate themselves in society provided the necessary conditions were met. Therefore the previous German governments did not pursue an active approach to integrating the Turkish community in German society. And today some members of such communities have formed self-isolated groups.

31. This is a clear example why a multicultural approach wasnot an adequate solution and should be replaced by an intercultural approach comprising an active interaction between the national society of the state and the groups which have different cultures. Integration and preservation of cultural differences should be promoted instead of assimilation, which is not at all an alternative solution to the problem.

32. Refusing to assess and properly address the existing problems might lead society to such negative developments as extreme nationalism, populism and xenophobia.

33. The report of the Group of Eminent Persons rightly points out that identities are multiple and that no one should be forced to choose one, to accept one or to exclude another. People coming to live in a country should indeed not be expected to leave elements of their identity (faith, language, culture, etc.) behind, but they are expected to add new elements to it, including, but not limited to, the language of their new country. Nor should they be ostracised within their communities of origin should they choose to change their faith or culture.

34. European societies are rightly criticised for not performing well in integrating members of minority groups (with a special emphasis on immigrants and Roma). However, efforts towards living together must come from both sides and here I see a role for education for all.

35. The report rightly states that people coming to live in a new country must obey the law and that neither religion nor culture can be accepted as excuses for not doing so. Obeying the law is the minimum expected from all those living in a country, but obviously it is not enough for real integration in society.

36. Some immigrants, however, bring to Europe some attitudes which are incompatible with the values upheld by our Organisation. Even if they are only a tiny minority among immigrants and persons from recent immigrant descent, such attitudes contribute negatively to the stereotypes about some immigrant groups.

37. As the Assembly has stressed time and again, education is the main tool – but not the only one –against misleading information and stereotypes about specific groups. An emphasis on teacher training should be added to the specific recommendation of the Group in this area. The work of the Council of Europe in areas such as education for democratic citizenship or history teaching should be enhanced.

38. In its Resolution 1746 (2010), the Assembly called on Council of Europe member states to “improve citizenship education and political training by ensuring compliance with the new Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, as well as implementing the Council of Europe’s programmes in the field of democratic citizenship and human rights education”.

39. I agree with the Group that “no religion should be considered to be a priori incompatible with European values”, but some practices associated by many with some religions are indeed incompatible with such values. It is the role of politicians, the media and also religious leaders to state very clearly which is which.

40. As the Group of Eminent Persons rightly states, “under no circumstances can respect for group identity or religious belief be invoked to justify the exclusion of girls from any form of education which is available to boys, or the seclusion of adult women from normal interaction with society outside their home”.

41. Human rights are not negotiable. In its Resolution 1510 (2006), the Assembly stated that “freedom of expression as protected under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights should not be further restricted to meet increasing sensitivities of certain religious groups”. More generally, we could state that the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as set forth in the Convention, must not be restricted for the sake of multiculturalism.

4. The role and responsibilities of politicians

42. The report of the Group of Eminent Persons raises legitimate concern about the fact that “In recent months, anti-immigration parties have notched up impressive gains, including in countries with a reputation for liberal politics and tolerant electorates. Over the last two years, election results and polling data in a wide range of European countries have shown an increase in voter support for movements which claim to be defending the interests and culture of the 'indigenous' majority against immigration and the spread of Islam”.

43. In its Resolution 1746 (2010), the Assembly noted that “populist, extremist and identity politics, as well as nationalistic rhetoric, have been reinforced during recent years under crisis conditions in many member states”. The Assembly further expressed its concern about a dual trend in Europe whereby, on the one hand, extreme right-wing parties are being elected into national parliaments in growing numbers and, on the other, mainstream parties, in an attempt to detract their voters from turning to far-right parties and regain popular support, are borrowing some of the radical, xenophobic and discriminatory language of extremist parties.

44. At the same time, it can be acknowledged that mainstream political parties, by increasingly refusing to address the fears (even if unfounded) of an increasing part of the population concerning immigration and Islam, or addressing these fears to an insufficient extent, are partly responsible for such an increase in support for xenophobic and populist parties. The cases of Islamophobia should be addressed, as the Assembly proposes in its Recommendation 1927 (2010) and Resolution 1743 (2010).

45. The growing complexity of the contemporary challenges and policies (for example migration policy, policies aimed at tackling intolerance and discrimination and policies to combat terrorism) has the effect of encouraging a tendency to “dumb down” complicated policy issues in public discussions. Politicians are confronted with a gap between complex and technical issues, and the need for policy to be formulated in more catchy terms in order to enlist popular support. This results in a gap, perhaps even a gulf, between policy principles and policy as depicted in party political debates and the mass media.

46. In order to reverse the trend, mainstream political parties and politicians should certainly not compete on anti-immigrant rhetoric, but should address with honesty the concerns of their constituents.

47. Against this background, I do agree with the Eminent Persons when they “urge all political leaders, while striving to respond convincingly to real and legitimate public concerns about excessive or irregular immigration, to resist the rise of xenophobic or racist parties and take care not to seek political advantage by inciting or playing on public anxiety about migrants or members of minorities”. Equally, I would underscore the call addressed in this context to the Assembly with respect to the Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist Society, signed by its President and the President of the European Parliament in 2003. In this context, I would like to underline that, in its Resolution 1754 (2010) on the fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures, adopted less than a year ago, on 5 October 2010, the Assembly, regretting “that the challenge of establishing a more ethical attitude in politics when dealing with issues related to race, ethnic and national origin and religion is still to be met”, recalls this Charter as well as the Declaration on the use of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic elements in political discourse, adopted by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) in 2005, which “it commends for their relevance”. In its Resolution 1760 (2010) on the recent rise in national security discourse in Europe: the case of Roma, adopted two days later, the Assembly further urges political parties, political forces and political and public figures in member states, international groupings of political parties and its own members to commit themselves to adhering to, and actively implementing and promoting the principles contained in the Charter.

48. As regards the more specific recommendation for the Assembly “to nominate a rapporteur on political extremism, and to organise an annual forum on extremism – perhaps to be called the Stieg Larsson colloquium”,this proposal merits further reflection.

49. For my part, I would like to contribute to this reflection by recalling recent reports of the Assembly, emanating from our committee, which deal with the issue of political extremism, the latest ones being the reports of Mr Agramunt and Ms Brasseur which led to the adoption of Resolutions 1754 (2010) and 1760 (2010) quoted above. My preliminary assessment is that, by reacting in a timely manner on the events of summer 2010, the Assembly’s message against extremism was perhaps more effective than an annual forum which, with time, might become a somewhat routine exercise.

50. It is also worth recalling that every two years the Assembly holds a general debate on the state of democracy in Europe and, as has been illustrated by the examples I quoted from Mr Gross’s report on democracy in Europe: crisis and perspectives, in the context of last year’s debate on democracy, such Assembly debates are often devoted to issues related to the fight against political extremism. The practice of democracy debates on the one hand, and the possibility of reacting at any moment and rapidly to specific cases of concern, on the other, provide, in my view, a good basis for the Assembly’s contribution to the fight against political extremism.

51. Moreover, as indicated above, in Resolution 1746 (2010) and Recommendation 1928 (2010), the Assembly proposed that “a high-profile personality, a sort of a Delegate for Democracy, be entrusted with the task of leading and animating the Strasbourg Democracy Forum, as well as disseminating, on a permanent basis, the Council of Europe’s message on democracy-related issues of major current interest”. I believe that this high-profile personality would also be responsible for reacting rapidly to cases giving rise to concern. I refer in this respect to the comments I made above in paragraph 19.

52. A number of other concrete proposals in the field of the fight against extremism were addressed by the Assembly, to the Committee of Ministers in Recommendation 1933 (2010). As the Committee of Ministers has not yet adopted its reply to this recommendation, I do not want to repeat the proposals, but to use this opportunity to call on the Committee of Ministers to consider them also in the light of the Eminent Persons’ recommendations

53. For its part, the Assembly, prompted by the two recommendations made by the Group on “political extremism, racism, xenophobic and anti-migrant discourse”, could organise, jointly with the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance as appropriate, and in co-operation with all relevant sectors of the Organisation and, possibly, the European Parliament, a Conference to take stock of best practices and shortcomings in the implementation by member states of the 2003 Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist society, as well as the 2005 Declaration on the use of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic elements in political discourse, and the much earlier Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (97) 20 on “hate speech”.

54. I note that the report of the Group of Eminent Persons identifies nine groups of “actors for change”, namely educators, mass media, employers and trade unions, civil society, churches and religious groups, celebrities and “role models”, towns and cities, member states and European and international institutions, but does not specifically mention the role of politicians. While it may be understood that the report is effectively addressed to politicians and, as a group, they may be automatically considered as “actors for change”, it would have nonetheless been good to include them as an additional group.

55. Elected representatives are indeed very much responsible for changing the situation both as individuals and as members of the bodies for which they were elected, be it at local, regional, national of international level.

56. As the Assembly stressed in its Resolution 1760 (2010) on the recent rise in national security discourse in Europe: the case of Roma, “politicians have a special responsibility to eliminate negative stereotyping or stigmatising of any minority or migrant group from political discourse. They should promote a message of non-discrimination, tolerance and respect for people from different backgrounds”.

57. For its part, the Parliamentary Assembly is more than ready and willing to contribute to the changes which are needed for greater cohesion in European societies, so that everyone may fully benefit from living together.

ПРИЕТАТА ПРЕПОРЪКА ДО КОМИТЕТА НА МИНИСТРИТЕ НА СЪВЕТА НА ЕВРОПА - Т.Е. ДО ПРАВИТЕЛСТВАТА НА СТРАНИТЕ - ЧЛЕНКИ 

 Recommendation 1975 (2011) Final version

Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe

Author(s): Parliamentary Assembly
Origin - Assembly debate on 22 June 2011 (23rd and 24th Sittings) (see Doc. 12631, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr Toshev; Doc. 12653, opinion of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Ms Kaufer; Doc. 12650, opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, rapporteur: Mr Díaz Tejera; Doc. 12651, opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, rapporteur: Mr Flego; and Doc.12640, opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, rapporteur: Ms Kovács). Text adopted by the Assembly on 22 June 2011 (24th Sitting).

1. The Parliamentary Assembly takes note of the Group of Eminent Persons’ report “Living together – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe”, presented on 11 May 2011, on the occasion of the 121st session of the Committee of Ministers in Istanbul. The Assembly expects that the report will give a fresh impetus to, and generate a higher political commitment for, a range of current and future Council of Europe activities, against the backdrop of the Organisation’s reform process.

2. The analysis of the Group of Eminent Persons provides a basis for further reflection on Europe’s future which should involve politicians, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions, youth organisations and academics, as well as representatives of religions, the media and local authorities from different backgrounds and countries. On several issues, the group’s findings corroborate positions already taken by the Assembly, while in some cases suggesting different ways of achieving similar goals. The challenge has been, and still is, to ensure implementation in a situation which the group correctly refers to as a “crisis of leadership”.

3. For its part, the Assembly is ready and willing to contribute to the changes which are needed to ensure greater cohesion in European societies, so that everyone may fully benefit from living together. It therefore wishes to share with the Committee of Ministers its own reflections on the matter and propose concrete ways of implementation of the proposals within the remit of its competences and priorities.

4. Europe is multicultural and European peoples have proved their capacity to live together in diversity and build together their common future. Although multiculturalism is facing increasing difficulties at national level in various European countries, the Assembly firmly believes that assimilation is not an alternative. The response to these difficulties is an intercultural approach which implies an active interaction among the culturally different groups within society in order to develop the best model of living together. The strengthening of common European values and identity should be promoted in a way which does not eliminate the different cultures of specific groups, but preserves and incorporates their specificities in the common European framework. This process can be endangered by growing populist, xenophobic and identity politics and similar such rhetoric coined for short-term electoral purposes, and the Assembly therefore calls on member states to develop policies to prevent such negative practices.

5. Respect of one’s own culture helps to understand the culture of others and accept differences as normal and enriching. Apart from respect for the law as an important part of the democratic culture, other cultural elements should also be taken into account.

6. People coming lawfully to live in a country should not be expected to leave elements of their identity (faith, language, culture, etc.) behind. However, they are expected to show willingness to integrate into the society of their new country, by not only learning its language, but also gaining knowledge and understanding of the local culture, and they must respect democracy, human rights, including the rights of women, and the rule of law. The communities of origin should not ostracise those who choose to change their faith or culture.

7. As the Assembly has stressed time and again, education is the main tool – but not the only one – against misleading information and stereotypes about specific groups. Moreover, education is indispensable to individual and societal welfare and cultural development, without which democracy, human rights and the rule of law would lose their foundations. The capacity to be open to and value diversity is highly dependent on quality education. An emphasis on teacher training should be added to the specific recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons in this area. The work of the Council of Europe in areas such as education for democratic citizenship or history teaching should be enhanced.

8. In this context, the Assembly recalls the 1999 Committee of Ministers Declaration and Programme on education for democratic citizenship, based on the rights and responsibilities of citizens, and believes that their implementation could substantially contribute to the development of a European spirit within society. It thus urges member states to strengthen the implementation of the 1999 programme, as well as the more recent Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 2010, taking concrete steps adapted to their local specificities.

9. The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1754 (2010) on the fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures, in which it “regrets that the challenge of establishing a more ethical attitude in politics, when dealing with issues related to race, ethnic and national origin, and religion, is still to be met”. Elected representatives have a special responsibility to change the situation both as individuals and as members of the bodies to which they are elected, be it at local, regional, national or international level. The Assembly reiterates that politicians have a special responsibility to eliminate from political discourse negative stereotyping or the stigmatising of any ethnic, minority or migrant group, be they present or not within the borders of their states. They should promote a message of non-discrimination, tolerance and respect for people from different backgrounds.

10. The Assembly regrets that, as stated in several passages of the report of the Group of Eminent Persons, women from minority groups are particularly affected by marginalisation. This situation must be addressed as a priority, not only to ensure gender equality but also to strengthen women’s potential to act as a bridge between their communities and society at large, by educating children in a culture of diversity and dialogue and helping them reconcile multiple identities.

11. The Assembly wishes to stress the need to focus on youth and implement youth rights as an investment in Europe’s cohesion and future. Youth policies should be at the core of member states’ strategies aimed at building up “living together” societies. In this respect, national authorities should adopt specific measures to encourage youth participation in economic and democratic life, and offer all young people equal opportunities to contribute to the development and well-being of their societies. In addition, more attention should be paid to the potential of sport as a powerful tool to further intercultural dialogue and living together among young people.

12. The Assembly also stresses the central role the media can play in strengthening democracy, the respect of fundamental rights and the development of culture. It believes that the Council of Europe should strengthen its relations with the media world.

13. The Assembly considers that an important role can and should be played by the European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (North-South Centre); appropriate means should be given to it in order to develop a specific comprehensive “living together” programme, including the educational, intercultural and youth policy dimensions, to support development in non-member countries of the Mediterranean region.

14. The Assembly, prompted by the relevant proposals and recommendations made by the Group of Eminent Persons, resolves, for its part, to:

14.1. initiate its own reflection on ways to encourage politicians and elected representatives at all levels to speak out on the challenges raised at present by the threats to the European project and solidarity;

14.2. pursue reflection on the proposal for an annual forum against extremism, while keeping in mind the necessity for the Assembly to maintain its capacity for rapid reaction in the face of new disturbing developments;

14.3. consider organising jointly with the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), and in co-operation with all relevant sectors of the Organisation and, possibly, the European Parliament, a conference to take stock of best practices and shortcomings in the implementation by member states of the 2003 Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist Society, as well as the 2005 Declaration on the use of racist, antisemitic and xenophobic elements in political discourse and the earlier Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (97) 20 on “hate speech”;

14.4. consider organising an Assembly campaign to promote the European Convention on Nationality (ETS No. 166) and the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No. 144);

14.5. address the issue of ageing societies in Europe, inter alia through appropriate family support policies;

14.6. address the democratic deficit resulting from the lack of democratic participation of migrants, Roma and other groups susceptible to marginalisation.

15. Recalling that in Recommendations 1927 (2010) on Islam, Islamism and Islamophobia in Europe, 1933 (2010) on the fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures, and 1962 (2011) on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, the Assembly addressed a number of concrete proposals to the Committee of Ministers with respect to the fight against extremism and the promotion of intercultural dialogue calling for “a new culture of living together”, it urges the Committee of Ministers to consider those proposals also in the light of the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons.

16. The Assembly further recommends that the Committee of Ministers, in implementing the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons, give priority to the following issues:

16.1. promote further the European Convention on Nationality and the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level;

16.2. consider launching a major campaign on “living together”, along the lines of the two “All Different – All Equal” campaigns;

16.3. explore the possibility of enhancing the role of the Council of Europe Development Bank in integration projects in member states;

16.4. call on member states to build cultural bridges by encouraging their citizens to familiarise themselves with and respect the culture, language, traditions and history of immigrant groups;

16.5. consider the development of guidelines addressing both the rights and responsibilities of migrants and the links between them through, as a minimum, a code of good practice on living together, possibly leading at some stage in the future to a framework convention;

16.6. take urgent measures to implement Assembly Recommendation 1963 (2011) on combating poverty, to improve access for people experiencing poverty, in particular from migrant and minority communities, to all human rights (civil, political, economic, social and cultural);

16.7. examine the steps needed to guarantee the basic rights of irregular migrants and their children, recognising that many of these people are exploited and cannot or will not be returned to their countries of origin;

16.8. reinforce all its programmes aimed at assisting member states in the design of sound educational policies and the proper implementation of the right to education, with no discrimination, in particular as regards people from disadvantaged, minority or migrant backgrounds, in order to combat the educational and cultural divide in our societies;

16.9. enhance the work of the Council of Europe in the areas of education for democratic citizenship based on the rights and responsibilities of citizens, which should include education in multiculturalism, and history teaching with a special emphasis on teacher training;

16.10. establish pilot projects on intercultural dialogue with local authorities, schools and higher education institutions and media in member states, including, where possible, a multilateral dimension in such pilot schemes;

16.11. call on representatives of religions to contribute, when appropriate, to the debates on common values, common heritage, protection of religious freedom, respect for human rights and democratic citizenship and the fight against terrorism, xenophobia and intolerance;

16.12. create a regular process to assess the development of intercultural dialogue in member states, including a thematic European forum on intercultural dialogue to be organised periodically;

16.13. have regular contacts with the main European media networks, with a view to further implementing the Council of Europe recommendations on training, ethics and content production issues;

16.14. fully integrate gender mainstreaming in the implementation of the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons;

16.15. propose positive measures to member states to avoid the risk of women from minority groups being subjected to double discrimination – compared to men and compared to other women – and to promote their active participation in social, economic and political life;

16.16. promote the signature and ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No. 210).

17. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers, in implementing the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons, take specific measures to ensure the protection of those who are particularly vulnerable or at risk of exclusion and marginalisation, enabling them to live in dignity. In this connection, the Assembly stresses that everyone is entitled to respect for social rights, and these cannot be denied. The Council of Europe, in its Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (2000) 3 on the right to the satisfaction of basic material needs of persons in situations of extreme hardship, stressed that this right should contain as a minimum the right to food, clothing, shelter and basic medical care.

18. The Group of Eminent Persons proposes to appoint a high-level special representative mandated to bring the content of the report to the attention of political leaders and monitor its implementation. In this respect, the Assembly recalls that, in its Recommendation 1928 (2010) on democracy in Europe: crisis and perspectives, it proposed that “a high-profile personality, a sort of a delegate for democracy, [be entrusted with the task of] … disseminating, on a permanent basis, the Council of Europe’s message on democracy-related issues of major current interest”. The Assembly believes that the two proposals are not mutually exclusive and that a possible way forward would be for one and the same person to embrace both the actions proposed by the group and those proposed by the Assembly and invites the Committee of Ministers to examine this proposal.

19. The Group of Eminent Persons proposes to offer a special status in the Council of Europe to countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores and of Central Asia. The Assembly recalls its status of “Partner for Democracy” for parliaments of countries in neighbouring regions and its Resolution 1818 (2011) on the request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco and Resolution 1819 (2011) on the situation in Tunisia. In view of recent developments on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean, the Assembly wholeheartedly supports ways of bringing countries from that region closer to the Council of Europe.

20. The Assembly resolves to pursue its reflection on this matter, inter alia by organising a conference, involving the Secretary General, representatives of the Committee of Ministers and of the Group of Eminent Persons, the rapporteur and other members of its Political Affairs Committee, as well as the rapporteurs of the other committees seized for opinion, in order to deepen and enlarge the debate related to the development of our multicultural societies. Following this conference, an action-based agenda for the Council of Europe should be set during a ministerial session, and this should feed into any future Council of Europe summit of heads of state and government.

ОТГОВОРА НА КОМИТЕТА НА МИНИСТРИТЕ ДО ПАСЕ ПО ПРИЕТАТА ПРЕПОРЪКА 

Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe

Reply | Doc. 12967 | 26 June 2012

Author(s): Committee of Ministers
Origin - Adopted at the 1146th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (20 June 2012). 2012 - Third part-session
Reply to REC 1975 (2011) 

1. The Committee of Ministers considers the report of the Group of Eminent Persons a timely initiative in that it places at the centre of the debate certain essential topical questions which present themselves to all member States, such as how to reconcile diversity and social cohesion and the rights and responsibilities of all people, nationals and non-nationals alike. The Committee of Ministers considers that these questions should be addressed coherently at European level, in full compliance with the fundamental rights and freedoms secured by the European Convention on Human Rights and having regard to national circumstances. It welcomes the interest shown by the Parliamentary Assembly in the implementation of the proposals and recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons.

2. After the presentation and the initial discussion of the report on the occasion of the 121st Session of the Committee of Ministers in May 2011 in Istanbul, the Committee of Ministers held two thematic debates on possible further action. The Committee of Ministers based its analysis of the possible follow-up on a reference document recapitulating the various Council of Europe achievements in the fields dealt with. Considering the wealth and relevance of these achievements, it concluded that it was important above all to strengthen the Organisation’s existing instruments and tools and ensure their implementation in the most effective possible way. The report and the question of “living together” were also highlighted by the Group of Eminent Persons on the occasion of the Exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue held in November 2011 in Luxembourg. 

3. The Committee of Ministers shares the concerns of the Parliamentary Assembly expressed in paragraph 4 of its recommendation concerning the growing populist, xenophobic and similar rhetoric, sometimes used for short-term electoral purposes. It agrees with the Parliamentary Assembly as to the need for member States to put in place effective policies to prevent these negative phenomena that require a resolute response from governments, education institutions, media and international organisations. Many member States already implement such policies which include programmes for combating discrimination in various fields as well as training programmes for police, border guard and other law enforcement authorities to improve their effective response to hate crimes, increase their awareness of discrimination problems and enhance their intercultural competences. More efforts are needed to prevent hate speech and violence against any person, including against migrants and persons belonging to minorities (this terminology being understood in accordance with national legislation). The Council of Europe, relying on the important work and expertise of ECRI and its other monitoring mechanisms, should further support member States, upon their request, in developing appropriate laws, policies and educational programmes as well as providing training for public authorities and teachers. The Committee of Ministers is convinced that the resolute promotion of human rights and attitudes of tolerance and respect for all persons is the appropriate response to cases of hate speech and violence.

4. The Committee of Ministers also refers to the Council of Europe’s White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue which presents diversity as a resource and advocates an intercultural and intersectoral approach. The Committee of Ministers encourages member States of the Council of Europe to actively use the White Paper in their work to promote intercultural dialogue.

5. The Organisation is working in this direction. For instance, the education sector conducts activities and programmes intended specifically to develop intercultural proficiencies and provide quality education for all. It is appropriate to mention, inter alia, the training of teachers and teacher trainers under the Pestalozzi Programme, the activities on behalf of adult migrants’ language education, the linguistic and educational integration of children with a migrant background or Roma children, education for democratic citizenship and human rights in pursuance of the Council of Europe Charter on these questions (Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7), the guidelines concerning intercultural dialogue and the image of the other in history teaching (Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)6) and the role of higher education in furthering democratic culture and intercultural dialogue as well as the Council of Europe’s contribution to European education policy (Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)6).

6. Other relevant initiatives are developed in the youth sector, particularly aimed at the social integration of young migrants, the access of young people living in culturally diverse urban neighbourhoods to social rights, the combat of hate speech on the Internet and the competence building of young Roma (“Roma Youth Action Plan”). In the social cohesion sector, initiatives are taken to act against the poverty of migrants and with regard to respect of social rights, the provisions of the European Social Charter have a crucial bearing. The Committee of Ministers tasked the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) to conduct in the biennium 2012-2013 a study examining the feasibility and added value of standard-setting work regarding human rights in culturally diverse societies. 

7. The Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGO) raised awareness to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons at its two Civil Society Forums organised in 2011, the theme of which was “Living together”. The North-South Centre has also made a contribution to the promotion and visibility of the Group of Eminent Persons’ report. It was presented at the 2011 Lisbon Forum (3 4 November 2011), at the Conference “Women as agents of change in the South Mediterranean region” (Rome, 24-25 October 2011) and at the 4th Forum of the Alliance of Civilisations (Doha, 11-13 December 2011). The North-South Centre is also guided by the report for its activities in the youth field (chiefly in the context of young people’s universities and development) and in that of education (particularly as part of the preparation of the Pan-European Congress on Global/Development Education dealing with education for world citizenship). 

8. The Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No. 210) should be seen as a contribution to achieving greater equality between women and men and as a means of overcoming some of the causes and consequences of the marginalisation of women in a situation of vulnerability. 

9. The Council of Europe Development Bank finances investment projects presented by its member States, which contribute to the integration of vulnerable populations, aimed in particular at migrants and Roma.

10. The Council of Europe and the European Union are running several joint programmes along these lines, particularly the Intercultural Cities project, the European Academic Network on Romani Studies, the Programme “Shaping perceptions and attitudes to realise the diversity advantage” (SPARDA) and, founded on the results of the Campaign “Speak out against discrimination”, the MARS programme – Media Against Racism in Sport – aimed at developing a European network of media for diversity and intercultural dialogue. Finally, a cultural policy information system offers data for 43 Council of Europe member States on their approaches to cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue.

11. The Committee of Ministers continued its reflection in the framework of a thematic debate in June 2012 on the theme “Living together implies having a level of common competences as regards intercultural and democratic dialogue, as well as a system of attitudes, behaviour and common values. Can these be taught?”. Furthermore, in the framework of its chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, Albania will organise in November 2012, in Tirana, a High-level Conference on: “Diversity in Europe, an asset for the future”; “Promoting intercultural dialogue – a task for society as a whole in Europe and beyond” and “The role of education and the contribution of young people towards promoting mutual understanding, tolerance and better integration in society”, as important elements of “Living together”.

22/06/2011	[print]
Members participating in the vote on :	Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe (Doc. 12631) Recommendation
In favour	45
Against	8
Abstention	12

Member	Country	Political group	Choice
Mr Ruhi AÇIKGÖZ	TR	EDG	Abstention
Ms Karin ANDERSEN	NO	UEL	In favour
Mr Mörður ÁRNASON	IS	SOC	Abstention
Mr Lokman AYVA	TR	EPP/CD	Against
M. Daniel BACQUELAINE	BE	ALDE	In favour
Lord Tim BOSWELL	UK	EDG	In favour
Ms Karmela CAPARIN	HR	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Mikael CEDERBRATT	SE	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Christopher CHOPE	UK	EDG	In favour
Ms Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN	NO	SOC	In favour
Mr Michael CONNARTY	UK	SOC	In favour
Mr Igor CORMAN	MD	SOC	In favour
Ms Daphné DUMERY	BE	NR	In favour
Mr Joseph FALZON	MT	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Gvozden Srecko FLEGO	HR	SOC	Abstention
Mr Hans FRANKEN	NL	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Erich Georg FRITZ	DE	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Valeriu GHILETCHI	MD	EPP/CD	In favour
Ms Sylvi GRAHAM	NO	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Andreas GROSS	CH	SOC	Abstention
Mme Ana GUTU	MD	ALDE	In favour
Ms Carina HÄGG	SE	SOC	Against
Mr Mike HANCOCK	UK	ALDE	In favour
Mr Margus HANSON	EE	ALDE	In favour
Mr Håkon HAUGLI	NO	SOC	In favour
Mr Oliver HEALD	UK	EDG	In favour
Mr Andres HERKEL	EE	EPP/CD	In favour
Ms Anette HÜBINGER	DE	EPP/CD	In favour
Mme Francine JOHN-CALAME	CH	SOC	In favour
Mr Jan KAZMIERCZAK	PL	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Haluk KOÇ	TR	SOC	Abstention
Ms Elvira KOVÁCS	RS	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Tiny KOX	NL	UEL	Abstention
Mr Ertugrul KUMCUOGLU	TR	EDG	Against
Mr Dariusz LIPINSKI	PL	EPP/CD	In favour
M. Philippe MAHOUX	BE	SOC	Abstention
M. Theo MAISSEN	CH	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Frano MATUŠIC	HR	EPP/CD	In favour
Mme Liliane MAURY PASQUIER	CH	SOC	Abstention
Ms Nursuna MEMECAN	TR	ALDE	In favour
M. Jean-Claude MIGNON	FR	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Krasimir MINCHEV	BG	EPP/CD	In favour
Ms Lilja MÓSESDÓTTIR	IS	UEL	In favour
Mr Gebhard NEGELE	LI	EPP/CD	In favour
Ms Carina OHLSSON	SE	SOC	Abstention
Mr Mikael OSCARSSON	SE	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Yüksel ÖZDEN	TR	EDG	Against
Ms Marija PEJCINOVIC-BURIC	HR	EPP/CD	In favour
Ms Marijana PETIR	HR	EPP/CD	In favour
Ms Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN	SE	EPP/CD	In favour
M. Frédéric REISS	FR	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Stefan SCHENNACH	AT	SOC	Against
Mr Yanaki STOILOV	BG	SOC	Abstention
Mr Christoph STRÄSSER	DE	SOC	Against
Mr Michal STULIGROSZ	PL	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Valeriy SUDARENKOV	RU	SOC	In favour
Mr Björn von SYDOW	SE	SOC	Abstention
Mr Mehmet TEKELIOGLU	TR	EPP/CD	Against
Lord John E. TOMLINSON	UK	SOC	Abstention
Mr Latchezar TOSHEV	BG	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Mustafa ÜNAL	TR	EPP/CD	Against
Mr Egidijus VAREIKIS	LT	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Piotr WACH	PL	EPP/CD	In favour
Ms Renate WOHLWEND	LI	EPP/CD	In favour
Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS	LT	EPP/CD	In favour