1. MAINSTRAMING ANTI-RACISM AND INTERSECTIONALITY 08/09/2017
Alfiaz Vaiya, Coordinator of the European Parliament Anti-Racism and Diversity Intergroup (ARDI)

2. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ANTI-RACISM AND DIVERSITY INTERGROUP
The European Parliament Anti-Racism and Diversity Intergroup (ARDI) exists to promote racial equality, counter racism, and educate about non-discrimination in the work of the European Parliament. It aims to be at the heart of parliamentary work for racial equality, and against all discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, and nationality. The Intergroup also looks at discrimination based on these grounds together with gender and age.

3. INTERGROUPS
ARDI was re-selected as an Intergroup by the European Parliament Conference of Presidents in December 2014 and is composed of Members of European Parliament (MEPs) from almost all political groups and a range of Member States. The Intergroup’s current mandate is for the period
They are not official bodies of the European Parliament, not do they represent its official view, yet Intergroups bring together MEPs from different political groups to discuss subjects ranging from human rights to economic and social issues.
For the 2014–2019 term, 28 Intergroups have been approved by the Conference of Presidents, which consists of the Parliament's president and the political group leaders.
The chairs of Intergroups are required to declare any support they receive in cash or kind, according to the same criteria applicable to MEPs as individuals.

4. 5) Promote diversity in the workplace and in political participation
1) Mainstream anti-racism and diversity in European Parliament policy areas such as migration, and support initiatives on other discrimination grounds (such as the adoption of the European Union (EU) Equal Treatment Directive)
2) Adopt calls for national strategies to combat Afrophobia, anti-Gypsyism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, as well as ensure the implementation of National Roma Integration Strategy in line with non-discrimination standards, and identify key policy areas to advance equality
3) Strengthen EU and national legal basis to tackle all crimes of hate speech and crime and to ensure investigation and prosecution of racist crimes
4) Implement appropriate disciplinary and self-regulatory mechanisms in the European Parliament to help combat hate speech in the European Parliament and by European political leaders
5) Promote diversity in the workplace and in political participation

5. INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH
Align anti-racist movement with other movements
- Raise specific intersectional issues (Anti-racism and gender equality: Court cases)
- Promote anti-racism within other movements (Aligning movements)
- Prevent fragmentation and politicisation (Populist parties)
2) Wide tent approach
- Mass movements through community organising and strategizing (HLF)

6. CJEU RULINGS
Since 2000, the EU has had laws against race discrimination and also a ‘framework directive’ against discrimination at work on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation or religion. The ECJ has often been called upon to rule on the first three of those grounds, but the judgments (G4S v Achbita and Bougnaoui) are the first time it has been asked to rule on non- discrimination at work on religious grounds.
The G4S ruling is the more significant of the two cases, in which the ECJ’s reasoning is most fully set out. First the Court rules that clothing worn for religious reasons is an aspect of religious belief. Then it concludes that there was no direct discrimination (ie discrimination purely on religious grounds) against Ms. Achbita, who was not allowed to wear a headscarf when dealing with customers, because her employer had a general ban on any employee display of religious or political belief
Next, the ECJ ruled on whether there was any indirect discrimination (ie discrimination not on religious grounds, but which affected people of a particular religion more than others). Such discrimination can be ‘objectively justified by a legitimate aim…if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.’ In the Court’s view, the national court which had asked the ECJ these questions should consider that an employer’s ‘neutrality’ policy regarding customers was ‘legitimate’, and was part of its ‘freedom to conduct a business’.

7. However, such as policy had to be ‘systematic’ and ‘undifferentiated’ as regards different beliefs. It also should be considered whether it was limited to those workers who ‘interact with customers’, and whether it would have been possible to reassign the employee to a different role without ‘visual contact’ with customers, without the employer taking on an extra burden. In the second case, the Court ruled that employers could not discriminate due to a customer request that employees not wear a headscarf. This was not ‘a genuine and determining occupational requirement’ that could justify reserving a job to those who did not wear headscarves. First case: In principle the rulings mean that employers may ban employees from wearing headscarves, but only in certain cases. First of all, the cases only concern customer-facing employees, on condition that the employer has a 'neutrality' policy. The ECJ was not asked to rule on other groups of employees, but its rulings indicate that it would be more difficult, if not impossible, to justify bans in those cases. Nor was it asked to clarify further what a ‘customer-facing’ employee is exactly. A neutrality policy mean an employer also has to ban other religious or political symbols worn by customer-facing employees. So no kippas, no crucifixes, no turbans - and no icons of Richard Dawkins either. This could be rather awkward in light of the human rights case law referred to above, which says wearing crucifixes (for instance) is sometimes an aspect of an employee's right to manifest her freedom of religion. Second case: There is a thin line between saying that employee headscarves can't be banned just because customers ask for it on the one hand, and allowing employers to ban such clothing in effect due to anticipation of customer reaction. In practice this might prove something of a legal fiction.

8. NEUTRALITY OR DISCRIMINATION?
1) ‘Neutrality’, set of norms based on the historical development of the majority population of any country, historical social construct, subject to change.
2) One cannot be neutral only by removing certain visible signs, a broad and diverse range of behaviours, opinions, ideas exist that cannot be “neutralized”. Taking away symbols merely removes certain visible signs but does not erase these diversities which are conveyed implicitly or explicitly in daily interactions between colleagues, with customers or management.
3) Neutrality should be required for the tasks you perform as an employee, not for the clothes you wear.
4) Generally, policies of neutrality are used to justify restrictions on the ability of religious, ethnic and racial minorities to manifest their religion. Neutrality policies do not tend to be used to counter the effect of broader, mainstream and more invisible influences in the work-place. Policies of neutrality disproportionately affect minorities, and as such are not neutral.
5) Policies of neutrality are not neutral - they exclude some symbols of difference (religious symbols) but not others (clothing signifying gender). Trying to remove unwanted visible differences in areas of society is not neutral.
6) Policies of neutrality disproportionately affect those choosing to visibly manifest their religion over those who do not or those who do not have a religion. As such they are not neutral as they express a bias in favour of not manifesting religion.
7) Workplaces in Europe should be the reflection of an increasingly diverse Europe and not only open to those who fit white secular norms.

9. European Commission’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategy ‘A better workplace for all: from equal opportunities to towards diversity and inclusion’

10. Transatlantic Minority Policymakers Leadership Conference (TMPLC)
2) German Marshall Fund Transatlantic Inclusion Leaders Network (TILN)
3) U.S. Mission to the European Union roundtable
4) Multinational Corporations
H&M France
LÓreal
Google
HSBC

11. CONTACT
European Parliament Anti-Racism and Diversity Intergroup (ARDI)
ASP 1G302
European Parliament
Tel:
Website:
Facebook: