Ethnic Minorities in the UK: The high Covid 19 death rate

Is the higher death rate linked to poverty, including poor living and working conditions?

On 7^th May 2020, The Guardian newspaper published a report from an Office for National Statistics( ONS) survey in the Uk that Black people four times more likely to die from Covid-19, It also showed that other ethnic minority communities had been more severely affected proportionally than those from “the white population”.  This data covering the period from 2 March to 10 April has to be handled with care like most information sets it needs to be closely analysed and instant generalisations avoided. The impact on the Bangladeshi and Pakistani community was almost as severe with other ethnic groups suffering more severely than most of the population. Once the data is adjusted by the ONS for age, region, rural/urban, IMD decile, household composition, socioeconomic status, and health the four times headline figure reduces to close to two times for Black people and there are similar reductions for the Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian communities.

However, the adjustment for anything other than age needs exploring carefully and requires peer group reviews. Issues such as the social-economic status of an ethnic group are reflective of the marginalisation of a community and are likely to be through a lack of effective participation in British society. Members of minority communities may already be vulnerable with unregistered underlying illnesses, they may have “aged” more through everyday stresses over decades, while the data being used (death certification by doctors) may be skewed in some way. The implication that the higher death rate may be attributable to ethnic differences is profoundly disturbing. The pattern of proportionately higher death rates for minority communities is equally true for both male and female members. For the whole UK population, the ONS March data shows that in the UK 2068 men were registered as dying from COVID 19 and 1304 women died ( 61 % and 39 % respectively). It has been suggested that male and female chromosomes have different capacities to resist viruses.

The New York Times article entitled “Hard hit minority communities struggle to bury the dead” 11 May gives a graphic description of what this means for Birmingham’s Muslim community. Many people are dying a painful death without the dignity of family farewells.

The UK Office for national statistics database shows that Low paid workers more likely to die of COVID 19 than professional workers. It reveals that men working as security guards had one of the highest death rates, at 45.7 fatalities for every 100,000, followed by taxi drivers and chauffeurs (36.4), bus and coach drivers (26.4), chefs (35.9), and sales and retail assistants (19.8). Interestingly, security guards, chauffeurs, taxi drivers, bus and coach drivers have sedentary work environments working in confined spaces with the public. Chefs and sales assistants are often “trapped” in a small space with other workers and the public close by. The data sets show that members of ethnic minority communities are much more likely to be employed in front line services with face to face contact with other workers or customers than in more protected and better paid professional work. Furthermore, they are more likely to live in overcrowded accommodation in cities, while specific cultural factors e.g. family gatherings and religious worship may lead to a high density of people coming together.

The European Network Against Racism ( http://www.enar-eu.org) today published “COVID 19’s impact on racialised communities: an interactive EU-wide map” which may include some valuable comparisons across the EU, helping to provide a deeper understanding.  It is crucial to look carefully at the social and economic marginalisation of minorities communities, their lack of full and effective participation in social and economic life and why this is vital to their existence individually and collectively. These right are described eloquently in the second commentary of the Council of Europe Advisory Committee on the full and effective participation of minorities in social and economic life. The right to life and the right to dignity in death are fundamental human rights.

Read Full Post »

Strengthening FCNM monitoring

On 11 December 2019, the Committee of Ministers has adopted a new resolution on the revised monitoring arrangements of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

The resolution contains a series of evolutions allowing monitoring to be more efficient and adapted to today’s needs, including:

• The automatic publication of opinions at the latest 4 months after their transmission to the authorities;
• The possibility to launch monitoring without a State report after 12 months (instead of 24 so far);
• The establishment of a confidential dialogue mechanism in order to further improve the quality of communication between member states and the Advisory Committee;
• The setting up a new rapid reaction mechanism.

It has been also agreed that the Committee of Ministers would start examining resolutions on the implementation of the Framework Convention as soon as States’ comments on the opinion of the Advisory Committee have been received.

Read Full Post »

Monitoring and Promoting Minority Rights April 2015

This Keynote presentation was made at the Aland Island international Conference (Finland) convened by the Peace Institute for the Finnish Government,the Council of Europe, the High Commissioner on National Minorities to mark the 20th anniversary of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention. (see  CoE minorities Website )

Its key recommendations include

• where States clearly do not implement the Framework Convention in good faith the Council of Europe Secretary General should work closely with other key actors, including the OSCE HCNM watch carefully for windows of opportunity for change and then take action with others.
• States that promote minority rights should also play a constructive role in exerting peer group pressure on states that deny minority rights to help guarantee stability and long term democratic security throughout Europe.
•  A local ownership of the Framework Convention must be built. This is needed , especially among civil society, minority communities and helpful officials, who in the long term are likely to have the greatest impact in promoting minority rights.

The full text is given below:

The independence of monitoring bodies at times of resistance to minority and human rights.  Dr. Alan Phillips    Former President of FCNM Advisory Committee       31/03/2015
Thank you Mr. Chairman
In the 1990s, when I was the Director of Minority Rights Group International, early each year I would visit Finland, Sweden and Norway. It was to recharge my batteries in countries that supported human rights; it was to discuss with foreign ministries the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights; thirdly it was to be of assistance to the three aid ministries in spending their budgets. Many suggested that I should go beyond Helsinki, Rovaniemi and Turku and visit the Aland Islands. At last I have, thanks to this generous invitation today.
In the short time available in a one day conference, I will be succinct. I apologise that this will lead to generalisations and simplification in a highly complex area that Francesco Palermo, [the Advisory Committee President,] so eloquently described.
There is one common denominator that unites all 39 States that are party to the Framework Convention, their governments, politicians and legislature have ratified an instrument of international law that is legally binding domestically. They have done so voluntarily, undertaking to guarantee the rights of persons belonging to national minorities, accepting that the Convention should be applied in good faith and supporting the independence and impartiality of expert members of the Advisory Committee. [They also recognised that the protection of national minorities is essential to stability, democratic security and peace in this continent.]
Professor Michael Banton an eminent sociologist and long standing member of CERD wrote:
“ international action against racial discrimination is the struggle to extend the rule of law. It is a highly political struggle because it is about cajoling states to give up some of the sovereignty. They are reluctant to do so, unless they can get something in exchange”.
There has always been some resistance to minority rights, so why did so many states ratify the Framework Convention almost two decades ago? How can states be motivated today to promote minority rights and their independent monitoring? What will they get in exchange?
Some ratifying States took a principled position. [They saw the benefits of ratification for their own minorities and supportive of effective integration. It provides scope for the progressive realisation of rights and well as internationally agreed limit to these. They may also want to reflect existing values of their own society and thereby encourage other states, including neighbours, to ratify and follow their lead. State knew of the high reputation of the Council of Europe for its human rights conventions while, since 2000, some may have been influenced by the quality of the evidence and analysis of the Advisory Committee.]
Some other States were more reluctant, but responded democratically to the representations and pressure exerted by civil society groups, including minorities. Some states were motivated by a desire to join the Council of Europe and the European Union, some wanted to limit the “involvement” of neighbouring states on “kin” minorities, while some wanted to gain international prestige in response to peer group pressure.
Times have moved on. Nevertheless there are important lessons that we can still learn from the past, not least the remarkable Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the confidence-building processes that followed. The human dimension basket that was negotiated provided space for civil society organisations in the Warsaw Pact countries to develop independent human rights monitoring mechanisms. This strategy ensured that when a window of opportunity occurred with emerging democracies in 1989-1990, it could be seized locally by civil society [including national minorities] and internationally by the CSCE and others. Timing, local ownership by governments and minorities alongside collective international support remains crucial for promoting minority rights and preventing conflicts today.
The Framework Convention has a unique monitoring mechanism; it is the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, which reflects the highly political nature of minority rights in some circumstances. As we all know, it is “assisted by” an Advisory Committee of independent and impartial experts that form Opinions.
At times of financial stringency there is a temptation to seek too many economies that may threaten the perceived independence of the Advisory Committee and the clear separation of responsibilities. It is crucial that the Advisory Committee’s judicial character and powers must be clearly separated from the executive powers of the Secretary General and also separated from the political and legislative powers of member States.
The quality of the Opinions must never be compromised. It is essential to monitor complex topics including the social and economic issues of groups such as the Roma and gender disadvantage. The skilful work of the Secretariat and the direct dialogue developed by the Presidents of the AC with the Committee of Ministers over many years has led to the Opinions being formed independently. These Opinions are closely mirrored by the Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers. Consequently this potential weakness of the monitoring mechanism became a strength.
Nevertheless this subtle mechanism is always vulnerable to the politics of individual states and how much support is given to the Chairman of the Rapporteur Group on Human Rights. He needs clear support, continuous vigilance and concerted action from states, not least Finland and Sweden.
The Committee of Ministers agreed that its monitoring mechanism should be as transparent as possible. This implies not only good information and targeted training, but monitoring visits that are participatory, that engage minorities, that explore their real conditions in situ and are accompanied by the speedy production and dissemination of Opinions. It requires the timely adoption of Resolutions, good quality translations of Opinions into local languages, and the use of well-known and easily accessible websites. Dialogue is needed with minority communities, all of these can be jeopardised by a lack of resources and lead to monitoring fatigue by civil society (including minorities), with the Framework Convention becoming less relevant with a diminished impact.
It is crucial to anticipate that in some states the leadership will be highly resistant to minority rights.

There have been extreme occasions where the advisory committee monitoring group has been overtly followed, and one case when an elderly academic, who was paid by the CoE to translate the Framework Convention, was imprisoned for this work. Despite the representations of the Secretary General, he died in prison in Azerbaijan. In such circumstance the Committee of Ministers must take an uncomfortable stand to protect human rights defenders in an appropriate and dynamic way. It is excellent to hear that Finland is promoting the protection of human rights defenders.
Conclusion.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that where States clearly do not implement the Framework Convention in good faith the Secretary General should work closely with other key actors, including the OSCE HCNM, identify “synergies” and watch carefully for windows of opportunity for change. Supportive States should also play a constructive role in exerting peer group pressure to help guarantee stability and long term democratic security throughout Europe.
It is crucial to build a local ownership of the Framework Convention, especially among civil society, minority communities and helpful officials, who in the long term can have the greatest impact in promoting minority rights. We have much to learn from them and that is another reason why it is a pleasure to come to the Aland Islands.
[Alan Phillips…Vice President AC FCNM 1998-2002 , President 2006-2010.]

Read Full Post »

The Scottish People and National Minorities

European Law  demands that national minorities have the right to  conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs, in particular those affecting them.

European Law through the FCNM aims to encourage real equality between national minorities and those forming part of the majority. The necessary conditions for the  effective participation of national minorities may include substantial degrees of devolution or autonomy . It certainly demands the effective participation of minorities in decision making on economic issues that affect them,  including local , regional and state wide taxation..

There has been a great reluctance by those who wish independence or self determination , including the political leadership of Indigenous peoples and national groups , including the Catalans and the Scots, to accept what they see as a lesser status of being a minority. Nevertheless it is possible for such communities to accept these rights, press for a maximalist interpretation and then go beyond that to see total self determination.  The Scottish people have clearly spoken in an open, participatory and democratic way that they do not want independence or full self determination.

The resounding defeat of the vote for Scottish independence with over 20 % more people in Scotland voting for being together in the United Kingdom should come as no surprise, despite the news media suggesting from simplistic interpretations of opinion polls that the outcome was too close to call. The limitations of opinion polls was exposed as they had no baseline on which to recalibrate their potentially skewed results , when voters are under immense pressure to vote for a simple identity rather than the complex relationships that many Scots have culturally, economically and socially with Scotland and the United Kingdom. The civil and political structures will continue to reflect this complexity after the no vote, nevertheless there is considerable scope for reform in Scotland but also in Wales, Northern Ireland and in the various regions of England ( including Cornwall, where the Cornish have minority status, and Yorkshire/ the Humber that has a population of 5.3 million larger than Scotland) to devolve substantial powers and resources, including revenue raising.

The devolution should not end there as there is also a need to consider the specific needs in Scotland of areas including the Western isles and the Northern Isles, including Orkney and Shetland , where there are distinct cultural, economic and social differences to Glasgow and where two thirds of the voters wanted to retain the Union. Similarly there is strong case for much greater participation of minorities and local governments in decision making on issues that effect them.

This democratic approach has similarities and although in the UK many ethnic minorities are dispersed, the evidence collected in the Commentary on Article 15 of the FCNM showed that  increased devolution in many European countries has had considerable benefit in reducing the democratic deficit, increase engagement and ensure that national minorities are less tempted by secessionist calls. Regions and Nations in the UK alongside Minorities and Local authorities are often managed by different mechanisms, nevertheless there is a wealth of evidence and good practice in the monitoring of the FCNM since 2000 over 3 cycles of reporting and monitoring of minorities.

 

Read Full Post »