+ All Categories
Home > Documents > 65 roma gypsies

65 roma gypsies

Date post: 08-Apr-2016
Category:
Upload: vad-laszlo
View: 221 times
Download: 2 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
http://www.ispmn.gov.ro/uploads/65-roma-gypsies.pdf
21
by JEAN-PIERRE LIEGEOIS and NICOLAE GHEORGHE R E P O R T Minority Rights Group International MRG AN MRG INTERNATIONAL REPORT • 95/4 • ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY Roma /Gypsies: A European Minority
Transcript
Page 1: 65 roma gypsies

by JEAN-PIERRE LIEGEOIS and NICOLAE GHEORGHE

REPORT

Minority Rights Group International

MRG

AN

MR

G I

NT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

L R

EP

OR

T•

95/4

• R

OM

A/G

YPSI

ES:

A E

UR

OPE

AN

MIN

OR

ITY

Roma/Gypsies: A European Minority

Page 2: 65 roma gypsies

Young homeless Romawoman in Sofia, BulgariaMELANIE FRIEND

Roma/Gypsies: A European Minority

MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP

Minority Rights Group works to secure rights and justicefor ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities. It is dedicatedto the cause of cooperation and understanding betweencommunities.Founded in the 1960s, Minority Rights Group is a smallinternational non-governmental organization that informsand warns governments, the international community, non-governmental organizations and the wider public about thesituation of minorities around the world. This work is basedon the publication of well-researched reports, books andpapers; direct advocacy on behalf of minority rights ininternational fora; the development of a global network oflike-minded organizations and minority communities tocollaborate on these issues; and the challenging ofprejudice and promotion of public understandingthrough information and education projects.Minority Rights Group believes that the best hope for apeaceful world lies in identifying and monitoringconflict between communities, advocating preventivemeasures to avoid the escalation of conflict andencouraging positive action to build trust betweenmajority and minority communities.Minority Rights Group has consultative status with theUnited Nations Economic and Social Council and has aworldwide network of partners. Its internationalheadquarters are in London. Legally it is registered both asa charity and as a limited company under the UnitedKingdom Law with an International Governing Council.

THE PROCESS

As part of its methodology, MRG conducts regionalresearch, identifies issues and commissions reports basedon its findings. Each author is carefully chosen and allscripts are read by no less than eight independent expertswho are knowledgeable about the subject matter. Theseexperts are drawn from the minorities about whom thereports are written, and from journalists, academics,researchers and other human rights agencies. Authors areasked to incorporate comments made by these parties. Inthis way, MRG aims to publish accurate, authoritative, well-balanced reports.

ROMA /GYPSIES OF EUROPE

© Minority Rights Group 1995British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 1 897693 16 8ISSN 0305 6252Published October 1995Typeset by Brixton GraphicsPrinted in the UK on bleach-free paper by MFP Design and Print

Translated from French by Sinéad ni Shuinéar

AcknowledgementsMinority Rights Group gratefully acknowledges all organi-zations and individuals who gave financial and other assis-tance for this report.

This report has been commissioned and is published byMinority Rights Group as a contribution to public under-standing of the issue which forms its subject. The text andviews of the individual authors do not necessary represent,in every detail and in all its aspects, the collective view ofMinority Rights Group.

THE AUTHORS

JEAN-PIERRE LIEGEOIS is director of the Centre deRecherches Tsiganes (Gypsy Research Centre) at theRené Descartes University, Paris. He is an author ofnumerous articles promoting an understanding ofRoma/Gypsy issues and manages a substantial projectfunded by the European Commission on Roma/Gypsyeducation. He is editor of Interface magazine andInterface Collection.

NICOLAE GHEORGHE is a Romanian sociologist whobelongs to the Roma community. He has long been activein the defence of the Roma community both in Romaniaand internationally. He is coordinator of the RomaCenter for Social Intervention and Studies and seniorresearcher at the Institute of Sociology, Bucharest.

by JEAN-PIERRE LIEGEOIS and NICOLAE GHEORGHEMRG

C O N T E N T S

Preface

Context

Some aspects of the current situation

The emergence of a political spacefor Roma/Gypsies

Confirming a cultural space forRoma/Gypsies

Conclusion

Annexe

Recommendations

Notes

Bibliography

5

7

11

21

29

32

33

34

35

36

Page 3: 65 roma gypsies

Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging toNational or Ethnic, Religious and LinguisticMinorities (Adopted by the UN General Assembly; Resolution 47/135of 18 December 1992)

Article 11. States shall protect the existence and the national or eth-

nic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minoritieswithin their respective territories, and shall encourageconditions for the promotion of that identity.

2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other mea-sures to achieve those ends.

Article 21. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and lin-

guistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as personsbelonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their ownculture, to profess and practise their own religion, and touse their own language, in private and in public, freelyand without interference or any form of discrimination.

2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to partici-pate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic andpublic life.

3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to partici-pate effectively in decisions on the national and, whereappropriate, regional level concerning the minority towhich they belong or the regions in which they live, in amanner not incompatible with national legislation.

4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to estab-lish and maintain their own associations.

5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to estab-lish and maintain, without any discrimination, free andpeaceful contacts with other members of their group,with persons belonging to other minorities, as well ascontacts across frontiers with citizens of other States towhom they are related by national or ethnic, religious orlinguistic ties.

Article 31. Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights

including those as set forth in this Declaration individual-ly as well as in community with other members of theirgroup, without any discrimination.

2. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging toa minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights as set forth in this Declaration.

Article 41. States shall take measures where required to ensure that

persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully andeffectively all their human rights and fundamental free-doms without any discrimination and in full equalitybefore the law.

2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditionsto enable persons belonging to minorities to express theircharacteristics and to develop their culture, language,religion, traditions and customs, except where specificpractices are in violation of national law and contrary tointernational standards.

3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherev-er possible, persons belonging to minorities have ade-quate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or tohave instruction in their mother tongue.

4. States should, where appropriate, take measures in thefield of education, in order to encourage knowledge ofthe history, traditions, language and culture of theminorities existing within their territory. Persons belong-ing to minorities should have adequate opportunities togain knowledge of the society as a whole.

5. States should consider appropriate measures so that per-sons belonging to minorities may participate fully in theeconomic progress and development in their country.

Article 51. National policies and programmes shall be planned and

implemented with due regard for the legitimate interestsof persons belonging to minorities.

2. Programmes of cooperation and assistance among Statesshould be planned and implemented with due regardfor the legitimate interests of persons belonging tominorities.

Article 6States should cooperate on questions relating to personsbelonging to minorities, inter alia, exchanging informationand experiences, in order to promote mutual understand-ing and confidence.

Article 7States should cooperate in order to promote respect forthe rights as set forth in the present Declaration.

Article 81. Nothing in this Declaration shall prevent the fulfilment

of international obligations of States in relation to personsbelonging to minorities. In particular, States shall fulfil ingood faith the obligations and commitments they haveassumed under international treaties and agreements towhich they are parties.

2. The exercise of the rights as set forth in the presentDeclaration shall not prejudice the enjoyment by all per-sons of universally recognized human rights and funda-mental freedoms.

3. Measures taken by States in order to ensure the effectiveenjoyment of the rights as set forth in the presentDeclaration shall not prima facie be considered contraryto the principle of equality contained in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights.

4. Nothing in the present Declaration may be construed aspermitting any activity contrary to the purposes andprinciples of the United Nations, including sovereignequality, territorial integrity and political independenceof States.

Article 9The specialized agencies and other organizations of theUnited Nations system shall contribute to the full real-ization of the rights and principles as set forth in thepresent Declaration, within their respective fields ofcompetence.

For further reference, see also the following instruments:The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(1966), article 27;The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination (1965), article 2;The Framework Convention for the Protection of National

Minorities (1995);The OSCE Budapest Summit Declaration (1994), Chapter

VIII the Human Dimension, articles 23 and 24.

4

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Minority Rights Group (MRG) first pub-lished a report on the Roma (or ‘Gypsies’as they are known in Western Europe) in1973 and has closely followed develop-ments affecting this minority ever since.

Following the collapse of the communist regimes inCentral and Eastern Europe and significant changes in thesituation of Roma/Gypsy communities in Europe as awhole, MRG commissioned a full updated reportRoma/Gypsies: A European Minority, from two acknowl-edged experts in this area. This report is seen as a resourceto support the work of Minority Rights Group, in particularwhere MRG has established practical training initiativeswith the Roma/Gypsy communities to encourage empow-erment and also, multicultural education projects to informand educate ‘majority’ communities.

The new report has adopted a different approach fromits previous edition and offers a thematic analysis of the sit-uation of the Roma/Gypsy in the post-communist era.Many of the problems this persecuted minority suffers arenot unique to any particular country, although specificinstances in different countries are cited in the report. Theauthors give an overview of the Roma/Gypy communityand its history of discrimination and persecution in Europe,analyzing the various policies adopted during the 600 yearssince the Roma/Gypsies first migrated to Europe.

The report examines specific areas where the Roma/Gypsy community as a whole currently faces particulardifficulties. Roma/Gypsies face disadvantage and discrim-ination in all spheres: employment, housing, health, edu-cation and vocational opportunities. In addition, theysuffer from the accumulation of centuries of prejudiceand negative stereotyping, which have adversely affectedpolicies conducted towards them. Up until recently, therehas been little recognition of the Roma/Gypsy as a distinctethnic, linguistic and cultural group and hence a lack ofrecognition that many of the problems they encounterresult from the violation of their rights as a minority.

Much of the focus of concern has to be on the countriesof Central and Eastern Europe, whilst acknowledging thatthe record of Western European states is also poor.Roma/Gypsy communities have suffered disproportionate-ly in the political and economic changes which have result-ed since the fall of communism. In many cases, whilecommunist policies towards Roma/Gypsies were far fromexemplary, as MRG’s earlier report demonstrated, therewas a bottom line for Roma/Gypsies in terms of social pro-vision which now no longer exists. However, positive devel-opments in terms of the recognition of minority rights canbe detected in these countries, many of which include pro-tection of minorities in their constitutions. The difficulty isin recognizing that Roma/Gypsy communities deserve thisprotection, and in providing the resources necessary toimplement non-discriminatory and affirmative policies inhousing, health, education and employment. There have

been disturbing instances of violence against Roma/Gypsiesin many countries where political and social transformationis taking place with Roma/Gypsies often being seen as thescapegoat for wider social ills.

There are some positive developments noted in thisreport, notably the greater freedom of Roma/Gypsies toorganize themselves and lobby for the protection of theirrights at international and national levels. There have beenmany initiatives put forward by a variety of European insti-tutions in the last few years which underline the increasingawareness that Roma/Gypsies as a transnational minorityneed to be recognized and protected at European as wellas national levels. MRG welcomes initiatives by theOrganization on Security and Cooperation in Europe(OSCE) to devote particular attention to the Roma/Gypsyissue since April 1993 when the High Commissioner onNational Minorities was given a mandate to report on theposition of the Roma/Gypsy within the OSCE region.MRG actively participated in the Roma/Gypsy Seminar inWarsaw in September 1994 and some of this report isbased on submissions made by the authors to the WorkingGroups at the Seminar.

The Roma/Gypsy community was the focus of muchattention at the Romanian government-sponsoredConference on Tolerance in Bucharest in May 1995. Romaexpressed widespread anger at the way they perceived thattheir name and their identity had been changed by theRomanian authorities. The Romanian government deniesany charge, stating that its preferred name ‘Tsigani’ is tra-ditional and avoids confusion with Romanian nationality.The argument is symbolic of a lack of consultation, trustand confidence in Roma/Gypsies in many states.

Traditionally, the OSCE concern regarding nationalminorities has focused on security concerns and the dangerof conflicts between states. In this case, there is a narrowconcern to discourage migration, but also a wider concernthat the issues surrounding Roma/Gypsies are an indicatorof how tolerant and protective of human rights any societyis. Few states can be proud of their record.

As the authors state, the time has now come, since theproblems have been identified and aired, to adopt an inte-grated, inclusive and sensitive approach to the problems facedby Roma/Gypsies as a hitherto neglected minority group.

Alan PhillipsDirectorSeptember 1995

5

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Preface

Page 4: 65 roma gypsies

7

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

6

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

History

The first Roma/Gypsy groups reached Europefrom the East in the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies. At this time, they still rememberedtheir homeland, as testified by numerous doc-uments dated between 1422-1590, a period

during which their Indian roots were gradually obscured bylegends of Egyptian origins. With their arrival cameattempts from the local populations to categorize the new-comers, with diverse names referring to their supposed ori-gins. For example in Greece a sect from Asia Minor, whosemembers had a reputation as soothsayers and magicians,had been collectively known for centuries by the name of‘Atsinganos’ (‘untouched, untouchable’). When the newgroup arrived from the East, this name was attributed tothem, and, with variations, was to remain in use in numer-ous countries (as ‘Tsigan’ in Bulgaria, Romania, andHungary, ‘Cigain’ and later ‘Tsiganes’ in France, ‘Zigeuner’in Germany, ‘Zingari’ in Italy, ‘Ciganos’ in Portugal, etc.).Similarly, many regions frequented by Travellers of Easternorigin were, at that time, known as ‘Little Egypt’. This isprobably why, when these Travellers moved on to otherEuropean countries, they were frequently dubbed‘Egyptians’, another name which has remained in a varietyof forms, with ‘Gypsies’ in English and ‘Gitanos’ in Spanish.

It was not until the late eighteenth century that a com-parative study, carried out in Hungary, of Roma/Gypsy ter-minology and of Indian languages, made it possible toformulate the hypothesis – subsequently confirmed by lin-guists – of the Indian origin of those communities we shallbe calling ‘Gypsy’ or ‘Roma’. The migrations of their ances-tors, originating in India, probably developed over a numberof centuries prior to their arrival in Europe. More recentresearch demonstrates that the chronicles of Persian andArab historians and geographers confirm linguistic findings.1

The following reference dates indicate the first recordedRoma/Gypsy presence in various European countries, bearingin mind that earlier arrivals may well have gone unnoticed:

1407 Germany1419 France1420 Netherlands1422 Italy1425 Spain1501 Russia1505 Scotland, Denmark1512 Sweden1514 England1533 Estonia1540 Norway1584 Finland

Once in Western Europe, groups often continued totravel from one region or country to another, however, oth-ers reduced or discontinued their migrations and adapted

their work practices in response to local demand, for exam-ple taking up trade, craftwork or seasonal agriculturallabour. In the course of their travels, these Roma/Gypsygroups encountered other Travellers of indigenousEuropean origin. For example in Ireland from the twelfthcentury a group known as ‘Tinklers’ or ‘Tynkers’ has main-

Roma/Gypsy: terminologyGypsy: Term used to denote ethnic groups formed by thedispersal of commercial, nomadic and other groups fromwithin India from the tenth century, and their mixing withEuropean and other groups during their diaspora.

Roma/Rom: A broad term used in various ways, to signify:(a) Those ethnic groups (e.g. Kalderash, Lovari, etc.)

who speak the ‘Vlach’, ‘Xoraxane’ or ‘Rom’ varietiesof Romani language.

(b) Any person identified by others as ‘Tsigane’ inCentral and Eastern Europe and Turkey, plus thoseoutside the region of East European extraction.

(c) Romani people in general.

Traveller: A member of any of the (predominantly)indigenous European ethnic groups (Woonwagen-bewoners, Mincéiri, Jenisch, Quinquis, Resende, etc.)whose culture is characterized, inter alia, by self-employ-ment, occupational fluidity, and nomadism. These groupshave been influenced to a greater or lesser degree by eth-nic groups of (predominantly) Indian origin with a similarcultural base (see ‘Gypsies’).

The authors have used the designation ‘Roma/Gypsies’ forthe multitude of ethnic groups covered by the aboveterms, in deference on the one hand to familiarity and onthe other to self-designation.

ContextRoma/Gypsy populationsthroughout Europe3

State minimum maximumAlbania 90,000 100,000Austria 20,000 25,000Belarus 10,000 15,000Belgium 10,000 15,000Bosnia-Herzegovina 40,000 50,000Bulgaria 700,000 800,000Croatia 30,000 40,000Cyprus 500 1,000Czech Republic 250,000 300,000Denmark 1,500 2,000Estonia 1,000 1,500Finland 7,000 9,000France 280,000 340,000Germany 110,000 130,000Greece 160,000 200,000Hungary 550,000 600,000Ireland 22,000 28,000Italy 90,000 110,000Latvia 2,000 3,500Lithuania 3,000 4,000Luxembourg 100 150Macedonia 220,000 260,000Moldavia 20,000 25,000Netherlands 35,000 40,000Norway 500 1,000Poland 50,000 60,000Portugal 40,000 50,000Romania 1,800,000 2,500,000Russia 220,000 400,000Serbia-Montenegro 400,000 450,000Slovakia 480,000 520,000Slovenia 8,000 10,000Spain 650,000 800,000Sweden 15,000 20,000Switzerland 30,000 35,000Turkey 300,000 500,000Ukraine 50,000 60,000United Kingdom 90,000 120,000Total Europe(approximately) 7,000,000 to 8,500,000

Page 5: 65 roma gypsies

associate Roma/Gypsies with everything negative (e.g. ‘tolie’, ‘steal’ or ‘be as dirty as a Gypsy’, etc.), along withnames and even verbs derived from the word ‘Gypsy’ orlocal variants thereof, and used as synonyms for lying,cheating, and the like in a great number of languages – allgo hand-in-hand with official policies.

In the twentieth century, Nazi Germany staged theultimate anti-Roma/Gypsy campaign: extermination. Yetfrom 1899, with the creation of the ‘Zigeunernachtrichten-dienst’ (Gypsy Information Bureau) under the direction ofthe Department of Criminal Investigation, Roma/Gypsiesbecame subject to constant police surveillance. Thesemeasures were strengthened still further in 1938 with thepassing of two circulars, one concerning ‘anti-socials’, theother on the ‘fight against the Roma/Gypsy menace’(Bekämpfung der Zigeunerplage) which stressed that‘experience to date in the fight against the Roma/Gypsymenace, and the findings of bio-racial research, suggestthat the Roma/Gypsy question be treated as a racial one’.At first they were put under house arrest, later, from 1939-40, they were deported to Poland. From 1941 onwards, interritories occupied by the German army, manyRoma/Gypsies were simply shot. In 1942 and 1943Roma/Gypsies and those of mixed race were interned,mainly in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau and Buchenwald.Their extermination in Nazi-occupied countries was near-total, and there are virtually no Roma/Gypsy families inCentral Europe unaffected by it. Some estimates put thenumber of Roma/Gypsies murdered under the Naziregime at 500,000, and systematic extermination is stillgoing on: for example whole families have been wiped outin certain territories of the former Yugoslavia in the nameof ‘ethnic cleansing’.5

Containment

In a policy of containment, that is, the compulsory, gen-erally violent integration of Roma/Gypsies into ‘main-

stream’ society, the goal of making Roma/Gypsies‘invisible’ remains, but instead of pursuing it by pushingthem away geographically, it is to take place socially, byenclosing and splitting the group, which is then to conformwith the rest of the population either through total absorp-tion or by becoming ‘socially useful’. In this way, the deathpenalty for second offenders was replaced by condemna-tion to the galleys when these were in need of extra hands,and later by deportation to the colonies, forced labour, andto the workhouse. The most extreme example of contain-ment was seen in Romania, where from the fourteenthcentury, Roma/Gypsies were held in slavery by the state,the clergy, and the nobility: families were sold at auction,married couples were split up, children were sold to dif-ferent masters or simply given away as gifts. The abolitionof this enslavement, in 1865, gave rise to one of the mostimportant of the Roma/Gypsy migrations.

From the end of the fifteenth century, Spain also oper-ated a policy of containment. Roma/Gypsies were obligedto find a trade and a master; and were restricted in theirmovements. Measures implemented repeatedly over thecourse of the following centuries demonstrate an unwaver-ing political desire to forcibly integrate Roma/Gypsies intoSpanish society. Banishment was used only as an alternative

punishment for those who resisted integration, and wasquickly replaced by consignment to the galleys and mercurymines. One by one, gatherings, travelling in groups of threeor more, ‘Roma/Gypsy habits and costume’, traditionaloccupations, finally the language and the name Gypsy(‘Gitano’) itself, were outlawed. Residence was strictly con-trolled: limited to 41 permitted areas. In 1717, this wasincreased to 76, with a stipulation of a maximum of oneRoma/Gypsy family per 100 of the population, and no morethan one family per street. Armed troops scoured the coun-tryside seeking any Roma/Gypsies living outside these des-ignated areas, and were authorized to kill. A giganticround-up took place in 1749, yet many facilities, particular-ly prison spaces, were totally insufficient for dealing withthe numbers involved, and the Roma/Gypsies were gradu-ally released, a process that was not completed until 1765.6

Then in 1783 Charles III promoted an extremely detailed(44 articles) act of legislation. The preamble forms a perfectresumé of the ideology accompanying such a policy:

‘We declare that those who are called Gypsies, orwho call themselves such, are not so by origin nor bynature, nor do they spring from unwholesome stock.Taking this into account, we order that they, andeach one among them, shall cease to practise the lan-guage, the costume, and the wandering way of lifewhich they have followed up to the present. The kinggives a 90 days’ period of grace, so that allVagabonds of this sort might settle down “and aban-don the costume, language, and habits of the desig-nated Gypsies on penalty of being branded with hotirons. And, for those who persist, the death penaltywill be applied without appeal”.’

The ‘designated Gypsies’ thus had 90 days in which tonegate and utterly transform themselves, being expectedto change both their language and behaviour.

Out of numerous other examples, the policy implement-ed in the mid-eighteenth century by Maria Theresa ofAustria and continued by her son Joseph II is noteworthy.Through a series of legal orders, nomadism, Roma/Gypsycostume, language and trades were forbidden or regulated,and children were taken from their parents to be brought upby local families. Within the sphere of containment policies,the forcible removal of children from Roma/Gypsy parentshas been recommended in many states, and occasionally putinto practice. One of the most important cases in recentyears concerns Switzerland, where from 1926-73 the chari-table organization Pro Juventute in its ‘Children of the Road’division removed Roma/Gypsy children from their familiesand placed them in institutions until they could be fosteredor adopted, without judicial input. These actions were sup-ported by the authorities.

Assimilation

In the second half of the twentieth century, ideas with ahumanist slant have come to the fore. They have put a stop

to corporal punishment and physical coercion, outlawingslavery, tearing children away from their families, blanketimpositions and restrictions. At the same time a new, increas-ingly technocratic model of society has been adopted. Thesetwo tendencies merge in transforming containment policy

9

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

tained an identity, social organization, and Celtic linguisticvariants distinct from those of the surrounding population.Similarly the ‘Quinquis’ of Spain from the sixteenth centu-ry, and the ‘Jenisch’ in Germany from the seventeenth cen-tury, have maintained separate identities. These encountersled to cultural and social exchange, leading to stratification,and vast linguistic and cultural diversification, both within agiven region and from one region to another.

The names attributed to these communities by out-siders are, like the names used by the communities them-selves, also very diverse. They have acquired deeplypejorative connotations in most languages, with politicaland administrative texts often using colloquial terms, orinventing paraphrases or metaphors encapsulating officialpolicy at the time. For example, personnes d’originenomade (people of nomadic origin), negates any referenceto culture, and was the preferred term in France in the1970s, when the policy was one of assimilation. This reportsometimes uses the term ‘Travellers’, which is often thepreferred name of a number of communities of non-Indianorigin, and is relatively free of negative overtones. Theterm ‘Gypsies’ is not generally viewed in a pejorative sense,however it does have some negative overtones, for exam-ple in Germany, due to the stigma attached to the word‘Zigeuner’ during the Nazi era. However, insofar as thecommunities covered by these designations have no col-lective term for themselves and use these terms in thepolitical context (for example ‘Tsiganes’ in French,‘Gypsies’ in English, etc.), they are acceptable options, par-ticularly for Western Europe. As for the name ‘Rom’ or‘Roma’, while it does not cover all of the groups concerned,it is increasingly being used in the political sphere, and itdoes have the advantage of clear demarcation from termsimposed from outside. Furthermore it is the self-designa-tion of a significant number of these groups, and thatwhich best corresponds to the sociocultural reality andpolitical will of groups in Central and Eastern Europe,which make up 70 per cent of the population identified asGypsies/Tsiganes in Europe.2

The politics of negation

Policies towards Roma/Gypsies have always constituted,in one form or another, a negation of the people, their

culture and their language. Policies can be broadlygrouped into three categories: exclusion, containment, andassimilation. While it is possible to trace a general chrono-logical trend from the first to the third, these categories arenot mutually exclusive: they can operate side by side dur-ing the same period in different states, or even simultane-ously, seemingly in mutual contradiction within a givenstate – even in the twentieth century.4

Exclusion

From the time of their arrival in Western Europe in thefourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Roma/Gypsies have

been seen as intruders, erupting into societies just as thestate was attempting to organize and control them. Localcommunities had limited horizons, and faced with these

newcomers, they reacted with mistrust, fear, and rejection.Despite their small numbers, peasants, princes, the Churchand the guilds took measures against the Roma/Gypsies.This rejection, localized at first, rapidly became a stateaffair with the passing of royal edicts condemning and ban-ishing the Roma/Gypsies on pain of corporal punishment.

Examples of exclusion policies are numerous: indeed allof the states under consideration have probably practisedthis at one time or another. For example, in France in1504, Louis XII banished Roma/Gypsies altogether; by1510 the penalty for defying the ban became death byhanging. Subsequently, any gathering of more than threeor four Roma/Gypsies was forbidden, and eventually from1647, simply being a ‘Bohemian’ was made a crime pun-ishable by being sent to the galleys. In Germany from 1496onwards, parliament repeatedly denounced Roma/Gypsiesas traitors to Christendom, spies in the pay of the Turksand carriers of the plague. Accused of brigandry, witchcraftand child abduction, they were not tolerated in Germany,and could be killed with impunity. In 1721 the EmperorCharles VI ordered the extermination of adult maleRoma/Gypsies, while women and children were to have anear cut off. In 1725 Frederick William I condemned todeath any Roma/Gypsy, male or female, over the age of 18caught on Prussian territory. In Italy between 1506 and1785, 147 anti-Roma/Gypsy bans (or one for every 1.9years) were passed.

In the Netherlands, rejection was absolute. From theseventeenth to the early eighteenth century, Roma/Gypsyhunts (heidenjachten: pagan hunts) were organized. Thesame thing happened in Switzerland and elsewhere: pop-ular hunts took place, sometimes to the ringing of thechurch bells, with orders to shoot if they met with resis-tance. Sometimes such hunts were highly organized mili-tary affairs with the participation of infantry, cavalry andconstabulary. Bounties for captured Roma/Gypsies wereinstituted, leading to the rise of professional Roma/Gypsy-hunters. Similarly, in Venice, a text dated 1692 offers anamnesty to convicts serving galley sentences of up to 10years, on condition they take up Roma/Gypsy-hunting.Various such policies were also pursued in Scandinavia.

Despite Roma/Gypsies being clearly identified, theywere never defined in historical legal documents. Thestereotyped image presented in these texts never attempt-ed fairness or accuracy; on the contrary, the negativeimage was deliberately stressed in order to serve as a basisand justification for repressive measures. For just as noone troubled to define the Roma/Gypsy, they were equal-ly unconcerned with their own reasons for reacting tothem as they did. The very fact of being Roma/Gypsy wasseen as sufficient reason for condemning both the indi-vidual and the group. They were denounced for ‘living thelife of a Bohemian’, and suspected of the worst even whenthey had done nothing. As a Strasbourg magistrate wroteat the beginning of the nineteenth century:

‘I have no evidence of criminal acts committed bythese people, but their situation is such that theycannot but be tempted to commit them if the occa-sion presents itself ... They cannot but be dangerous.’

Today, the terms that figure in everyday speech, theimages propagated in certain songs, popular sayings that

8

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Context Context

Page 6: 65 roma gypsies

into one of assimilation, characterized by the goal of absorb-ing Roma/Gypsies, now redefined as misfits associated withsocial and psychological difficulties. Once again culturalquestions are transformed into ‘social problems’.

Every state in Europe has been involved in this typeof policy, however it has been most evident under thesocialist regimes of Central and Eastern Europe. Itshould therefore be borne in mind that if this reportdoes not explicitly mention a given state as it outlines itsanalyses, these are nonetheless relevant to every countryin Europe.

The implementation of this general policy takes manyforms. First, there is control by means of a multitude ofdetailed regulations, dealing directly with every aspect ofRoma/Gypsy life: travelling, stopping and camping, legalstatus, the exercise of itinerant and artisan trades, scrapcollection, etc. The different elements of such regula-tions are not always legal, nor constitutional – particular-ly those dealing with personal legal status when it isnegatively defined or treating Roma/Gypsies or nomadicpeoples as an undifferentiated group (i.e. when they aresubjected to automatic eviction or other discriminatorytreatment).

Elements of this policy may be mutually contradictory:for example, legislation limiting the duration and locationof stay in urban areas versus the legal obligation of childrento attend school. Although these measures do not as a gen-eral rule apply specifically to nomads or Roma/Gypsies, itis important to consider the web they weave around thosewho are caught up in them, confronted in their day to daylives by regulations which prevent them from stopping,from travelling according to their wishes and needs, andcurtailing their work possibilities. Roma/Gypsies form apopulation for whom these laws are mutually reinforcing intheir negative effects. For example, a person who is forcedto move on too quickly, or to stop in bad conditions, loseshis or her sources of income and suffers reduced initiativeand adaptability. Moreover these illegal practices, carriedout by force and threat, thrive on Roma/Gypsies’ ignoranceof their legal rights.

It is worth pointing out the selective manner in whichmany laws are applied to Roma/Gypsies. For example,legislation controlling the stationing of caravans in built-up areas is enforced differently depending on whetherthe caravans belong to workers on a building site, tourists,or Roma/Gypsies – even if the latter are in fact workingor are travelling as tourists at the time. In other words thesole fact of being a Roma/Gypsy, and being perceived assuch, provokes discriminatory treatment which is backedup by law.

Regarding legislation, a new approach has developedwhich, in many states, consists almost exclusively of socialwelfare. Such social policies, fed by assimilationism, conferan important role on social work and on various official andvoluntary bodies formed for, but not by, Roma/Gypsies.Thus control is made more humane, but at the same timetightened, and, within the overall policy of absorption, thetrend is towards the ‘normalization’ of what is perceived asmarginal or deviant. This control can act as a block to gen-uine aid which, if administered in accordance withRoma/Gypsy socio-cultural realities, could help them toadapt successfully to new situations.7

From indecision to innovation?

The failure of assimilation policies is gradually being rec-ognized. There are new general developments, notably,

that many states must now acknowledge that immigrantfamilies, which they had assumed would eventually bereturning to their countries of origin, are there to stay.Serious consideration of the changes required to improvecoexistence in countries which have become multiculturalis therefore required. New concepts, such as ‘interculturaleducation’, have emerged, spread, and are slowly, hesitant-ly, being translated into reality. Another very significantdevelopment has been the political and social upheaval inCentral and Eastern Europe in the 1990s, bringing generaldestabilization and, for Roma/Gypsies, a further deteriora-tion of their situation. In a number of states, East and West,Roma/Gypsies are once again being cast as scapegoats bypoliticians and the public.

The goal in most states is for the ‘social integration’ ofthe Roma/Gypsies. But the goal is an ambiguous one, andits realization fraught with difficulties. Is not integration,in the sociological sense of the term, the first step towardsassimilation? Is this not merely a new, ‘politically correct’formulation which has the advantage of being vague andthus open to interpretation and manipulation? And,between a governmental goal of integration which claimsto be based on respect, and its effective realization, thereare a number of obstacles.

Whatever policy is adopted with regard toRoma/Gypsies, there will always be two fundamental,inseparable questions: the first concerns the recognitionof culture, language and lifestyle, and the second, ensur-ing that Roma/Gypsy citizens of a given state receive thefull benefit of laws protecting their rights as a commongroup and as individuals. Or, to put it another way, is theRoma/Gypsies’ distinct identity taken into account? If so,how is this done, and what means are made available tosupport this identity once the debating stage is over? And,having decided on the means, are they actually imple-mented? Are they in fact compatible with the criteria ofrecognition and respect, and what sort of results do theyproduce? Particular attention should be paid to the con-tent and application of national constitutions, and the gapsbetween theory, practice, and results.

The present period is one of transition, indecision, hes-itation and contradiction. On the whole, however, the gen-eral direction is a positive one: today’s indecision and thequestions to which it gives rise, open the way to new ideasand approaches. Now that the opportunities exist, it is theresponsibility, and the duty, of all concerned – politicians,administrators, and those involved at the grass-roots,Roma/Gypsy and non-Roma/Gypsy – to ensure that thenew era will be one of innovation.

10

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Context

Accommodation, employmentand health

Over a number of years the analyses presented inreports compiled for numerous international insti-

tutions, as well as studies undertaken by various non-governmental organizations (NGOs), have converged intheir exposure, and denunciation, of the difficult condi-tions in which Roma/Gypsy families live, and are forcedto live. A hearing held by the European Commission in1991 gave Roma/Gypsy delegations from 14 states anopportunity to express themselves, and a resumé of theirstatements subsequently issued by the Commission pro-vides a succinct overview of their situation. These con-clusions were recently reiterated at the Seminar on theHuman Dimension of the Conference on Security andCooperation in Europe (CSCE), ‘The Rom in the CSCERegion’, held in Warsaw, September 1994:

Conditions in general

● ‘Difficult living conditions, also deteriorating,sometimes sub-human living conditions.

● In these circumstances difficulty of retaining theRoma/Gypsy identity.

● Need for recognition, not criticism. Roma/Gypsieswere often forgotten in the midst of currentchanges and difficulties in most countries. Theywere kept on the fringes of politics.

● Opening up of Eastern European frontiers:Roma/Gypsies should receive the same treat-ment as other refugees.

Rejection

● Racist clichés can be found everywhere, includ-ing the media, which all too often carries racistpropaganda and encourages rejection in attitudesand conduct.

● Terminology should be reviewed. Roma/Gypsiesare often stigmatized and their cultural charac-teristics are not recognized. Romantic clichés do not improve the image of Roma/Gypsies and Travellers, nor do negative stereotypeswhich put Roma/Gypsies on the same footing as beggars and outcasts, encouraging a stress on wretchedness in analyses and governmentaction.

● Many publications present a negative image ofRoma/Gypsy communities.

● This leads to exclusion from the social scene.There is a flagrant lack of participation in allforms of power and decision-making bodies inthe different countries.

● A substantial proportion of discrimination iscaused by the authorities themselves, which failto penalize racist action against Roma/Gypsies;local authorities are frequently guilty of removingRoma/Gypsies with various degrees of violence;there were cases of real administrative ethnocidethrough false analyses and inappropriate actions.

● Situations of violent conflict up to and includingmurder are commonplace, and on the rise. Insome Eastern European countries democracyhas released aggression among people whichmore often than not is directed against theRoma/Gypsy. In Western Europe, dwellings andcaravans have been burnt in the course of actiontaken against Roma/Gypsies.

● An attitude of rejection is becoming apparent instates with an influx of Roma/Gypsy families fromEastern Europe, expressed as a desire to movethem on to third states.

Justice

● In many cases the judicial authorities fail to dealwith attacks against the dignity of the Roma/Gypsy.

● Sometimes the police break their professionalsecrecy and violate national constitutions byrevealing, where Roma/Gypsies are involved, theethnic identity of detainees.

● Care should be taken with the international devel-opment of computerized records, which are tanta-mount to setting up a police surveillance system.

● Roma/Gypsies are not asking for compassion, butfor the right to equality with other citizens. Racistand discriminatory laws are still in force evenwithin the member states of the EuropeanCommunity.

Employment and economic activities

● Difficulties in the pursuit of economic activitiesdue to repression and rejection by the surround-ing environment; these made it difficult to inte-grate into society.

● Difficulties in adjustment or retraining in connec-tion with current changes in economic activities.Traditional activities should not be discouraged;some of them still have a future.

11

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Some aspects of thecurrent situation

Page 7: 65 roma gypsies

tion’ and ‘reintegration’, who can – and must – be broughtback into the fold of ‘society’.

It is extremely important to stop and consider thesestereotypes and their implications, but it is not easy to do so.The view from one’s own culture is coloured by that cul-ture, seeing all differences in absolute terms, failing to dis-tinguish between the real diversity of one cultural milieuand another, and imaginary differences inspired by stereo-types and misconceptions, which some Roma/Gypsies mayeven internalize and subsequently articulate.

The consequences of this are extremely negative,because it is these images which inspire, channel, and jus-tify action. This is how cultural questions are reclassifiedas ‘social problems’; it is this vision which lies behind theassumed duty – and thus the right – of active interven-tion, and gives rise to measures of ‘assistance’ opening upthe way for full-scale drives aimed at ‘reintegration’ and‘rehabilitation’. These flawed analyses encourage a focuson the consequences of a given situation (such as healthproblems, poverty, illiteracy, etc., rather than on theirroot causes (rejection, inappropriate provision, etc.). Thenext stage is to juggle these parameters, which only mod-ifies the effects without addressing the causes, and risksaggravating the situations supposedly being rectified.

Another perverse effect of the development and useof this kind of imagery: since it categorizesRoma/Gypsies in social rather than ethnic or culturalterms, means that neither their authors, nor the law, con-sider the resulting measures are discriminatory.Furthermore, wherever Roma/Gypsies comprise a sig-nificant proportion of the population, the ‘Roma/Gypsyquestion’ takes on an ethno-political dimension manipu-lated to pander to the expectations of whichever sectorcan provide the most votes.

Discrimination and violation of rightsSelective application of basic rights

The great majority of Roma/Gypsies are citizens of thestate in which they reside. In theory, therefore, they

enjoy the same rights, and bear the same duties, as anyother citizen. Stipulating equality for all citizens, manycountries also state that those who, for various reasons,require assistance in order to enjoy this equality, shallreceive it; minority rights, particularly in connection withlinguistic minorities, may also be enshrined in the consti-tution. Yet too often the concept of language is implicitlysubsumed into that of territory, and it is extremely rare forRoma/Gypsies, who have no territory of their own to beincluded among ‘recognized’ minorities with a claim torespect and support. When it comes to analyzing andimplementing constitutional guarantees, history weighsheavily against the Roma/Gypsies.

Even when the state does agree to recognize and sup-port, for example, the Roma/Gypsy language, this gener-ally has little practical effect (such as in the schools forexample), moreover, virtually all relevant legislation isbased on permanent residence, effectively penalizing

non-sedentary and geographically dispersed groups. Similarly, inherited ignorance contributes to justifying,

and perpetuating, inequalities. For example, the lack ofsuitable teaching materials and of properly trained teachersis cited as an explanation for the inequality of educationalresources earmarked for Roma/Gypsy children comparedwith those for members of more acknowledged minorities.Instead of channelling the necessary means into developingteaching aids and teacher training, it is assumed thatRoma/Gypsy children can make do with materials whichhave been produced with others in mind.

Even without going into the specific questions of recog-nition of minority linguistic and/or cultural rights, to con-sider the basic rights automatically conferred bycitizenship, a number of mundane daily measures are anti-constitutional. Roma/Gypsies are uniquely subject to mea-sures of control, and expulsion, among others, which affectthe group as a whole, rather than a given individual undersuspicion for a precise reason. Such practices are contraryto international judicial principle with regard to the freecirculation of persons, freedom to exercise a trade, free-dom to choose one’s place of residence, and also contraryto legislation relating to public order and security, which intheory is applicable solely to the behaviour of the individ-ual. This selective application of basic rights entails actscontradictory to the spirit of the constitutions of the stateswhich practise it, even though – and this is a classic tacticin relation to Roma/Gypsies – it is usually possible tounearth some sort of justification for it under the guise ofpublic order, public health, security, etc.

No state is exempt when it comes to this sort of anti-Roma/Gypsy practice. For example, in Italy, the Ministryof the Interior has repeatedly stressed that prohibitingstopping rights to nomads is unconstitutional. Localauthorities have responded by replacing the prohibitionon nomads with a prohibition on their caravans, whichneatly transfers the issue to one of traffic regulations. Inmany states, in the name of protection of the landscape, oragricultural lands, or public health, or any number ofother reasons, the stopping of even a single caravan can beprohibited. Furthermore, in the Czech Republic andRomania, the authorities are imposing limitations on thetravel and residence rights of Roma/Gypsies who havebeen established there for generations.

Many acts of violence directed at Roma/Gypsies arethe work of groups rather than individuals, which makesidentifying and punishing the guilty difficult. Given thatthe victims are Roma/Gypsies, pursuit of the perpetratorsmay frequently be less vigorous. The notion of collectiveresponsibility, and an appropriate legal response, requirefurther work.

Basic legal protection is essential for Roma/Gypsies, asmuch for the exercise of their trades as for their children’sschooling. It does not appear necessary to undertakemajor modifications of existing legislation in order toachieve this. Even as it stands the law tends to favourRoma/Gypsies over those who inflict violence upon them.The problems arise in connection with the arbitrary inter-pretation and/or application of these laws, in the glut ofpetty, sometimes mutually contradictory, rules and bylaws,and it is here that change must occur.

13

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Some aspects of the current situation

● The most arduous work is often given toRoma/Gypsies.

● Problems caused by bans on door-to-door sales,as many Roma/Gypsies are involved in itineranttrades. Such restrictions are inconsistent withfreedom of movement and free competition inthe member states, and should be looked into.

● Many skills are underused.● Significant shortfall in vocational training. Take-

up in training establishments should be improved,particularly since the issue of work permits maybe subject to a certain level of education.

Health

● Life expectancy is poor. Older people are rare,while infant mortality remains significant.

● The birth-rate is very high. Roma/Gypsies form avery young and rapidly expanding population.

● There are numerous chronic illnesses (respiratorydiseases, rheumatism, digestive illnesses); accessto care is difficult, in many cases registration withhealth insurance schemes to qualify for reim-bursement of medical expenses is problematic.

● Unbalanced nutrition, which led to deficiencies.Smoking is common among the very young anddrugs are coming onto the scene. Some groupsand families experience real hunger.

Education

● Conditions for schooling are generally difficult: theeducation system has ignored Roma/Gypsies for along time. Studies carried out by the Commission ofthe European Communities since 1984 have provid-ed evidence and reports on this issue. These condi-tions result in the well-known, very high proportionof illiteracy, up to 90 per cent of the adult population.

● Inadequate pre-school education.● Insufficient account is taken of the language.● Rejection and segregation in the classroom is

common. ● Many children are not registered at a school and

if they are registered they do not attend.

Accommodation

● Living conditions are often unacceptable.● Roma/Gypsies tend to group together on the out-

skirts of cities in poor conditions.● There are fewer and fewer camping spaces: the

surrounding population also has housing problems.● Roma/Gypsies are tending to settle, particularly

because it is increasingly difficult to travel and park.● Parking for Roma/Gypsies is a crucial problem.

They are harassed. There is a pressing need todeal with this and to establish networks, at leastat national levels, to accommodate nomads.

● Shanty towns are still to be found in many mem-ber states, alongside problems with water, elec-tricity, sewers and sanitation (with children in themidst of rats).

● Roma/Gypsies have often been obliged to live inisolation and this has led to the development ofghettos.

● Gestures have sometimes been made but notplans. And when plans have been made, they areoften woefully inadequate.’8

Prejudice and stereotypes

Stereotyped images of Roma/Gypsies are used, whetherconsciously or not, to inspire and then to justify atti-

tudes and behaviour towards them. Throughout Europe awhole set of imagery has been constructed and developedfrom the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries onwards,images which rapidly crystallize into stereotypes forming areservoir into which anyone can dip at will and find some-thing to back up their arguments and justify their policies– be they assimilationist or rejectionist. In describingexclusion policies, we should remember that there was noattempt to find out who the Roma/Gypsies were; it suf-ficed to designate those who ‘led the life’ and to constructaround them a brooding, repellent image, in order toundertake measures of rejection defined by the politicalmood of the moment.

The politics of assimilation have characterized Europeover the last few decades, and continue to do so. Theemergence of the urge to assimilate is correlated with animage of the Roma/Gypsy stripped of cultural and ethnicdistinctiveness. General measures aimed at Roma/Gypsiesmust, to retain an air of legitimacy, be directed at socialgroups which are also general in every possible sense – forany recognition of the existence of a unique, dynamic cul-ture or language would hamper the implementation ofcovertly assimilationist measures, now that forced assimi-lation is no longer ideologically acceptable.

As a rule the representations constructed in connectionwith this goal tend to blur all cultural characteristics inorder to reveal a ‘social problem’. This is clearly illustratedin official modes of designation. Roma/Gypsies are definedthrough an arbitrary process which fixes upon a term andstrips it of any ethnic or cultural connotations with which itmay be associated: for example in 1967 the High Court inLondon defined a ‘Gypsy’ as ‘a person leading a nomadiclife, with no fixed employment and with no fixed abode’.The following year a ruling was made indicating that any-one who buys a caravan and parks it illegally is, by thislifestyle criterion, a ‘Gypsy’; thus, a house-dwellingRoma/Gypsy is a Roma/Gypsy no longer, while a caravan-dweller in breach of the law automatically becomes one.Along the same lines, familiar terms are no longer used inofficial contexts in a number of states, having been replacedby euphemisms and acronyms, all devoid of cultural conno-tations: for example, in France ‘persons of nomadic origin’,‘citizens of Gypsy origin’ in the former Czechoslovakia,‘itinerants’ in Ireland and ‘HWAO’ häufig wechselnderaufenthaltsort – ‘person of frequently changing residence’in Germany.

According to the definition imposed upon them andthe image by which they are characterized, Roma/Gypsiesare thought to have no linguistic, cultural or ethnic roots.They are instead a ‘social problem’ requiring ‘rehabilita-

12

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Some aspects of the current situation

Page 8: 65 roma gypsies

Acts of violence

The litany of acts of violence against Roma/Gypsiesthroughout Europe is a lenthy one, and includes cases

in many countries. Some cases have been highlighted bythe media, others ignored. Given the space limitations ofthis report, we shall focus on a couple of cases fromRomania, and the interested reader can consult thenumerous reports compiled by various human rights orga-nizations for further details on the particular situation fac-ing Roma/Gypsy communities there and elsewhere. Itshould also be emphasized that, while Romania has thehighest concentration of Roma/Gypsies anywhere inEurope, which justifies singling it out for particular atten-tion, its situation is far from unique: rejection ofRoma/Gypsies, and violence against them, exists through-out Europe. While we focus on an event that occurred atBâcu, Romania, in early 1995, equally horrifying sceneswere being enacted: in Austria, several Roma/Gypsieswere deliberately murdered in a bomb attack, while inMadrid, 56 Roma/Gypsy families (soon to be joined by afurther 80) had been ‘reaccommodated’ for over a year onone of Europe’s major rubbish tips, in contact with highlydangerous toxic waste. Many other examples could becited. The fact that certain events may be raised to the sta-tus of ‘incidents’9 by media attention should not shield theviolence and rejection suffered by Roma/Gypsies on adaily basis.

The events of January 1995,Bâcu, Romania

In the village of Bâcu, some 23 km from Bucharest, on thenight of 7-8 January 1995 (the Orthodox festival of St

John), following a confrontation between villagers andRoma/Gypsies long settled in the village, Roma/Gypsyhouses were set on fire and destroyed. As always in situa-tions of this kind, the facts are difficult to ascertain, witheach side blaming the other. It is nonetheless certain thattwo ethnic Romanians fired a hunting rifle at a neighbour-ing Roma/Gypsy family, gravely wounding two of its mem-bers. In the resulting confrontation three Roma/Gypsies andtwo Romanians were seriously wounded.

The Roma/Gypsies immediately notified the police andhanded over the gun, which they had confiscated from thevillager in question. Fearing further violence, they thenfled the village. On the evening of 8 January, and despitethe presence of the police, the villagers, called together bythe ringing of the church bell, burned down the emptyhouses belonging to Roma/Gypsies. Three were complete-ly gutted and a fourth partially destroyed. All belonged tofamilies which had had nothing to do with the original con-flict. They were destroyed simply because Roma/Gypsieslived in them, and villagers seized the opportunity to forcethe entire Roma/Gypsy population out of Bâcu.

Continuing police presence helped ensure a return torelative calm. A few days later, following intervention byrepresentatives of Roma/Gypsy associations who hadcome to act as mediators, Roma/Gypsy residents wereable to return to their vandalized homes. It should be

borne in mind that in Romania, as in all other EasternEuropean states, Roma/Gypsy are full citizens, legal resi-dents in the towns and villages in which they have beensettled for a very long time. In principle, they should enjoythe same rights as other citizens.

Significant precedents

The conflict in Bâcu is the latest in a series of some 30similar incidents which have occurred in Romania

since December 1989. In many of these, frenzied mobshave assembled to the sound of the church bell to attackRoma/Gypsy homes. These scenarios are the contempo-rary equivalents of the pogroms once common in Centraland Eastern Europe. In the district of Giurgiu alone, fourincidents of this type occurred during April-May 1991, allin villages close to Bâcu, and all culminated in the burn-ing of Roma/Gypsy homes and the expulsion of their occu-pants from the village. To this day, the perpetrators havenot been brought to justice. Investigations and legal pro-ceedings – launched in response to direct complaints fromthe victims rather than at the initiative of the authoritieshave often failed due to lack of evidence because of villagesolidarity. The victims have been left to pick up the piecesby themselves, with no compensation.

The Federation of Romanian Roma and the RomaCentre for Social Intervention and Studies – RomaniCRISS, (members of the International Romani Unionand of the Standing Conference for Cooperation andCoordination of Roma Associations in Europe), havedenounced these attacks and protested against theauthorities’ passive attitude in the face of repeated, col-lective violence directed at the Roma/Gypsies. Theseorganizations fear that the current situation of mass vio-lation of human rights may go on indefinitely unless thosein power resolve to put an end to it. They also feel thatthe national and local authorities bear a direct responsi-bility for the impunity of those involved. Such an attitudeon the part of the authorities is, they feel, an implicitencouragement to repeat such acts of violence, with allthe negative consequences this entails both for internalsecurity and for the process of establishing the rule oflaw. In this context, and with the support of associationsin other countries, they also call on international organi-zations and national governments to reconsider their clas-sification of Romania, and certain other states, as ‘safe’countries regarding the repatriation of Roma/Gypsynationals, until a rule of law capable of protecting all cit-izens from such persecution has been established.

These organizations, like so many other local and nation-al Roma/Gypsy associations throughout Europe, have beenworking for a number of years to identify and resolve localconflict, to promote civic awareness among the children oftheir communities, to support grassroots economic initia-tives and instigate others. In Romania, they also work to helpfamilies who have been expelled from their villages to re-establish themselves there, and ease the repatriation processof families who have sought, and failed to attain, asylumabroad. The long-term aim of this community work is tobuild democracy at a local level; in Romania, it is beingundertaken in close cooperation with the local authorities in

a number of districts, as well as NGOs from several WesternEuropean countries. It is nonetheless imperative to empha-size that only sustained action on the part of the politicalauthorities – aimed at integrating the institutions of the ruleof law into the daily lives of all citizens, most of whom live inmulti-ethnic and intercultural communities – will bringthese efforts to fruition.

From toleration to insecurity

The authorities’ apparent toleration of anti-Roma/Gypsyviolence makes it impossible to enforce the civil and

criminal liability of those involved in these crimes, and thusto bring them to justice – a state of affairs which cannot butencourage the population at large, bewildered and frustrat-ed by the ongoing period of transition, to project its malaiseonto the Roma/Gypsies and make them its scapegoat.

The authorities tend to justify the impunity of theguilty by citing peasant solidarity; the latter are quick tofollow this reasoning by claiming that Roma/Gypsies’ ‘col-lective culpability’ gives rise to collective reprisal. Ofcourse such an attitude goes entirely against the letter andspirit of the law, but villagers claim that theirs is likewise a‘collective culpability’, and that their criminal responsibil-ity is attenuated by the fact that their actions are merely aresponse to Romas provocation, and are a legitimate self-defence. In this context, it is sometimes claimed that animpartial application of the law would lead to a spiral ofviolence far worse than the simple feelings of injusticearoused by the impunity of the guilty. On the contrary: theauthorities’ passivity is perceived as tacit consent encour-aging the development of an ideology opposing ‘locals’and ‘outsiders’, finding concrete expression in every exer-cise geared towards the total and definitive expulsion of allRoma/Gypsies from the community, as was done inBolintin Deal and Ogrezeni, both near Bâcu.

Position of the experts andhuman rights organizations

International experts on human rights and inter-ethnicviolence have indicated that the Romanian situation is

characterized by:

‘The low threshold of mob violence ... wherebyindividual (common criminal) offences may triggerthe burning of many or even all the houses belong-ing to members of the Romani community.’10

A report by the Fédération Internationale des Liguesde Droits de l’Homme (FIDH), (International Federationof Human Rights Leagues), also points out the ‘risk of con-doning violent behaviour and attitudes of defiance towardsthe institutions of the law, and thus of a repetition of suchincidents’.11 The report from Human Rights Watch, goesso far as to say that:

‘Mob violence ... reveals a type of lynch law that isoften supported by the local government. The localauthorities are, in some cases, active participants in the

violence, but more frequently are involved in creatingthe climate of extrajudicial abuse of Roma, and areactive participants in the obstruction of justice afterthe crimes have been committed. This jeopardises thesafety of Roma in Romania and has set a dangerousprecedent for the rule of law.’12

The report of the FIDH mission of inquiry, 28February – 5 March 1994, by Robert Gelli and JeanDelay, states:

‘Judicial response to murder, arson, and thedestruction of homes belonging to Roma: the conclu-sions outlined below concern the events at Hadareni,21 September 1993: four dead, three of them Roma,14 Roma homes burnt down, 15 additional Romahomes destroyed, despite the presence of police andfirefighters’.

The report states that the following conclusions may bedrawn from the mission carried out in Romania:

● ‘Events in Hadareni were not followed up byforced expulsion of the Roma population there,thanks to the fact that – as the Romanian author-ities assured us – the Law of 1971 is no longerenforced. At the same time, following consulta-tion with the Hadareni village council, some fam-ilies are still being prevented from returning.

● Up to the day of our departure, the perpetratorsof the acts inflicted upon the Roma of Hadarenion 21 September 1993 had been neither arrestednor charged in connection with the judicialinquiry, despite the fact that evidence making itpossible to identify the main participants hadbeen assembled.

● The themes of public order and opportunityfavoured by the hierarchical submission of thosemagistrates charged with running the judicialinquiry, and the lack of power of the partiesinvolved, must take precedence in the assess-ment of the legal response to the criminal viola-tions committed.

● The difficulty – indeed, the impossibility – ofidentifying individual perpetrators of violenceand murders, as advanced by the judicial author-ities in explanation of the state of their investiga-tions, does not necessarily constitute an obstacleto assigning criminal responsibility to those iden-tified as having taken part in, or having instigat-ed, these acts, through complicity or criminalbehaviour recognized under existing Romanianlaw (for example, failure to render assistance to aperson in danger, riotous assembly, mob violence,incitement to racial hatred, provoking others tobreak the law, associating with criminals, etc.),none of which has been invoked or even exam-ined to date.

● The events at Hadareni are part of a generalcontext of repeated acts and a climate of rejec-tion of the Roma by other communities, relayedand amplified by the media and certain politi-cians; the disproportionate, violent, collectiveresponse of non-Roma populations gives these

15

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

14

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Some aspects of the current situation Some aspects of the current situation

Page 9: 65 roma gypsies

themselves in direct competition; moving on avoids mar-ket saturation. In tandem with the diversity of reasons fortravelling, there are a variety of practices connected withit, evident in the range of means of transport, frequency ofmoves, scope of travel, types of accommodation, etc.

To convey this schematically, we note that for thosewho travel there exists, on the one hand, a ‘structuralnomadism’ due to certain forms of social and economicorganization, and on the other, a ‘reactive nomadism’brought about by outside factors: eviction, regulations,family illness, economic opportunity, etc. These two setsof factors combine to determine actual moves.15

Thus the key to understanding every Roma/Gypsy-related question is diversity: diverse situations and diversegroups, socio-cultural and socio-political contexts must beconsidered in their entirety. A proper examination ofnomadism and migration – fundamental components ofRoma/Gypsy history – would require an encyclopaedia allto itself. Within the limits imposed by the scope of thisreport,16 let us summarize and say that nomadism is nei-ther entirely a product of Roma/Gypsy culture, nor entire-ly the source of that culture. The two are closely linked,notably because these communities have, by choice orobligation, always had to make mobility a factor in theirlifestyle. In this context, migration is a particular manifes-tation of nomadism, a variant usually dictated by a set ofcircumstances which launch the Roma/Gypsy family on tonew roads.

Currently, and increasingly, migration and other formsof travel are taking on great significance in the collectiveRoma/Gypsy consciousness, not so much in the sense ofday-to-day mobility as is generally thought, but more as anexplanation of the dispersal resulting from centuries ofmovement. The Roma/Gypsy people are becomingincreasingly aware of this, and the ongoing rapproche-ment of Roma/Gypsy and Traveller communities, regard-less of where they are based, is clearly expressed in theemergence of a transnational Roma/Gypsy identity, that ofa non-territorial people whose members are linked by cul-ture and language.

Diversity is also operative, given that in internationallaw, Roma/Gypsies moving from one state to another maybe classified as immigrants, migrant workers, refugees,asylum seekers, displaced persons, stateless persons, etc.,a jumble further complicated by legislation and other reg-ulations at national level, with their own specifications andcorresponding terms, and administrative language with itsown variants such as ‘itinerants’, ‘nomadic populations’,‘populations of nomadic origin’, etc.

Current migration and itssignificance

Since the early 1990s, a new preoccupation with immi-gration in general, and fear of a ‘Roma/Gypsy invasion

from the East’ in particular, have given rise to much dis-cussion, particularly in the media. Most internationalorganizations have commissioned studies on the subject.The European Union, Council of Europe, OECD, OSCE,and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR) have all demonstrated a growing interest inthis question, which is now high on the international polit-ical agenda. In fact this international interest is a responseto the sudden increase in Roma/Gypsy visibility as a resultof migration from the Balkans (Romania, Bulgaria, formerYugoslavia) in search of temporary residence or politicalasylum in Western Europe. The situation in which theRoma/Gypsy communities live – the deterioration of theirsocial situation, violent attack, burgeoning xenophobiaetc. – is perceived primarily from the angle of real orpotential migration as a ‘problem’ which may give rise todifficulties, a problem with an ‘international dimension’:

‘In view of the seriousness of the situation of theRoma (Gypsies) in the CSCE region, the HighCommissioner on National Minorities was requestedat a meeting of the Committee of Senior Officials on26-28 April 1993 “to study the social, economic andhumanitarian problems relating to the Roma popu-lation in some participating states and the relevanceof these problems to the Mandate of the HighCommissioner and to report thereon to theCommittee of Senior Officials through theChairman-in-Office. In the discussion, it was fur-thermore stated that these problems, which fall intothe larger category of migration problems, couldalso have an international dimension”.’17

The ‘danger’ of massive Roma/Gypsy migration is oftenexaggerated, and little hard information is available as yetto provide a more accurate understanding of real move-ments. Existing statistics cover neither families in transitthrough a given state, nor illegal immigrants. Variousreports have offered estimates, subsequently amalgamat-ed in the CSCE report which emphasized their provision-al nature. We know, for example, that 30,000 Roma/Gypsiesfrom Bosnia and Serbia have sought refugee status inAustria, that Germany has taken in 70,000 RomanianRoma/Gypsies, and that Austria, Germany and Italy arestill receiving considerable numbers of Roma/Gypsyimmigrants. We are also aware of the pressures giving riseto this migration: living conditions all too frequently belowa tolerable minimum act as a push factor, sometimes exac-erbated by a rise in racist attitudes and behaviour fromsurrounding populations. Some reports stress that theworst might indeed come to the worst:

‘It may, therefore, be useful to have in mindwhat a “worst case” scenario could look like.Should the Roma situation, as a result of failinghuman rights, further poverty, and/or racistattacks, lead them to attempt to flee from any onecountry, we can anticipate that they will encounterincreasing numbers of fully armed border patrolsalong the frontiers of Central and EasternEuropean, and adjacent Western European, states,who will do their best to stop them. Should theRoma find themselves blocked in their flight, theymay well believe that in order to survive they willhave no alternative but to try to force their wayacross the borders or, despite the fact that theyhave no history of civil violence, to turn and fightthose who have been attacking them.’18

17

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Some aspects of the current situation

events an ethnic dimension, despite the denialby all national and local authorities of any suchdimension.

● The lack of rapid judicial response to behaviourof this kind poses a challenge to the rule of law, asdoes the insistence that each such incident is anentirely isolated case – a strategy geared towardsachieving an amicable settlement out of publicfunds for victims’ material losses in each case asit arises, with the effect that those responsible forthese crimes are never called to answer for themunder civil or criminal law; this policy risks con-doning acts of violence and attitudes of defiancetowards the institutions of the law, and thus ofencouraging similar incidents.

● The establishment and degeneration of the prin-ciple of separation of powers and an independentjudiciary, as affirmed in the constitution and ingeneral texts outlining the organization of thejudiciary, should be further developed throughlegislative change and an increase in contacts,and exchange, with Romanian magistrates.

● The tense overall situation and the multiplesocial, economic and cultural factors entailednecessitate the implementation of an overall pre-ventative policy directly involving all concernedparties – police, justice, educaton, social ser-vices, community representatives – at nationaland local level.’13

The authorities’ positivemeasures – and their limitations

The Romanian authorities have responded to anti-Roma/Gypsy violence by putting new police mea-

sures into practice, notably through the setting up of aviolence-prevention squad under the auspices of theGeneral Inspectorate of Police. It was thanks to this squadthat, in 1994, many tense situations involving villagers andtheir Roma/Gypsy neighbours met with quick interven-tion, preventing conflict from spreading throughout thecommunity and escalating into violence. Police interven-tion also proved effective in an incident at Racsa, whenarsonists were arrested and brought to justice. Theseactions were publicly praised by the associations of theFederation of Romanian Roma.

But the case of Bâcu, like that of Hadareni inSeptember 1993, where police presence proved ineffec-tive, shows that police measures are insufficient unlessthey are followed up by judicial pursuit of the perpetratorsof these crimes, accompanied by clear, unequivocal polit-ical condemnation of their racist and xenophobic nature aswell as sustained civic education programmes for theentire population. These are precisely the areas in whichthe shortcomings of the political authorities, characteristi-cally lacking in clarity and firmness, are most in evidence.They seem to content themselves with vague condemna-tions of all anti-social acts, and with citing theRoma/Gypsies’ supposed failure to integrate – an attitudereminiscent of the negative ‘anti-social’ group label.

In Romania as elsewhere, the recent upsurge in vio-lence against the Roma/Gypsy and other ethnic, linguisticand religious minorities reveals the need to build democ-ratic security for all citizens regardless of their sense ofidentity. This security must be founded in the institutionsof the rule of law, and above all else, in justice.

As Max van den Stoel, High Commissioner forNational Minorities, said on the occasion of the CSCEHuman Dimension Seminar, Romanies in the CSCERegion:

‘The problem of racially motivated attacksagainst Roma and their property ... is not a purelylegal one. Certainly a proper legal framework is nec-essary for protecting persons against racially moti-vated attacks, but in most cases a basic frameworkalready exists. There must, however, also be clearpolitical will – from the highest to the lowest levels ofthe state – to combat racial violence.’14

Migratory movements andrefugees

It should be borne in mind that nomadism, sometimesin the form of ongoing migration is a fundamental fac-

tor in the lifestyle of a significant number of Roma/Gypsycommunities. Roma/Gypsy history is marked by migra-tion, some of it involving such large numbers that thisappears as successive waves of migration, generally in thedirection of Western Europe and the Americas. Such awave is occurring in the 1990s, a period during whichmigration has taken on a major significance forRoma/Gypsy communities and for the surrounding com-munities which welcome or reject them. All over Europe,this movement is giving rise to a reactivation of the poli-cies outlined previously: exclusion, containment andassimilation and these policies are back with an unexpect-ed vehemence and in new forms.

The reasons behind migration are diverse. Roma/Gypsies flee from various forms of persecution: expulsion,banishment, organized hunts, forced settlement, inter-stateagreements dictating where they can reside, etc. Given thishostility, their only option is to move on and see if things arebetter elsewhere. The 1990s offer a vivid illustration of thepush factors involved: physical attacks, racist pogroms,murders and burnt-out homes. There are also social andeconomic reasons for travelling. Moving about gives differ-ent groups an opportunity for close contact with each other,which can lead to new ties (sometimes even marriages), or,on the other hand to mutual opposition within which eachgroup feels its own uniqueness justified and strengthened.Travel makes closer contacts possible, but also permits sep-aration if conflict arises, whilst also providing an escaperoute when the environment proves hostile.

The economic functions of travel are at least as impor-tant as the social ones. Economic independence is essen-tial for Roma/Gypsies, and it is often in order to retain itthat they take to the road. Travel also plays a role in eco-nomic equilibrium, in the sense that when families exer-cising the same trade live side by side, they find

16

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Some aspects of the current situation

Page 10: 65 roma gypsies

‘It is without doubt that because they have nohome country and that they travel about withoutpassports, that the Gypsies are often evicted by theauthorities and repelled from one country to anoth-er. It is the duty of the Community to put an end tothis inhumane situation’, adding ‘the Communitymust show solidarity with this group’.

Within the Council of Europe, in 1981 the StandingConference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe(CLRAE) adopted a resolution ‘On the role and responsi-bility of local and regional authorities with regard to the cul-tural and social problems of populations of nomadic origin’,in which it recommended that the Committee of Ministers:

‘Draw up a legal instrument providing that trav-elling people living in any member country shall havethe possibility of obtaining identity papers enablingthem to travel at least in all member countries’.

The Conference also called upon the governments ofmember states to sign and ratify the relevant conventionson the status of stateless persons and refugees. In 1983 theCommittee of Ministers adopted its own resolution ‘Onstateless nomads and nomads of undetermined nationality’,outlining proposals for action and stressing:

‘That it is desirable to contribute at a Europeanlevel to a harmonized solution of these problems, par-ticularly for humanitarian reasons in a way consis-tent with the legislation of each member state, whileat the same time respecting the nomads’ way of life.’

Many more texts could be cited,20 but these few refer-ences suffice to indicate both the significance of this ques-tion at European level, and the existence of convergentproposals from diverse institutions – proposals which mayserve to improve the situation.

The idea of a comprehensive, coordinated approachto the problems associated with migration was endorsedat the Warsaw Seminar on the Roma, organized by theCSCE and the Council of Europe in late 1994, where itclearly emerged that an effective response to these dif-ficulties will require an international approach. In thiscontext, it is extremely important to guard against thedevelopment of a perverse side-effect: whereRoma/Gypsy migration is concerned, the facts are oftendramatized more, at international meetings, a practiceassociated as much with NGOs, both Roma/Gypsy andnon-Roma/Gypsy, as with governments and their dele-gations. ‘Roma/Gypsy migration’ becomes a byword forthe ‘problem’ of migration. Such a focus obscures theimportance of positive thinking and action in areas suchas education, local politics, cultural development andsocial action, while legitimizing the development ofrestrictive and coercive measures. We noted above thatcurrent migration is reactivating anti-Roma/Gypsy poli-cies: there is a great risk that this contagion will spreadall the way up to the international institutions whichhave up to now pursued important and positive actionsin favour of Roma/Gypsy communities. Certainly,Roma/Gypsy-related issues should be looked at in con-nection with migration policies but, in view of the his-torical tendency towards homogenization of national

policies in relation to Roma/Gypsies, there is a very realdanger that migration may serve as a pretext for a‘reductionist’ perspective, starting with intergovern-mental committees whose remit does not include reflec-tion on education and culture.

Consequences for theRoma/Gypsy

The current situation is a very grave one:● Assimilationist policies have not led to integration,

nor to adaptation and harmonious coexistence, butto the marginalization of Roma/Gypsies;

● Rejection remains the dominant attitude of soci-ety at large; tension develops into open conflict;scapegoats are quickly identified, with the resultthat they are harshly treated in an atmosphere ofconstant insecurity;

● Reality is always effectively obscured by theimaginary, and prejudice and stereotypes contin-ue to inspire and subsequently to justify atti-tudes and behaviour.

It is difficult to remain immune from the effects of thetreatment one is forced to endure. A small but growingnumber of those subjected to such treatment feel exhaust-ed and crushed. The negative imagery surroundingRoma/Gypsies, the use of certain regulations as insidiousinstruments in undermining community cohesion, as wellas false promises and pseudo-consultation indicating alack of respect for people and their human rights, all com-bine to erode the resilience of individual men, women andchildren, and that of the community as a whole.

Extract from a letter written by Rajko Djuric, Presidentof the International Romani Union, November 1990:

‘The Romani Union, the standing organization of theWorld Roma (Gypsy) Congress, wishes to express itsworry and concern regarding the increasingly difficult,dramatic, indeed tragic situation of Roma and Sinti inmany countries of the world, particularly in the statesof Eastern Europe. In the wake of cruel persecutiondown the centuries, the Holocaust during the SecondWorld War that caused the deaths of more than half amillion men, women and children of our people, and atotal absence of rights under communist dictatorships,nearly 15 million Roma and Sinti are currently theobject of the most overt racist discrimination.

This people does not enjoy the protection of itsnational liberties nor its collective rights in anystate, a situation in flagrant contradiction of inter-national acts and documents. For this reason theRomani Union has repeatedly addressed itself to theUnited Nations, as well as the Council of Europe andthe Commission of the European Communities, ask-ing them to implement an initiative and to find waysand means of protecting the elementary collectiverights of Roma and Sinti. Any further delay in thedefence and protection of Roma and Sinti will entailgrave consequences for the men, women and chil-dren of our people.’

19

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Some aspects of the current situation

Yet migrants of this type, in the popular image ofrefugees and asylum seekers, are not the only Roma/Gypsiescrossing the new political frontiers of 1990s Europe. Forexample, significant numbers of Romanian Roma/Gypsiestravel to Poland and/or the Czech Republic for the summer,and Roma/Gypsies travel within the Balkan countries inconnection with commerce and seasonal agricultural labour.Migration may also take place in highly organized forms. Forexample, Romanian Roma/Gypsies have tended to emigratein family groups rather than individually. Groups ofRoma/Gypsies from a given locality or region of Romaniahave congregated in the same towns or regions abroad, thusrecreating their original kinship networks. The firstRoma/Gypsy to travel to Germany from Romania camefrom those regions which traditionally had a high concen-tration of ethnic Germans. These Roma/Gypsies followedthe example of mass migration of Saxons and Swabians fromTransylvania and the Banat in emigrating to Germany, atrend actively encouraged by the German government priorto the fall of communism, and resulting in massive popula-tion movements over the 1970s and 1980s. Families andgroups with prior experience of forced displacement (forexample Roma/Gypsies deported during the Second WorldWar), or voluntary migration/nomadism within the state inconnection with seasonal agricultural labour, the buildingtrade and so on, demonstrate a greater disposition to emi-grate abroad; travel practices developed within Romaniawere simply transferred to new territories. It is these groupswhich have experienced the most envy, hostility and vio-lence from the local Romanian population from 1990onwards, and which have also evoked such negative reac-tions in the states to which they have emigrated.

Over the 1970s and 1980s, a number of nationaladministrations developed integration programmes forimmigrant Roma/Gypsy communities, particularly thosefrom Yugoslavia: this was the case in, for example, theNetherlands and Denmark, and in several Germancities, among them Berlin, Düsseldorf, Hamburg andCologne. The 1990s have seen the evolution of new poli-cies, some of them expulsion tactics. For example, thereis a Convention signed in September 1992 by theMinisters of the Interior of the Federal Republic ofGermany and Romania, ‘concerning the repatriation ofGerman and Romanian nationals to their respectivecountries’, dealing with ‘Romanian and German nation-als who have entered one of these two countries illegal-ly’. However, statements made at the signing favouredthe interpretation that the measures were directed pri-marily at Romanian Roma/Gypsies entering Germany,whether as asylum seekers or Gastarbeiter (migrantworkers), and not against German immigrants inRomania. The number of Roma/Gypsies expelled fromGermany under its terms is difficult to assess. Humanrights organizations and Romanian Roma/Gypsy associa-tions have monitored repatriation procedures, and anaction-research programme has been jointly developedby Romanian and German NGOs to observe develop-ments in the social reinsertion of repatriated families. Asimilar accord on the repatriation of illegal immigrantswhose request for asylum has been denied was conclud-ed between the Romanian and French governments inMay 1994. This agreement provides financial incentives

for voluntary repatriation; the number of Roma/Gypsiespotentially affected by it is estimated at 3-5,000.Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic ofMacedonia and Poland have all signed similar agree-ments with Germany.

Acts of anti-Roma/Gypsy violence similar to those inBâcu have occurred in the former Yugoslavia, both beforeand during the war: for example at Mostar (August 1991),at Kazarisi in Bosnia-Herzegovina, at Torianici, Baranyadistrict (November 1991), in Belgrade’s Zemun quarter(April 1994), at Zrenjanin (July 1994), at Gilane(September 1994), at Kosovo in Serbia, etc. During thebattle of Vukovar, the Serbs forced Roma/Gypsies into thefront lines; those who refused were executed, except forthe few who managed to escape and report what was hap-pening. Circumstances like these explain why the states ofthe European Union must not expel Roma/Gypsies fromthe former Yugoslavia when they request asylum orrefugee status, and must acquaint themselves with the realsituation in any given country before classifying it as ‘safe’for the repatriation of Roma/Gypsies

. In the former Yugoslavia there is simply nowhere leftfor the Roma in territories sliced up along ethnic lines with-out taking them into account. Their safety cannot be guar-anteed due to their lack of clearly established citizenship.

The Roma/Gypsy exodus of the 1990s is manifestlylinked to the frequency with which they encounter vio-lence, the passivity of local and national authorities, andthe absence of an adequate judicial response. All of theseforms of behaviour clearly defy the rule of law, as doesthe denial of any ethnic dimension to these recurrentevents, which are presented as simple, isolated civic dis-turbances. In this context, international organizationshave stepped up their attentions with regard to the spe-cific situation of Roma/Gypsy in relation to humanrights, and in particular their vulnerability to violence ofa racist or xenophobic nature.

From the early 1980s, European institutions have beendrawing attention to the problems associated with the freemovement and migration of Roma/Gypsies, as a questionon a European scale. Thus, in 1981, a group of MEPs sub-mitted the motion to the European Parliament:

‘On a coordinated approach to reception arrange-ments for Gypsies resident in the Community.Whereas large groups of Gypsies without a home-land have been roaming for years around WesternEurope; whereas the Council of Europe has maderepeated appeals for an international approach to theGypsy problem, which is particularly acute in thecase of stateless Gypsies (...) believing that only aninternational approach to the Gypsy problem inWestern Europe can lead to its solution.’

The authors proposed that the governments of themember states adopt a coordinated approach to receptionarrangements for Roma/Gypsies and investigate the possi-bility of providing them with an ‘itinerant visa’, and harmo-nizing provision throughout the member states.19 Aroundthe same time, in a statement from the Commission ofSocial and Employment Issues in the EuropeanParliament, proposing a resolution ‘on the discriminationfaced by Gypsies’, the MEPs prounced that:

18

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Some aspects of the current situation

Page 11: 65 roma gypsies

Analysis of examples at thenational level

Among the encouraging signs already noted isthe ratification by more and more states ofinternational conventions, particularly thosewhich open up possibilities for combating dis-crimination on ethnic and racial grounds

(although Roma/Gypsies have yet to be recognized assomething other than a social category). There is also agrowing number of legal decisions, more and more often inRoma/Gypsies’ favour, which are all the more important inthat they form the basis for further legislation (rulings bythe Council of State in France, the Supreme Court in theRepublic of Ireland, the Supreme Tribunal in Spain) andthey are gradually providing a way out of the legal void sur-rounding Roma/Gypsies, despite the plethora of existingregulations. Reform of legislation, however, can have a two-edged effect: on the one hand, increasing the penalties fordiscriminatory behaviour – particularly on the part of theauthorities, for example by prohibiting forced mass evic-tions and protecting groups from hindrance of their lifestylefor no particular reason (see the recent reform of theSpanish penal code, and in particular its articles 18, 137A,165, and 181A) – and on the other, breaking the long tradi-tion of stigmatizing nomadism, which is generally classed inthe penal code as ‘vagabondage’; a disturbing way of life tobe penalized, treated as an aggravating circumstance incase of transgression and a cause for suspicion at all times.

In fact an examination of practice at national level withregard to the legal and administrative treatment of theRoma/Gypsies indicates a great variety of situations. Thisstems from the diversity of political traditions, especiallywith regard to public recognition of the cultural make-upof groups within society, and in particular the legal recog-nition or non-recogniton of national, ethnic, linguistic andreligious minorities. This diversity is further accentuatedby the changes currently taking place in the states ofCentral and Eastern Europe. As we have noted, currentpolicy is often marked by indecision, giving rise to transi-tional situations characterized by ambiguity and paradox,but which also sometimes favours the emergence of newideas and innovative practices. To these considerationsmust be added significant, positive development due tostates’ ratifying more and more international declarationsand conventions directly impacting on the political andadministrative treatment of Roma/Gypsies.

Further study needs to be undertaken in this field, andmay in fact be one of the first projects launched in thewake of the CSCE/Council of Europe meeting ofSeptember 1994 (see below); such analysis would alsorequire frequent updating.22 The following is a brief cata-logue of quotations from various national texts, with someof the measures taken. This classification is therefore soleyillustrative covering only the legal situation. However, wecan distinguish a number of broad categories:

● The neglect or non-recognition of Roma/Gypsies asa minority in legislative systems which fail to coverthe particular rights of national and/or culturalminorities in general. In those states with a strongdemocratic tradition, the rights of ethnic and cul-tural (linguistic) minorities are covered within theprovisions of common law, and Roma/Gypsies, ascitizens, (theoretically) enjoy these general rightswith no supplementary, specific legal protection.

● Failure to recognize Roma/Gypsies as a minori-ty with specific rights, in those legislative sys-tems which do recognize the rights of otherminorities, which are clearly defined and recog-nized in the constitution and legislation, and/orin bilateral treaties covering political and cultur-al life. Non-recognition of Roma/Gypsies in con-nection with such provision is discriminatory; itis usually justified on the pretext that they fail toqualify under existing criteria for recognition of‘historic’ national or linguistic minorities.

● Legal recognition of Roma/Gypsies as a minoritythrough various legislative and other measures,such as the inclusion of Roma/Gypsy representa-tives (whether elected or appointed) on diversebodies at local and national level, in particularthose concerned with minorities and their rights.The constitutions of most Central and EasternEuropean states drawn up since 1989 includeprovision for minorities, including Roma/Gypsies. Moreover the principles and rights pro-vided for in the case of national minorities maybe reaffirmed in additional official documentsand declarations specifically recognizing Roma/Gypsies as a national or ethnic minority. Theymay also be mentioned specifically, alongsideother minorities, in the constitution itself and/orin laws adopted with regard to minorities. Theremay also, in addition to general provisions cover-ing all national minorities, be legislation specifi-

21

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

In addition to the discriminatory, coercive treatment towhich Roma/Gypsy communities are often subject, andthe difficulties arising from the transformations currentlyrocking the states of Central and Eastern Europe, the pre-sent period is also characterized by significant changeaffecting the form and nature of contact betweenRoma/Gypsies and surrounding populations. Thisincludes the changing needs in societies increasingly moti-vated by consumerism, linked with profound economicand technological change. These developments have botheconomic and psycho-cultural consequences, affectingRoma/Gypsies in very particular ways such as the deterio-rating quality of life on the road, the increase in suburbannomadism and urban settlement, and the resulting popu-lation concentrations in poor conditions. Negative social,economic and health effects have resulted.21

This is a critical period in Roma/Gypsy history – but itis not only the Roma/Gypsies who are in crisis. Apart fromthe centuries-old discrimination to which they are subject,and the regulations by which they are encompassed, thepresent crisis is, for the large part (notably on the eco-nomic plane) the crisis of surrounding societies. They tooare finding it difficult to adapt, and find expression in amounting rejection of others. Yet there are no grounds foroverall pessimism: the culture of most Roma/Gypsygroups is thriving, lived as a daily, complete and coherentreality, and age-old adaptive strategies are still being exer-cised. Moreover, the present period, with its characteristicindecision and the introduction of innovative approachesin certain states, the increasing support of internationalinstitutions and the emergence and activism ofRoma/Gypsy political, social and cultural organizations,forms a context which may favour positive progress.

20

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Some aspects of the current situation

The emergence of a political space for Roma/Gypsies

Page 12: 65 roma gypsies

ing with Roma/Gypsies to develop projects oftheir own. Other activities are being expanded,notably in connection with aid programmes forCentral and Eastern Europe.

● The European Parliament, which regularly ques-tions the Commission with regard to the action itundertakes, has a sustained interest, evident inoral and written questions, resolutions, and activesupport in the field of education through theadoption of a budgetary line enabling the imple-mentation of the Resolution of 1989.

The Council of Europe

● Through its Recommendation 563 (1969) on thesituation of Roma/Gypsies and other nomads inEurope, as well as by the many questions it hassubmitted to the Committee of Ministers, theParliamentary Assembly has drawn attention tothe situation of Roma/Gypsy communities.

● Resolution (75)13 (Containing Recommen-dations on the Social Situation of NomadicPopulations in Europe, adopted by theCommittee of Ministers on 22 May 1975)addressed questions of general policy, stopping,accommodation, education, vocational guidanceand training, social and health provision, andsocial security. The Committee of Ministers:

‘Invites the governments of member states toinform the Secretary General of the Council ofEurope in due course of the action taken on the rec-ommendations contained in this resolution.’

Twenty years on, the time has come to examine whatthe member states have to report;

● Resolution 125 (1981) of the Standing Conferenceof Local and Regional Authorities in Europe(CLRAE) ‘On the Role and Responsibility ofLocal and Regional Authorities in Regard to theCultural and Social Problems of Populations ofNomadic Origin’ addressed the overall situation ofRoma/Gypsy communities in detail, and put for-ward a series of recommendations. It was in directresponse to the education-related section of thisresolution that the Council for CulturalCooperation (CDCC) decided, in 1983, to orga-nize an international seminar which was to be thefirst of a series. The Council of Europe has alsoprovided both the original impetus and ongoingsupport for a number of publications, most ofthem education-related.25

● Consideration has not been confined to educa-tion-related matters. In 1983, the Committee ofMinisters adopted Recommendation R(83)1 onStateless Nomads and Nomads of UndeterminedNationality. The ad hoc Expert Committee forIdentity Documents and the Circulation ofPersons adopted its final activity report on theexamination of legal questions relating to the cir-culation of nomads in 1986. The Committee ofMinisters has, in response to members’ ques-tions, emphasized certain important points, for

example at its meeting in April 1984, in reply toquestion no. 271 ‘On the Recognition of theRoma People as an Ethnic Minority’.

● Among more recent developments, in February1993 the Parliamentary Assembly adoptedRecommendation 1203 ‘On the Situation ofRoma in Europe’. The Assembly drew attentionto the difficult situation of Roma/Gypsy commu-nities and the importance of implementing textsalready adopted, and recommended that theCommittee of Ministers take the initiative, ifnecessary in the form of proposals addressed tothe national governments, regional and/or localauthorities of the member states, in the fields ofculture, education, information, equal rights,and daily life, as well as general measures such asresearch, cooperation with the EuropeanCommunity, consultation with representativeinternational Roma/Gypsy organizations, anddesignating mediators. This recommendationrepeatedly emphasizes that, ‘as one of the veryfew non-territorial minorities in Europe,Gypsies need special protection’.

● Following a hearing in 1991, CLRAE organized acolloquium in Slovakia in 1992, bringing togeth-er local authorities, representatives ofRoma/Gypsy communities, and experts. Thisconfirmed the results of the 1991 hearing. Itsconclusions emphasized the necessity both ofupdating and of reactivating the 1981 resolution,and of putting forward concrete work proposals.26

CLRAE decided, on the basis of the combinedconclusions of the hearing and the colloquium, toprepare a new text. This Resolution 249(1993),‘On Gypsies in Europe: The Role andResponsibility of Local and RegionalAuthorities’, was adopted in March 1993. TheConference expressed its regrets that textsalready adopted had been followed by so fewconcrete effects. It urged local and regionalauthorities to adopt a holistic approach, withinwhich they should take the necessary measures tofacilitate Roma/Gypsies’ integration into localcommunities, develop consultation and participa-tion with Roma/Gypsies themselves, combatprejudice, and take part in developing a networkof municipalities.

● The Committee of Ministers of the Council ofEurope has been asked to urge governments toimplement the adopted texts, to invite theCDCC to intensify the work in which it has beenengaged for a decade through publications,organizing seminars, commitment to establish-ing and participating in the municipalities net-work, launching a ‘European Gypsy CulturalItinerary’, and taking account of Roma/Gypsy-related aspects within the new ‘Democracy,Human Rights, Minorities: Educational andCultural Aspects’ programme. The resolutionalso carries proposals in relation to human rights,the study of migration-related questions(through the activities of the European

23

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

The emergence of a political space for Roma/Gypsies

cally targeting the situation of the Roma/Gypsies,and protecting them.

● ‘Indirect’ or implicit institutional recognitionthrough the setting up of a government commis-sion specifically in order to deal withRoma/Gypsy-related questions, and/or by devel-oping programmes specifically targetingRoma/Gypsy communities and organizations.

To complete the picture, this typology must be cross-referenced with administrative practice, the developmentof concrete action and the amount of funding made avail-able for the implementation of legislation and other pro-visions. At one end of the scale there are places whereRoma/Gypsies enjoy recognition and legal status in theo-ry, but virtually never in practice, and at the other extremea total absence of legal provision accompanied by con-crete support for Roma/Gypsy communities.

Some additional considerations may be useful in ana-lyzing the situation:

● In this regard, there is no sharp dividing line nordifference between the states of Western, andthose of Central and Eastern, Europe.

● In the current context of indecision, ambiguityand paradox are rife, but taking a constructiveperspective it may be useful to analyze these witha view to a clearer definition of proposals aimedat improving Roma/Gypsies situation and legalstanding.23 The magnitude of change can be iden-tified, as can the directions it is taking, and inexamining instances of discrimination we canidentify whether these are an expression of polit-ical resistance, entrenched routine, or a conserv-ative attitude towards minorities in general.

● In relation to the previous point, it is important tonote that states with little experience of their owncan benefit from that of other states which havebeen developing activities in this field; furtherlessons can be drawn from the experience ofother minorities in those cases whereRoma/Gypsies have yet to be taken into account(for example, bilateral treaties on nationalminorities, none of which, to date, mentions theRoma/Gypsies).

International institutions andtheir contributionEuropean Union

The genesis and development of interest and concretesupport on the part of the institutions of the European

Union can be summarized in the following stages:● In March 1984 the European Parliament adopt-

ed a resolution on the education of children ofparents of no fixed abode, and another on the sit-uation of Roma/Gypsies, in which it recom-mended to the governments of the memberstates that they should coordinate their outlooks,and called on the Commission to developCommunity-funded programmes aimed at

improving Roma/Gypsies’ situation withoutnegating their cultural values.

● The Commission and the Gypsy ResearchCentre of René Descartes University, Paris,undertook a critical overview of the situationregarding school provision for Roma/Gypsy chil-dren within the Community. It set up meetingsof Roma/Gypsy experts to guide and coordinatethe study, and later to discuss recommendations;the resulting report, School Provision for Gypsyand Traveller Children,24 was published towardsthe end of 1986. Following an extension of thestudy to cover new member states Spain andPortugal, the exercise culminated on 22 May1989 with the adoption by the Council and theMinisters of Education of a resolution on schoolprovision for Roma/Gypsy children.

● This text is one of the most basic gains made byand for the Roma/Gypsy communities. One ofthe opening paragraphs recognizes – indeed,emphasizes – that Roma/Gypsies’ ‘culture andlanguage have formed a part of the Community’scultural and linguistic heritage for over 500years’. It goes on to outline a catalogue of mea-sures adopted by the ministers to be developedby the member states at national level, while theCommission was charged with stimulatingnational initiatives, organizing exchanges ofviews and of experience, ensuring coordination,documentation, and ongoing evaluation of mea-sures as a whole.

● More and more actions have been undertaken atboth state and Union levels, notably organizingmeetings, a newsletter in several languages andsupport for publications, inter-school exchange,the networking of pilot projects, assistance toenable Roma/Gypsy organizations to hold meet-ings on school-related questions, etc.

● While it is true that education-related questionswere the first to engage the sustained interest ofthe Commission’s services, it subsequentlybroadened the scope of its concern. Thus, ahearing bringing together experts andRoma/Gypsy representatives was held in May1991, giving the Commission an opportunity toacquaint itself with the analyses and proposals ofRoma/Gypsy associations. At the conclusion ofthis hearing, and after distribution of the reportarising from it, the Commission undertook tostudy conditions relevant to developing activitiesrelating to Roma/Gypsies.

● Many ongoing programmes include actions ofrelevance to Roma/Gypsies. For example, the‘Second Combat Poverty Pro-gramme’ assistedteams in Ireland, Spain, and Portugal. The thirdprogramme, ‘Poverty 3’, also entails action forRoma/Gypsy communities: of its 39 projects,four (in Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland) direct-ly involve Roma/Gypsies. Other actions havebeen developed within the framework of theEuropean Social Fund and the ‘Horizon’ pro-gramme, enabling numerous associations work-

22

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

The emergence of a political space for Roma/Gypsies

Page 13: 65 roma gypsies

United Nations

Roma/Gypsies made their first appearance in a UN textin 1977 when, in the wider framework of the Economicand Social Council’s Commission on Human Rights, theSub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination andProtection of Minorities appealed: ‘to those countries hav-ing Roma (Gypsies) living within their borders to accordthem, if they have not yet done so, all the rights enjoyed bythe rest of the population’, (resolution adopted on 31August 1977). In August 1991, the Sub-Commission onPrevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,recalling its resolution of 1977, drew attention to:

‘The fact that, in many countries, various obstaclesexist to the full realization of persons belonging to theRoma community of their civil, political, economic,social and cultural rights, and that such obstacles con-stitute discrimination directed specifically againstthat community, rendering it particularly vulnerable.’

It also stated that ‘manifestations of prejudice, discrimi-nation, intolerance and xenophobia’ affect the Roma/Gypsycommunity, and recommended a draft resolution for adop-tion by the Commission on Human Rights (33rd Session,28 August 1991,1991/21, Protection of Minorities). Finally,the Commission on Human Rights, during its session on 4March 1992, adopted Resolution 1992/65, entitled ‘Onthe Protection of Roma (Gypsies)’.

ECOSOC, the Economic and Social Council of theUnited Nations, took a highly significant step in March1979, when it recognized the International Romani Union(IRU) as an NGO representing Roma/Gypsies. The IRUwent on to play an important role in meetings of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination andProtection of Minorities, as well as a vital informing and sen-sitizing role within the CSCE. In March 1993 the UNupgraded its classification of the IRU to that of ConsultativeStatus, thus giving greater weight to its contributions.

The problems faced by Roma/Gypsies in different statesare highlighted by special rapporteurs of the Commissionand Sub-Commission on Human Rights, and are alsoincluded in the activities carried out by specialized UNdepartments. In 1993, UNHCR published a report on thesituation of Roma/Gypsy communities in some Central andEastern European states. This carried a series of recom-mendations addressed primarily to the UNHCR itself. Itaimed to protect Roma/Gypsies from persecution; ensureequal treatment for those seeking asylum; engage the atten-tion of NGOs; particularly those of a humanitarian nature,and to organize sustained observation and information onthe part of each UNHCR bureau with a view to being ableto understand and improve the situation. One of the resultsof this intensified attention is that, over the past few years,the reports periodically presented by national governmentsto specialized UN bodies such as the Committee for theElimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committeeon the Rights of the Child, mention the situation ofRoma/Gypsies in their respective states with increasing fre-quency.

UNESCO has given moral support to a number of short-term projects related to research, teaching, and/or publica-tion, especially in connection with the Romani language (for

example the seminar on standardizing Romani, Warsaw,April 1990, to which UNESCO sent the head of its linguis-tic division). It has also provided financial support for twosummer schools organized by the IRU (Belgrade 1989 andVienna 1990). UNESCO is currently involved in literacy-and education-related pilot projects in a number of states, aswell as a pilot project focusing on Roma/Gypsy culture.

UNICEF, though its International Child DevelopmentCentre, has turned its attentions to the situation ofRoma/Gypsy children, particularly with regard to educa-tion, in several states. A comparative study, a seminar, anda publication have all resulted, and a more in-depth eval-uation and networking of certain projects has been under-taken and will be intensified over the course of 1995. Inthis context, too, the experience accumulated byEuropean Community projects may be of direct benefit toproject development in Central and Eastern Europe; con-versely, the West has a great deal to learn from activitiesdeveloped in these parts of Europe.

International support

An overview of the activities of the past few years showsthat European institutions have responded positively

to some of the promptings of such resolutions, and theirmember states are taking an active stance. There are signsthat a more wide-ranging approach is being adopted. Thisis characterized by a three-pronged approach, whichshould open up the way towards examining questions with-in their overall context: an intensification of reflection; adiversification of interest; and a collaborative system.27

In the context of the present period of indecision,international institutions have an important role to play,and can exercise significant influence. An evaluation ofthe implementation of certain measures, for example inthe field of education,28 reveals that new practices con-tributing to greater respect for Roma/Gypsy communitiesand their cultural and political dynamics are emerging atboth national and international level. However, thereremains a need for independent, solid, fully competentmanagement to ensure consultation, coordination, evalua-tion and continuity.

The development of politicalaction by Roma/GypsiesRoma/Gypsy organizations

The history of Roma/Gypsy organizations goes back along way, and has passed through a number of stages

which cannot, however, be covered in depth.29 In the 1920sRoma/Gypsy associations were set up in Russia, Belarusand Romania, and in other countries in the 1930s. In theaftermath of the Second World War, there is hardly a statein Europe in which Roma/Gypsy organizations have notemerged. Meetings – local, regional, national, sometimeseven international – are being held. In conjunction withthe profound transformations taking place in the states of

25

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

The emergence of a political space for Roma/Gypsies

Committee on Migration [CDMG]) and thestudy of questions relating to the mass media. Itinvites Roma/Gypsies and their organizations toactively participate and emphasizes the impor-tance of the work being carried out by theEuropean Community and the OSCE, as well asthe necessity of ensuring the complementarity oftheir work. The municipalities network waslaunched in 1995, and the Council for CulturalCooperation has commissioned a preliminarystudy with a view to developing the EuropeanRoma/Gypsy Cultural Itinerary project.

● The CDMG has intensified its work in relationto Roma/Gypsy communities: in January 1994, itreceived a mandate from the Committee ofMinisters to:

‘Carry out an in-depth study on the differentaspects of the situation and living conditions ofGypsies in the new European context. This workshould be undertaken with due regard toRecommendation 1203 (1993) of the ParliamentaryAssembly on Gypsies in Europe, and in close coop-eration with work being pursued in other fields,notably within the European Union.’

Organization for Security and Cooperation inEurope (OSCE)(Formerly the Conference on Security and Cooperationin Europe, CSCE).

● At the conclusion of the Copenhagen meeting ofthe Conference on the Human Dimension of theCSCE, in June 1990, an important documentwas adopted by the participating states. Thisfinal document says that these states have cometogether ‘to reinforce respect for and enjoymentof all human rights and fundamental freedoms,the development of human contacts and the res-olution of the issues of a related humanitariancharacter’. Chapter IV is entirely devoted tonational minorities: its Article 40 concentrateson questions of racism, and it is important tonote that Roma/Gypsies are the only minoritymentioned by name in this context.

● As a follow-up to the Copenhagen meeting, aCSCE expert group on national minorities helda meeting in Geneva, in July 1991. In Chapter VIof this meeting’s final report, participating statesexpressed their concern in relation to the prolif-eration of acts of violence on racial, ethnic orreligious grounds. In this context:

‘The participating States ... reaffirm their recogni-tion of the particular problems of Roma (Gypsies).They are ready to undertake effective measures inorder to achieve full equality of opportunity betweenpersons belonging to Roma communities ordinarily res-ident in their state and the rest of the resident popula-tion. They also encourage research and studiesregarding Roma and the particular problems they face.’

● Following these conclusions, the governments ofthe participating states have begun to focus onRoma/Gypsy-related questions, and these arenow being pursued within the broad context ofthe consideration of problems and practicesdeveloped within the OSCE. At the MoscowMeeting on the Conference on the HumanDimension of the CSCE (September-October1991), representatives of participating statesagain drew attention to the situation ofRoma/Gypsies, and did so yet again at the CSCEmeeting in Helsinki (March-June 1992). In thechapter dealing with questions of involvementand cooperation in the human dimension:

‘The participating states ... reaffirm the need todevelop appropriate programmes addressing prob-lems of their respective nationals belonging to Romaand other groups traditionally identified as Gypsiesand to create conditions for them to have equalopportunities to participate fully in the life of soci-ety, and will consider how to cooperate to this end.’

● In April 1993, the CSCE’s High Commissionerfor National Minorities was charged with:

‘Studying the social, economic and humanitarianproblems concerning the Roma population in severalof the member states and their relevance to the man-date of the High Commissioner (decisons in Helsinki,chapter II, paragraph 2.7) and to report on the ques-tion to the Committee of Chief Civil Servants.During the discussion it was also stated that theseproblems can also have an international dimension.’

The report, based on analysis of reports compiled onother occasions, and referring back to texts already adopt-ed (notably the Resolution of 22 May 1989 adopted by theMinisters of Education of the European Community, aswell as Council of Europe and UN texts), was submittedin September 1993. It contains proposals of a generalnature but also proposals expressed specifically in terms ofthe dynamic of the human dimension developed withinthe CSCE. It makes reference to the texts mentionedabove, adopted by the participating states, and demandsthe implementation of the CSCE’s commitments, particu-larly those measures mentioned in the document issued atthe Copenhagen meeting.

During a CSCE-organized seminar on minorities(Warsaw, May 1993), in connection with the work of the sub-group on ‘dispersed minorities’, Roma/Gypsy-related ques-tions were once again given prominence. In 1994 the CSCE,in cooperation with the Council of Europe, held anotherseminar in Warsaw, this time focusing on the situation ofRoma/Gypsy communities. This seminar confirmed andstrengthened concepts and working guidelines developedover a number of years, and a marked willingness for inter-institutional cooperation was shown in connection with thedevelopment of a partnership involving Roma/Gypsy organi-zations. The Roma/Gypsy came up yet again at the CSCE’sBudapest meeting in the autumn of that year, when theCSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights(ODIHR) was mandated to develop a ‘Contact Point’ forRoma/Gypsy-related questions.

24

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

The emergence of a political space for Roma/Gypsies

Page 14: 65 roma gypsies

meetings in Moscow and Vienna, and in order to proceedwith the realization of the idea, notably by putting thequestion of drawing up statutes for debate, the HungarianRom Parliament (Ungritkone Themesko RomanoParlamènto) hosted a meeting in Budapest in August 1992.Another development has been the setting up, at the ini-tiative of the International Romani Union, of theEuropean Committee of the Romani Union (EuropaqoKomite e Rromane Uniaqoro). This was established inSeptember 1991 by delegates to a conference in Ostia,near Rome, representing some 15 European states, againwith the objective of developing partnership withEuropean organizations and institutions.

In June 1994, at a meeting in Strasbourg under the aus-pices of the Council of Europe (convened in preparationfor the seminar on the Human Dimension of the CSCEon the situation of the Roma/Gypsies, to be held inSeptember of that year), participants advocated the set-ting up of a Standing Conference for the Cooperation andCoordination of Romani Associations in Europe. The con-cept was clarified over the course of preparatory meetingsand at the seminar itself. This Conference is not intendedas a new organization, nor does it replace any existingbody at national or international level. Its purpose con-cerned the practical goal of optimizing preparations forthe September CSCE seminar, and of establishing dia-logue, information exchange and cooperation betweenexisting associations to improve coordination and avoidduplication. The role of the Conference is essentially thecoherent promotion of Roma/Gypsy associations in theirdealings with national and international officialdom. Atthe September seminar, a desire was expressed for theConference to remain in existence as a means of consoli-dating Roma/Gypsy partnership. The current climate islargely favourable to such a development, and the open-ness and flexibility of the ‘standing conference’ formulashould enable it to fulfil this role.

Developing political strategies

The development of Roma/Gypsy political organizationsindicates political maturity, diversity, and plurality. The

current blossoming of Roma/Gypsy ethno-politics is beingaccelerated by questions arising from migration, refugeesand defining the status of the Roma/Gypsy people, all ofwhich are the subject of wide debate within Roma/Gypsyassociations, particularly regarding prioritizing response.

The reaffirmation and reclaiming of Roma/Gypsyidentity by migrants and asylum seekers

As they undergo the experiences associated with migra-tion and the seeking of refuge, individuals, families,

and entire groups of Roma/Gypsies discover new aspectsabout themselves and their collective identity. They mayalso find themselves sharing these experiences with otherindividuals and ethnic groups from different countries, allpart of the same currents of migration and all confrontingthe same attitudes from majority/native populations.

In all of these new situations, Roma/Gypsy groups find

fresh allies (humanitarian organizations, groups defendingthe interests of refugees or human rights in general) andnew competitors for the same limited resources (a quotaon how many asylum seekers will be taken in, a limitednumber of temporary work contracts, etc.). They thus dis-cover themselves in entirely new contexts: not just differ-ent countries and cultures, but also refugee camps orsuburban hostels where they are allowed to stay for a time,living alongside people and families from very differentplaces and ethnic origins, in complex, multicultural social contexts, characterized above all by their interna-tional/transnational nature. Talk of human rights becomesmore understandable and appealing, more promising indirect personal terms: perception of violation of theserights in the country of origin, the right to freedom ofmovement, the rights of, and protective measures for,refugees and asylum seekers etc.

An awareness of ethnic identity as Roma or Gypsy istaking shape: people classed simply as ‘poor’ in theirBalkan homelands discover and assert the fact that theyhad been experiencing political persecution for theirbeliefs or simply for their Roma/Gypsy identity in coun-tries where prejudice, discrimination and rejection oftheir group are endemic. In some extreme cases, individ-uals from the ethnic majority in the country of origin claimto be members of the ‘Roma/Gypsy’ ethnic minority inorder to justify their demand for political asylum abroad.This development has given Roma/Gypsy asylum seekersand migrants an additional need: to clarify the criteria ofRoma/Gypsy identity.

Practical steps in support of human rights forRoma/Gypsy migrants and refugees

Anumber of Roma/Gypsy associations, particularly inGermany, have mobilized around administrative

issues and the specific demands raised by diverseRoma/Gypsy groups and families: those who travel out ofchoice (and who are confronted with the requirementsimposed by national and international regulations govern-ing freedom of movement); the right of abode for for-eigners; procedures for seeking political asylum; thosewho have come in seeking long-term residence as migrantworkers; those whose efforts to regularize their situationas one of the above, have been unsuccessful, and who findthemselves facing forced repatriation; etc.

In outlining Roma/Gypsy organizations’ current lines ofaction, mention should also be made of their relations withNGOs, as well as a growing militancy in opposition toexpulsion measures taken against Roma/Gypsy asylumseekers, and in response to the situations prevailing in dif-ferent states regarding Roma/Gypsy families’ accommoda-tion, school provision, economic activities etc. To theseshould be added their developing partnership with nation-al institutions and international organizations.

There is thus ongoing debate within the Roma/Gypsymovement. The ‘transformation’ augured by developmentsin the early 1970s is currently being consolidated. In factthe transformations have already taken place, and are nowbeing fine-tuned. An entirely new book would be requiredto update that which, when published over 20 years ago,bore the title Mutation Tsigane (‘Gypsy Transformation’).30

27

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Central and Eastern Europe since 1989, there has been amushrooming of Roma/Gypsy associations there, and theseare taking their place in the political arena; the number ofassociations is on the rise in Western Europe too.

At international level, the Comité InternationalTsigane (International Gypsy Committee) was founded in1967; and organized the first World Gypsy Congress(London, 1971) with delegates from 14 countries andobservers from a number of others. The presidentialaddress by Slobodan Berberski encapsulated the spiritbehind the Congress:

‘The goal of this Congress is to bring the Romtogether and to encourage them to act throughoutthe world, to bring about our emancipation in accor-dance with our own intuition and ideals – to go for-ward to a rhythm that suits us ... Everything we dowill bear the mark of our own personality, it will beamaro Romano drom, our own Gypsy way ... Ourpeople must plan and organize action at local,national, and international level. Our problems arethe same everywhere: we must make use of our ownmodels of education, maintain and develop our Romculture, encourage new dynamism in our communi-ties and forge a future compatible with our lifestyleand beliefs. We have been passive for long enough,and I believe that we can succeed – starting today.’

Delegates rejected the terms ‘Tsiganes, Zigeuner,Gitanos, Gypsies’ etc., which are not their own, and optedinstead for the term ‘Roma’. In a strong feeling of unity, theydeclared that, ‘all Roma are brothers’ – a reference to the oldRomani proverb, ‘sa e Rroma phrala’. They felt that theiraspirations were the same in the various countries; and asorganizations came together, the Roma became increasinglyaware of their shared identity, just as they were assertingtheir presence to the world at large. The International GypsyCommittee, which was to be renamed the International RomCommittee, became the standing secretarial and executiveorgan, providing delegates to national and international bod-ies to represent the Congress, which remained the sovereignbody. A flag and anthem were adopted, and five commissions(on social affairs, education, war crimes [i.e. researching Nazigenocide, perpetuating the memory of Roma/Gypsy war vic-tims, compiling files for war reparations], linguistics, and cul-ture) were established. A single slogan sums up theCongress: ‘The Roma people have the right to seek out theirown path towards progress’.

The Second World Congress was held in Geneva in1978. This brought together approximately 60 delegatesand the same number again of observers, representing atotal of 26 countries. It was marked by mutual recognitionbetween the Roma/Gypsies and India, of India being the‘homeland’, but also by certain changes of direction. TheCongress action programme aimed for the recognition ofRoma cultural specificity, their right to maintain anddevelop this and the recognition of international bodies. Italso aimed to combat the politics of rejection and assimi-lation, as well as to pursue attempts to standardize the lan-guage. A new international organization, Romano Ekhipe(Romani Union) emerged from this Congress, and soughtto attain recognition by ECOSOC, an essential point inrealizing the goals they had set themselves. By the time

the Romani Union submitted its dossier to the UN, it rep-resented 71 associations in 21 different states. In March1979 the organization was granted consultative observerstatus in the ‘Roster’ category, which occasionally bringsNGOs together to enable them to contribute their exper-tise to ECOSOC as well as to other bodies within the UN.Fourteen years later, in March 1993, its status was upgrad-ed from the ‘Roster’ to full Consultative Status. What ismore, the organization has also set up a cultural founda-tion, Rromani Baxt, with its headquarters in Warsaw, andis gradually establishing branches further afield.

The Third World Gypsy Congress took place inGöttingen, Federal Republic of Germany, in May 1981,with some 300 delegates representing 22 states. It focusedon remembering the Holocaust and Roma/Gypsy victims’continuing demand for war reparations. The FourthCongress was held in Serock, near Warsaw, 8-11 April 1990,and brought together 320 participants from 24 states. Thiswas the first time a Congress was held in Eastern Europe,and the great majority of delegates came from this region,with large delegations from states which had been unable tosend representatives to earlier Congresses, among themRomania, just emerging from its own revolution. Similarly,this was the first opportunity that representatives frommany Soviet republics, and Albania, had had to participatein an event of this kind. Significantly, the states of WesternEurope were poorly represented.

Today, national and international meetings are takingplace at an ever-quickening pace. The InternationalRomani Union has, from the early 1990s, played anincreasingly important role as a pressure group. As anNGO dealing with national governments it takes an activeand constructive role at seminars and conferences, partic-ularly at the OSCE and also in a more ad hoc fashion withthe Council of Europe and the European Community.

The Roma/Gypsy political movement is taking shapeon other continents as well. The International RomaFederation was founded in 1993 in the United States, withthe aim of intensifying cooperation betweenRoma/Gypsies in that country with Roma/Gypsies inEurope. There are also organizations in Latin America,Australia etc. However, here we shall concentrate on theEuropean context.

Towards a Europeanpartnership

Ageneral rallying is also in evidence amongRoma/Gypsy organizations at European level: recog-

nizing the necessity of developing partnership withEuropean institutions such as the Council of Europe andthe European Union, and they are clarifying their own self-definitions in order to optimize their response. From thisarose the idea of EUROM, the European RomaParliament, put forward at a November 1990 meeting atMülheim, in Germany, organized by the Rom & CintiUnion. The project is currently defining regulations forEurope-wide elections with a view to achieving democrat-ic representation at European level, and developing con-tacts with European institutions. Following further

26

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

The emergence of a political space for Roma/GypsiesThe emergence of a political space for Roma/Gypsies

Page 15: 65 roma gypsies

The variety of Roma/Gypsygroups and the construction ofa cultural identity

Roma/Gypsy reality is enormously varied. Thehistorical experience of various groups, theirencounters, stopping-places, routes travelledand intersected, and the diversity of theircontacts with constantly changing surround-

ings, have given rise to a great variety of cultural and socialcharacteristics within various groups – and continue to doso. Always immersed in other culture(s), Roma/Gypsy lifeis characterized by continuous adjustment and adaptationto a changing environment. Roma/Gypsy society has thusbeen characterized, throughout its history, by the inven-tion and development of strategies of adaptation andnegotiation. The result is a tradition of change and inno-vation. Public misunderstanding of Roma/Gypsies – andeven research concerning them, by seeking to establishconstancy and uniformity where in fact there is onlychange and variety – have contributed to popular miscon-ceptions and given rise to analyses based on total inaccu-racy – which have a very direct impact on policiesaffecting the Roma/Gypsies themselves. After all, it isargued, Roma/Gypsies are changing; they are not whatthey were in the past, so they are no longer ‘realRoma/Gypsies’, i.e. they are no longer themselves, so theyneed to be helped to ‘integrate’. A different analysis isrequired, recognizing the permanence of lifestyle andprofound sense of identity characterizing Roma/Gypsyculture.

Social organization is one of the elements which sustainthis lifestyle and enable it to adapt to changing circum-stances. Roma/Gypsies form a ‘worldwide mosaic of diver-sified groups’.31 This is to say, on the one hand, that amosaic constitutes a whole, the elements of which are insome respects linked to each other, and that the connec-tions permeating the whole contribute to its organizationand structure; and yet, each element of the whole possess-es its own individual characteristics which, taken in isola-tion, make it appear to be different from every othercomponent. Out of the differences which arise and devel-op (affecting trades, travelling practices, language, variousrituals etc.) emanates a complementarity, and it is thiscomplementarity which constitutes the whole.

The variety of ethnic self-identifications are an obvioussign of diversity: hundreds of names formed by a widerange of diverse criteria cover hundreds of groups, each ofwhich insists on its own uniqueness. Generally, thesegroups comprise extended families, however, no group

can be understood in isolation. Family groups are part ofwider social groups and thus, like a series of Chineseboxes, sets and subsets are formed, taking in more andmore groups. It is the group system itself which must betaken into account in any comprehensive, dynamicapproach to Roma/Gypsy society: groups exist because of,and for, one another, and it is within this framework that abalance is established, applying to alliances by marriage asmuch as to business deals. Roma/Gypsy political life is dif-fuse, an inextricable presence in every social act and in allrelations, be they of association or opposition. It some-times crystallizes in connection with certain mechanismssuch as the kris, an organ of justice and social regulationin certain Roma/Gypsy groups. While there are certainlyfamilies whose fortunes have, in one way or another,detached them from this great group network, these gen-erally maintain an awareness of such relations in preced-ing generations.

The interlinking of these groups, and their adherenceto common values, are maintained through encounter andexchange; links are woven day by day, reinforced, refined,sometimes discontinued. This organization is entirelyadaptable to circumstance, to the variety and challenge ofthe encounters and conditions which come its way.Groups may draw closer together or even merge, whileothers retreat, subdivide, or even fragment down to theindividual level if they are absorbed by their environment:the whole is capable of encompassing all of these process-es, and it is regulated by mechanisms of social control,thus guaranteeing the continuity and cohesion of socialstructures.32 While the relative distance between groups isfelt in a wide variety of ways, and is sometimes significant,a feeling of closeness and community nonetheless exists;for example, in some groups the saying ‘sem Rroma sam’(‘we are Roma, after all’) is frequently cited to emphasizeRoma/Gypsy identity and in praise of cherished group val-ues (hospitality, generosity, friendship), to soothe inter-family tensions or as an expression of a desire to unite inthe face of adversity brought about by non-Roma/Gypsy.

Cultural wealthContribution to European cultural heritage

As previously discussed, one of the most important textsever issued by an international organization with regard

to Roma/Gypsy people is the Resolution of 22 May 1989 onschool provision for Roma/Gypsy children, adopted by theCouncil and the Ministers of Education of the memberstates of the European Union. Its significance is far-reach-

29

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

The ethno-political discourse and practice of Roma/Gypsy associations in their defence of Roma/Gypsies oninternational migration routes, may involve human andminority rights. Alternatively, a growing awareness ofethno-political identity may lead to the assertion of the‘Roma/Gypsy exception’, an insistence on Roma/Gypsyspecificity which renders their situation unique in com-parison to other cultural and ethnic minorities competingfor resources and stability within the migratory move-ment. Here we have a new stage in ‘Roma/Gypsy trans-formation’: different Roma/Gypsy groups, their separateidentities forged in the diverse ‘waves’ of migration char-acterizing their history, defining and redefining their vari-ous stances with regard to such questions, both in relationto each other and in their relations with the authorities ofthe states on whose territory they find themselves.Examples include:

● A demand for the protection of Roma/Gypsyrights and for special legal status at Europeanlevel, as defined in the ‘European Charter forRoma Rights’ (position of the Roma NationalCongress).

● A demand that Roma/Gypsy and Sinti be pro-tected from discrimination and enjoy their fullrights as citizens of their respective countries: inother words, no legislation specifically forRoma/Gypsies, and no specific mention ofRoma/Gypsies in general legislation (position ofthe Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma);

● The middle ground between these options is tobe found in the demand for protection ofRoma/Gypsies through adapted implementationof general legislation, human rights and minori-ty rights, at local, national and transnational lev-els. As previously noted, the law in general (andspecific legislation where it exists) is generally onthe Roma/Gypsies’ side, but it is often selective-ly applied, hence the necessity for enforcing it byvarious means, notably through developing part-nerships between Roma/Gypsy organizationsand international, national and regional bodies.

28

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

The emergence of a political space for Roma/Gypsies

Confirming a culturalspace for Roma/Gypsies

Page 16: 65 roma gypsies

affirm and develop their own unique identity. Parents are aware of this, and are increasingly willing to

send their children to school. Here we find a crucial sec-ond link between the general situation and the schools:the transformation of living conditions for economic activ-ities, entails a necessity for basic schooling, and with itparental desire to ensure that their children receive it. Atpresent, there is a widening rift between Roma/Gypsychildren and those of surrounding society, and manyalready difficult situations will deteriorate rapidly and dra-matically with the concomitant risk of certain forms ofmarginality and/or delinquency.

The analyses carried out nonetheless emphasize that itis possible to envisage a more positive future:

● Measures associated with intercultural educationopen the way to new practices validating the dif-ferent cultures present in the classroom, takingeach child’s own capabilities and experiences astheir starting-point. Such measures make it possi-ble to adapt the school to Roma/Gypsy children.

● Every state has attempted, through diverse exper-iments and/or programmes, to respond toRoma/Gypsy parents’ wishes regarding schoolprovision for their children. Some aspects of theseefforts have been successful, others less so. It isimportant to identify, analyze, and publicize thoseapproaches which have demonstrated their value,to support innovative projects implemented inpartnership, and to suggest new ones. The broadevaluation made possible by the study preparedfor the European Commission clearly demon-strates that the recommended holistic, structuralapproach (through cooperation, coordination, andinformation) has a significant impact on overcom-ing the major obstacles blocking Roma/Gypsychildren’s access to school.

In many ways Roma/Gypsies demonstrate better adap-tation to present changes, and to future ones, than othersections of the population: due to their economic flexibil-ity, geographic mobility, in-family education, and commu-nal lifestyle linking the individual into a network ofreciprocal security and giving him or her a solid identity.Their society is young, with as many children as adults.Schooling is gradually on the rise. The children will read –and then they will write, enriching European culture withtheir contributions. These children must have the oppor-tunity to get into school, to stay in school, and to be per-sonally and culturally respected while there.

There are possibilities for action. After six centuries inWestern Europe, Roma/Gypsies are still waiting for acoherent, concerted, respectful policy concerning them tobe drawn up and applied. Scholastic policy is part of thepackage, and must indeed be a driving force. The meansof achieving this are both simple and inexpensive.35

31

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Confirming a cultural space for Roma/Gypsies

ing, particularly because it acknowledges and recognizesthat Roma/Gypsy culture has formed part of the Europeanheritage, and this places a duty on the international author-ities and governments of the member states to provide thisculture and language with the means, not merely to survive,but to develop, giving short shrift to the assimilationist pullsstill very much in evidence in these states.33

The Council of Europe, for its part, is working on a‘European Gypsy Cultural Itinerary’ as a feature of itsEuropean Cultural Itineraries programme. This will provideinvaluable support for Roma/Gypsy culture, from any num-ber of different angles (recognition, validation, visibility etc.).

Education policies: a concretehope

In the course of confirming a cultural space forRoma/Gypsies, scholastic questions as well as those of a

broad educational nature, figure prominently. It is thesewhich have occupied pride of place in the attentions of theEuropean Union, the Council of Europe, and a number ofnational governments over the past decade, and whichcontinue to do so. These are delicate and sensitive issues,but among the most crucial in developing a positive future,and several points should be noted:

First, the gap between in-family education and theschool world as it is most often proposed, must be takeninto account. To date, too little attention has been paid toascertaining the educative values and dynamics operatingwithin the Roma/Gypsy family. As a result, teaching prac-tice is all too often in opposition to in-family education,instead of complementing it. Second, the manner inwhich Roma/Gypsy parents educate their children mustnot be judged according to the criteria employed by sur-rounding societies in educating theirs; to do so is to adoptan ethnocentric, deprecating attitude. Indeed, in manyregards, the education Roma/Gypsy parents give theirchildren corresponds to many of the values which the pro-fessional educators around them wish to convey to thechildren of their own society: autonomy, responsibility,community values etc. Finally, in developing the scopeand duration of schooling, European countries havesometimes allowed it to take over much of the role of in-family education, with a correlative transfer by parents oftheir educative role to the school; gradually, ‘schooling’and ‘education’ have become virtually synonymous. Yet ifthis is the reality for most, it is not so for all, and it is worthpointing out that for some, including Roma/Gypsies,school is merely a part (and sometimes less than that) oftheir children’s education.34 Jean-Pierre Liégeois describesthe current situation:

The situation is very grave. All Roma/Gypsy communi-ties are deeply affected by difficult living conditions.Throughout Europe, rejection in a variety of formsremains the dominant characteristic in relations betweenRoma/Gypsies and their immediate environment: accom-modation difficulties, health hazards, evictions, denial ofaccess to public places etc. Tension can rapidly escalateinto open conflict, particularly during periods of econom-ic difficulty and widespread unemployment; for Roma/

Gypsies, the upshot is harsh treatment in a climate of per-petual insecurity.

In such a context, and given the fact that the school asan institution is often part of what Roma/Gypsies perceiveto be an aggressive environment, education may be seenas yet another imposition, and one whose quality leavesmuch to be desired. Parents may feel that the school’s pro-posed ‘formation’ of their children may de-form, that is,culturally estrange, them. And for many, this analysis iswell-founded. Parental resistance and the persistence ofthese communities are a sign of the strength ofRoma/Gypsy culture and of parents’ capacity to educatetheir children over the generations.

As a consequence, we must not take the effects of theoverall situation (disinterest, absenteeism, outright refusal)as the causes of scholastic failure. As long as relationsbetween Roma/Gypsy communities and surrounding soci-ety remain conflictual, parents’, and children’s, relationswith the school will remain largely determined by the neg-ative profile of these broader relations.

We have thus identified a very strong primary linkbetween the general situation, and that pertaining in theschools. In the member states of the EuropeanCommunity in the late 1980s, only 30-40 per cent ofRoma/Gypsy children attended school with a degree ofregularity; over half received no schooling at all; a verysmall percentage got as far as, or entered into, secondarylevel. Scholastic achievement, particularly as regards theattainment of functional literacy, is not in keeping withthe amount of time spent in school.

Study and reflection indicate the existence of a secondlink, just as strong as the first, between the general situa-tion and that pertaining in the schools. Roma/Gypsies’age-old adaptability is currently being tried to the limits,and their established strategies for adapting to their envi-ronment are becoming inadequate. Therefore, their diffi-culties in surviving as a cultural minority group are on therise. Today virtually any activity, particularly of an eco-nomic nature, demands a basic grasp of reading, writing,and arithmetic. Illiteracy no longer provides protectionfrom the aggression of other cultures as channelledthrough the school and what is taught there, but becomesa serious handicap in an environment in which the writtenword is an omnipresent, unavoidable reality.

Lack of schooling is a serious handicap for economicreasons, but equally serious for social and psychologicalreasons as well: for example, dependence on the social ser-vices, a situation which is incompatible with theRoma/Gypsies’ legitimate pride in handling their own, andtheir children’s, affairs. For Roma/Gypsies, schooling issynonymous with autonomy, and providing them with itwill ensure significant savings for the public purse: the costof adapted school provision is far less than the expense ofproviding social assistance which Roma/Gypsies by andlarge reject.

In other words, the future of Roma/Gypsy communitiesdepends to a large degree on the schooling available to theirchildren. Active adaptation to the environment, in social aswell as economic terms, today requires a grasp of certainbasic elements which enable one to analyze and compre-hend a changing reality. On the cultural plane these sameelements can serve as tools for those wishing to conserve,

30

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Confirming a cultural space for Roma/Gypsies

Page 17: 65 roma gypsies

Romnea/Gypsy women’smanifesto, Seville, May 199438

On the occasion of the ‘First Gypsy Congressof the European Union’, and following aproposal put forward by the women of theEuropean Working Group on SchoolProvision for Gypsy and Traveller Children,

namely Jovhanna Bourguignon (France), Ana Giménez(Spain), Mary Moriarty (Ireland), Carmen Carillo (Spain),and the President of the Gypsy Women’s AssociationSinando Kalí, a parallel meeting of Roma/Gypsy womentook place.

These women unanimously signed the following decla-ration:

‘The Gypsy women coming together on the occa-sion of the “First Gypsy Congress of the EuropeanUnion”, driven by their concern over the conditionof Gypsy women in the European Union, and in par-ticular by the problems associated with the educa-tion and schooling of their children, reached thefollowing conclusions:

Given the gravity of the social, educational andcultural situation of Gypsy women and their chil-dren, we state the need for:

1. The establishment of urgent measures in the polit-ical, social and economic fields with the aim ofeliminating poverty, marginalization and ethnicdiscrimination;

2. The strengthening and developing of measures inthe field of education so that girls and boys willhave the same educational opportunities, a sinequa non for their social adaptation, and for theiracceptance as full citizens of the European Union;

3. The enabling of the Gypsy woman to fully take onand develop the cultural role and traditional val-ues defined by Gypsy culture, including in con-texts which curtail such expression.

We feel:● That one of the main problems that we, as Gypsy

women, face, is low self-esteem. There is anurgent need to strengthen our awareness of ourown value and of our ability to resolve our ownproblems.

● There is no doubt that such self-awareness wouldlift our social, educational, political and culturalawareness. It would also lead to our undertakingsocial and educational action ourselves.

We therefore propose: 1. To hold European-level meetings of Gypsy

women, with the aim of analyzing the social,political and educational problems we face;

2. To encourage the formation of communicationand socio-educational programme coordinationnetworks among Gypsy women;

3. In order to achieve this, we propose setting up acommunication and coordination infrastructureat European level, establishing ourselves as areflection, opinion, and action group in whichGypsy women from the European Union andother countries will participate.

Finally, we launch an appeal for Gypsy solidari-ty, and express our anguish and anxiety for theGypsy people in the former Yugoslavia and in par-ticular for the women and children suffering theatrocities of war. We demand that all Gypsy andhumanitarian organizations redouble their efforts toremedy this appalling situation. Similarly, wedemand a stop to the expulsion of Gypsy men,women and children from one country to another,one region to another, one village to another; thistraumatic situation is hampering the social, cultural,educational and human development of our people.

As a consequence, and in full awareness of theimportance of intercultural education – the founda-tion for Gypsy/non-Gypsy coexistence – we appealto the European Commission, the various Ministriesand international, national and local organizations,for their support and assistance in our pursuit ofthese objectives.’

33

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Agreat deal – indeed, nearly everything –remains to be done in order to achieverespect for the rights of the Roma/Gypsyminority. The proposing of working guide-lines lies outside the remit of this report;

however, if one considers the body of texts put together atthe initiative of various international organizations(European Union, Council of Europe, OSCE, UN), onerealizes that many such proposals have already been for-mulated.36 The time has come to implement them,through a practical approach taking into account thedynamics of the different communities involved, as well asa realistic recognition of the diverse socio-political andsocio-economic parameters involved. A detailed outline ofthe practicalities of such an approach has been undertak-en elsewhere,37 briefly, it is a question of:

● flexibility in diversity,● precision in clarity,● internal dynamics as the baseline,● dialogue,● coordination,● study and reflection,● information and documentation.We shall only stop to focus, in this text on minority

rights, on the development of partnership within a frame-work of intensifying dialogue. Consultation and coopera-tion can lay the foundations for respect for rights, and thedemand for such a partnership has long been expressed byRoma/Gypsy organizations. It is now shared by interna-tional institutions (see the numerous texts issued on thissubject, and their proposals), and concrete advances areoccasionally being achieved at state level. We stress that aconsensus is currently emerging, and with it the potentialfor establishing real partnership. The authors of thisreport have, over a number of years, repeatedly submittedproposals along these lines to the European Commission,Council of Europe, and OSCE; conditions are now ripe –provided existing will is transformed into action – forestablishing concrete working methods characterized by arelationship of true partnership. The different ‘actors’have taken their place on the political stage, the instru-ments of knowledge and the working tools have beendeveloped, at the service of all, and each of the partners isdirectly concerned with promoting the rights of theRoma/Gypsy communities both at national and interna-tional levels.

32

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Conclusion Annexe

Page 18: 65 roma gypsies

1 For further details on this point see Kenrick, D.,Gypsies: From India to the Mediterranean, GypsyResearch Centre-CRDP Midi-Pyrénées, InterfaceCollection, Toulouse 1994.

2 For more in-depth treatment of the topics covered inthis chapter, see Liégeois, J-P., Roma, Gypsies,Travellers, Council of Europe Publications, Strasbourg,1994.

3 Source: Gypsy Research Centre, René DescartesUniversity, Paris, 1994; this table gives ‘stable’ numbersmore indicative of the long-term picture than of recentpopulation movements; the inclusion of new arrivalswould entail a significant rise in the figures given for sev-eral Western European states such as Sweden, Italy,Germany, Austria, etc.

4 This typology and the examples illustrating it have beendeveloped by Jean-Pierre Liégeois in a number of works,for example ‘Le discours de l’ordre: pouvoirs publics etminorités culturelles’, in Esprit, Paris, 1980 andTsiganes, Maspero, Paris, 1983. A synopsis is presentedin Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, Op. Cit.

5 The Interface Collection has a number of works on thistragic period of Roma/Gypsy history (see Bibliography).

6 See Gómez Alfaro, A., The Great Gypsy Round-up,Gypsy Research Centre-CRDP Midi-Pyrénées,Interface Collection, Toulouse 1994.

7 On this point, see Liégeois, J-P. (ed), Idéologie etPratique du Travail Social de Prévention, Privat,Toulouse, 1977.

8 Extracts from the report on the hearing held in May1991 by the European Commission, GeneralDirectorate for Employment, Industrial Relations andSocial Affairs, Directorate for Social Security, SocialProtection, and Living Conditions.

9 For more detailed analysis see Roma, Gypsies,Travellers, Op. Cit.

10 Project on Ethnic Relations, Report Concerning Anti-Romani Violence in Eastern Europe: The Snagov (Romania)Conference and Related Efforts, Princeton, 1994.

11 Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits del’Homme, May 1994 – Robert Gelli, Magistrat et JeanDelay, Avocat Honoraire au Barreau de Lyon, Rapportde Mission, 28 Février-5 Mars 1994, Suites JudiciairesDonnées aux Meurtres, Incendies, et Destructions deMaisons Appartenant des Rom (Tsiganes), Romani(‘Judicial Response to Murder, Arson, and theDestruction of Homes Belonging to Roma, [Gypsies],Romania’).

12 Human Rights Watch, Lynch Law: Violence againstRoma in Romania, vol. 6, no. 17, November 1994. Seealso Helsinki Watch, Destroying Ethnic Identity: Thepersecution of Gypsies in Romania, New York, HumanRights Watch, 1991.

13 Published in La Lettre Hebdomadaire de la FIDH(FIDH Weekly Letter), Special Edition no. 189, May1994.

14 Romanies in the CSCE Region, CSCE HumanDimension Seminar – Warsaw, September 1994.

15 For a more detailed analysis see Roma, Gypsies,Travellers, Op. Cit.

16 Ibid. In addition, the OECD compiled a report in 1993:Reyniers, A., Evaluation of Gypsy Populations and of

their Movements in Central and Eastern Europe and insome OECD Countries, focusing on the issues of migra-tion, application for asylum, demography and employ-ment.

17 Roma (Gypsies) in the CSCE Region, Report of the HighCommissioner on National Minorities, The Conferenceon Security and Cooperation in Europe, Meeting of theCommittee of Senior Officials, 21-23 September 1993,p. 1.

18 Braham, M., The Untouchables, A Survey of the RomaPeople of Central and Eastern Europe, A report to theOffice of the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees, 1993, p. 114.

19 The full text of this resolution proposal is reproduced inOn Gypsies: Texts issued by international institutions,documents compiled by Marielle Danbakli, GypsyResearch Centre – CRDP, Interface Collection, 1994.

20 Ibid.21 See also Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, Op. Cit.22 Certain texts issued by international institutions have

expressed a demand that such a study be undertaken;see for example Resolution 1203 (1993) of theParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,which, under ‘General measures’, recommends that‘independent research should be initiated into thenational legislation and regulations concerning Gypsies,and their application in practice, and regular reports onthis research presented to the Assembly’ (Article xix).

23 On this point, in connection with school provision, seefor example the report Schooling for Gypsies’ andTravellers’ Children: Evaluating innovation, Council forCultural Cooperation, Council of Europe, DocumentDECS/EGT(87)36, Strasbourg, 1987.

24 See bibliography for reference details.25 See bibliography.26 The proceedings of this seminar were published:

Gypsies in the Locality, Strasbourg, Council of EuropePress, ‘Studies and Texts’ Series, 1994.

27 For further details see the quarterly informationnewsletter Interface, published by the Gypsy ResearchCentre, René Descartes University, Paris.

28 See Liégeois, J-P., School Provision for Gypsy andTraveller Children, Report on the implementation ofmeasures provided for in the Resolution of the Counciland of the Ministers of Education, 22 May 1989,European Commission [in press].

29 For details and further development of the pointstouched upon in this section, see ‘Gypsy Organizations’ inRoma, Gypsies, Travellers, Op. Cit., and Liégeois, J-P.,Mutation Tsigane, Editions Complexe, Bruxelles/PressesUniversitaires de France, Paris, 1976.

30 Liégeois, J-P., Mutation Tsigane, Op. Cit.31 See Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, Op. Cit.32 Ibid33 We remind the reader that a detailed report on the

implementation of the resolution subsequently adoptedby the Ministers of Education is in existence: seeLiégeois, J-P., School Provision for Gypsy and TravellerChildren, ibid.

34 In connection with compiling School Provision forGypsy and Traveller Children, a specially commissionedreport on Gypsy in-family education was written:

35

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Recognition of identity

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities makesit clear that states have a duty to protect the existence,

and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguis-tic identity, of minorities within their respective territoriesand shall encourage conditions for the promotion of thatidentity.

Non-discrimination

Roma/Gypsies are entitled to equal treatment beforethe law and have the right to expect that those guilty

of of crimes directed against them be subject to investiga-tion in accordance with the law. They should enjoy fulland equal rights both as citizens of a given state and as arecognized minority group.

Equality of treatment

Roma/Gypsies should receive the same treatment asother refugees when seeking asylum. The basic princi-

ples of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessnessshould be applied to Roma/Gypsies when they do not havethe nationality of the state in which they reside.

Participation

Roma/Gypsy-based NGOs should receive financial andinstitutional support. Their work should be promoted

and recognized as a way to enhance participation of theRoma/Gypsy in devising and implementing policies whichaffect them. Informed consent of the population shouldbe sought before entering into implementation phases ofprojects.

Education

Multicultural approaches to Roma/Gypsy educationand to the education of young people as a whole

should be fostered and encouraged throughout Europe asa vital component in combating prejudice and negativestereotypes. Better vocational training and economicopportunities, including the encouragement of traditionaloccupations are also required.

Need for comprehensiveapproaches at the internationallevel

An integrated approach to the various measures adopt-ed by a variety of European institutions should now be

adopted. MRG welcomes the creation of a Roma/Gypsycontact point under the auspices of the OSCE and calls forcooperation of all institutions and NGOs in the sharing ofinformation and expertise.

Right to self-designation

All minority communities have the right to choose theirown identity. No country has the right to change the

appellation of a particular community without their consent.

34

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

RecommendationsN O T E S

Page 19: 65 roma gypsies

Editorial Presencia Gitana Valderrodrigo, 76 y 7828039 – Madrid, Spain

Rromani Baxt-UE 22, rue du Port63000 – Clermont-Ferrand, France

University of Hertfordshire PressCollege Lane, HatfieldHertfordshire AL 10 9AB, UK

Commission of the European Communities andCouncil of Europe publications on the subjectof school provision for Roma/Gypsy children

1 – Liégeois, J-P., School Provision for Gypsy and TravellerChildren, synthesis report of studies undertaken in themember states of the European Community,Commission of the European Communities, Office forOfficial Publications of the European Communities,Documents Series, first edition 1986 (currently availablein English, French, German, Italian and Spanish).*

2 – School Provision for Gypsy and Traveller Children,Orientation Document for Reflection and for Action,Commission of the European Communities, DocumentV/500/88, published and widely distributed by variousbodies throughout Europe (currently available inCastilian, English, French, German, Italian, Portugueseand Valencian).

3 – Liégois, J-P., Gypsies and Travellers, Socio-culturalData, Socio-political Data, Council of Europe, for theEnglish edition.** French original, Tsiganes etVoyageurs, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1985;**Italian edition, Zingari e Viaggianti, Lacio Drom, Roma;Portuguese edition, Ciganos e Itinerantes, Santa Casa daMisericórdia de Lisboa, Largo Trindade Coelho – P -1200 Lisboa; Spanish edition, Gitanos y Itinerantes,Presencia Gitana, Madrid. Totally revised new edition,Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, see ‘General Works’, above.

4 – Training of Teachers of Gypsy Children, report of thetwentieth Council of Europe seminar, Donaueschingen,20-25 June 1983, Council for Cultural Cooperation,Council of Europe, DECS/EGT(83)63 (English,French and German editions, Council of Europe,Strasbourg;*** Italian version, Lacio Drom, Roma;Spanish version, Presencia Gitana, Madrid).

5 – Schooling for Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Children:Evaluating Innovation, report of the thirty-fifth Councilof Europe seminar, Donaueschingen, 18-23 May 1987,Council for Cultural Cooperation, Council of Europe,DECS/EGT(87)36 (English, French and German edi-tions, Council of Europe, Strasbourg;*** Italian version,Lacio Drom, Roma; Spanish version, Presencia Gitana,Madrid).

6 – Gypsy Children in School: Training for Teachers andother Personnel, report from a summer university orga-nized by the Gypsy Research Centre and held inMontauban, France, 4-8 July 1988. English and Frenchversions, Council for Cultural Cooperation, Council of Europe, DECS/EGT(88)42.*** Italian edition,Associazione Italiana Zingari Oggi. Complementary

report, Les Enfants Tsiganes á l’Ecole: la formation despersonnels de l’education nationale, summer university,Montauban, July 1988. Centre de recherches tsiganes –Centre départemental de Documentation pédagogiquedu Tarn-et-Garonne (65, avenue de Beausoleil – 82013 –Montauban Cedex, France).

7 – Towards Intercultural Education: Training for teachersof Gypsy pupils, report of the seminar held in Benidorm,Spain, 9-13 June 1989. English and French versions,Council for Cultural Cooperation, Council of Europe,DECS/EGT(89)31.*** Castilian and Valencian versions,Consellería de Cultura, Educació i Ciència de Valence,Direcció General de Centres i Promoció Educativa.Italian version, Centro do Iniziativa Democratica degliInsegnanti, published by Cooperativa Libraria EditriceUniversità di Padova – Via G. Prati, 19 – I – 35122Padova.

8 – The Education of Gypsy and Traveller Children: Action-research and coordination, proceedings of a conferenceorganized by the Gypsy Research Centre for theCommission of the European Communities and theFrench Ministry for Education, Carcassonne, France, 5-12 July 1989. Original French version available fromCentre départemental de Documentation Pédagogiquede l’Aude, 56 avenue Henri Goût, BP 583, 11009Carcassonne, Cedex, France. English edition availablefrom the University of Hertfordshire Press; Spanish edi-tion available from Presencia Gitana.

9 – School Provision for Gypsy and Traveller Children:Distance learning and pedagogical follow-up, report of aseminar held in Aix-en-Provence, France, 10-13December 1990. English and French versions, Councilfor Cultural Cooperation, Council of Europe,DECS/EGT(90)47.***

10 –Interface, free quarterly newsletter published by theGypsy Research Centre with the support of theEuropean Commission in connection with the imple-mentation of the Resolution of the Council and theMinisters of Education, 22 May 1989, on school provi-sion for Roma/Gypsy children, with Council of Europesupport for distribution in Central and Eastern Europe,and the participation of the KultusministeriumNordrhein-Westfalen for the German-language edition.Available in English, French, German and Spanish fromthe Gypsy Research Centre, Université René Descartes,106 quai de Clichy, 92110, Clichy, France.

* Available throughout Europe via sales agents for officialpublications of the European Communities, or directfrom the Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities, 2 rue Mercier, 2985, Luxembourg.

** Available throughout Europe via sales agents for Councilof Europe publications, or direct from PublicationsSection, Council of Europe, 67075, Strasbourg Cedex,France.

*** Available from School and Out-of-School EducationSection, Council of Europe BP 431 – R6, 67075Strasbourg Cedex, France.

– Associazione Italiana Zingari Oggi, Corso MonteGrappa, 116, 10145, Torino, Italy.

– Lacio Drom, Via dei Barbieri, 22, 00186 – Roma, Italy.– Presencia Gitana, Valderrodrigo, 76 y 78, Bajos A, 28039

– Madrid, Spain.

37

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

Bibliography

Piasere, L., Connaissance Tsigane et Alphabétisation(‘Gypsy Knowledge and Literacy’).

35 Extract from Liégeois, J-P., School Provision for Gypsyand Traveller Children, Ibid.

36 See On Gypsies: Texts issued by international institu-tions, Op. Cit.

37 In Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, Op. Cit.38 In Romani language there is a distinct word for women,

i.e. Romni/Romnea.

General

Acton, T.A., Gypsy Politics and Social Change, Routledgeand Kegan Paul, 1974.

Fraser, A., The Gypsies, Oxford, Blackwell, 1992.Gypsies in the Locality, Strasbourg, Council of Europe

Press, Studies and Texts Series, 1994.Liégeois, J-P., Mutation Tsigane, Editions Complexe,

Brussels/Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1976.Liégeois, J-P., Idéologie et Pratique du Travail Social de

Prévention, Privat, Toulouse, 1976.Liégeois, J-P., Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, Strasbourg,

Council of Europe Press, 1994.

The Interface Collection:

A European collection of reference works developed withthe support of the European Commission by the GypsyResearch Centre of René Descartes University, Paris, incollaboration with expert groups (of historians, linguists,anthropologists, education specialists etc.) and a network ofpublishers in several countries. Some titles receive Councilof Europe support for distribution in Central and EasternEurope. The following titles are currently (August 1995)available:1. Kurtiàde, M., Sirpustik Amare Chibaqiri, CRDP de Midi-

Pyrénées, 1993. Pupil’s book and teacher’s manual (avail-able in Albanian, English, French, Hungarian, Polish,Romanian, Slovak and Spanish).

2. Gómez Alfaro, A., The Great Gypsy Round-Up, Spanishversion, Editorial Presencia Gitana, 1993; English ver-sion, Editorial Presencia Gitana, 1993; French version,CRDP de Midi-Pyrénées, 1994.

3. Kenrick, D., Gypsies: From India to the Mediterranean:English version, CRDP de Midi-Pyrénées, 1993; Frenchversion, CRDP, 1994; Spanish version, EditorialPresencia Gitana, 1995.

4. Lopes da Costa, E.M., Os Ciganos: Fontes bibliográficasem Portugal, Editorial Presencia Gitana, 1995.

5. Danbakli, M., On Gypsies: Texts issued by InternationalInstitutions, English and French versions, CRDP deMidi-Pyrénées, 1994.

6. Leblon, B., Gypsies and Flamenco, French version, CRDPde Midi-Pyrénées, 1994; English version, University ofHertfordshire Press, 1995; Spanish version, EditorialPresencia Gitana, 1995.

7. Mayall, D., English Gypsies and State Policies, EnglishVersion, University of Hertfordshire Press, 1995.

The Rukun Series:

O Rukun Zal and-i Skòla, Research and Action Group onRomani Linguistics, Romani Baxt-UE, 1994.

¿ Kaj si o Rukun Amaro? Research and Action Group onRomani Linguistics, Romani Baxt-UE, 1994.

Publishers’ addresses :

CRDP: Centre Régional de Documentation Pédagogique Midi-Pyrénées3 rue Roquelaine31069 – Toulouse Cedex, France

36

ROMA /GYPSIES: A EUROPEAN MINORITY

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Page 20: 65 roma gypsies

About Minority Rights GroupReportsMinority Rights Group began publishing in 1970. Over twodecades and ninety titles later, MRG’s series of reports arewidely recognized internationally as authoritative, accurate andobjective documents on the rights of minorities worldwide.

Over the years, subscribers to the series have received awealth of unique material on ethnic, religious, linguistic andsocial minorities. The reports are seen as an important refer-ence by researchers, students, and campaigners and providereaders all over the world with valuable background data onmany current affairs issues.

Six reports are published every year. Each title, expertlyresearched and written, is approximately 32 pages and 20,000words long and covers a specific minority issue.

Recent titles in our report series include:

Africa EuropeSomalia: Minorities in Central

A Nation in Turmoil & Eastern EuropeNative Peoples of the

Russian Far North

Americas Middle EastMaya of Guatemala Beduin of the NegevThe Inuit of Canada The Kurds

Asia GeneralAfghanistan: A Nation Female Genital

of Minorities Mutilation: ProposalsThe Adivasis of Bangladesh for ChangeChinese of South-East Asia

If you have found this report informative and stimulating, andwould like to learn more about minority issues, please do sub-scribe to our report series. It is only with the help of our sup-porters that we are able to pursue our aims and objectives –to secure justice for disadvantaged groups around the world.

We currently offer a reduced annual rate for individual sub-scribers – please ring our Subscription Desk on +44 (0)171 9789498 for details. Payment can be easily made by MasterCard orVisa over the telephone or by post.

All enquiries to: Sales DepartmentMinority Rights Group379 Brixton RoadLondon SW9 7DEUK

Customers in North America wishing to purchase copies ofour reports should contact:

Cultural Survival46 Brattle StreetCambridgeMA 02138USA

38

THEMATICChildren: Rights and ResponsibilitiesConstitutional Law and MinoritiesEducation Rights and MinoritiesInternational Action against GenocideThe International Protection of MinoritiesThe Jews of Africa and AsiaLand Rights and MinoritiesLanguage, Literacy and MinoritiesMinorities and Human Rights LawNew Approaches to Minority ProtectionRace and Law in Britain and the USThe Refugee Dilemma: International Recognition and

AcceptanceThe Social Psychology of MinoritiesTeaching about Prejudice

AFRICABurundi: Breaking the Cycle of ViolenceChadEritrea and TigrayThe FalashasIndian South AfricansInequalities in ZimbabweJehovah’s Witnesses in AfricaThe NamibiansThe New Position of East Africa’s AsiansThe Sahel: The Peoples’ Right to DevelopmentThe San of the KalahariSomalia: A Nation in TurmoilSudan: Conflict and minoritiesUgandaThe Western Saharans

THE AMERICASAmerindians of South AmericaCanada’s IndiansThe East Indians of Trinidad and GuyanaFrench Canada in CrisisHaitian Refugees in the USInuit (Eskimos) of CanadaThe Maya of GuatemalaThe Miskito Indians of NicaraguaMexican Americans in the USThe Original Americans: US IndiansPuerto Ricans in the US

ASIAThe Adivasis of BangladeshAfghanistan: A Nation of MinoritiesThe Baluchis and PathansThe Biharis of BangladeshThe Chinese of South-East AsiaJapan’s Minorities – Burakumin, Koreans, Ainu, Okinawans

The Lumad and Moro of MindanaoMinorities in CambodiaMinorities of Central VietnamThe SikhsThe Tamils of Sri LankaTajikistan: A Forgotten Civil WarThe Tibetans

EUROPEThe Basques and CatalansThe Crimean Tatars and Volga GermansCyprusMinorities and Autonomy in Western EuropeMinorities in the BalkansMinorities in Central and Eastern EuropeNative Peoples of the Russian Far NorthThe North CaucasusNorthern Ireland: Managing DifferenceThe RastafariansRefugees in EuropeRoma/Gypsies: A European MinorityRomania’s Ethnic HungariansThe Saami of LaplandThe Southern BalkansThe Two Irelands

THE MIDDLE EASTThe ArmeniansThe Baha’is of IranThe Beduin of the NegevIsrael’s Oriental Immigrants and DruzesThe KurdsLebanonMigrant Workers in the GulfThe Palestinians

SOUTHERN OCEANSAboriginal AustraliansDiego Garcia: a Contrast to the FalklandsEast Timor and West IrianFijiThe Kanaks of New CaledoniaThe Maori of Aotearoa – New ZealandMicronesia: the Problem of PalauThe Pacific: Nuclear Testing and Minorities

WOMENArab WomenFemale Genital Mutilation: Proposals for ChangeLatin American WomenWomen in AsiaWomen in Sub-Saharan Africa

MRG Reports

Page 21: 65 roma gypsies

ISBN 1 897693 16 8

An indispensable resource, which will prove of great valueto academics, lawyers, journalists, development agencies,governments, minorities and all those interested in minority rights.

Roma /Gypsies:A European Minority

The Roma/Gypsy community has been persecuted in Europethroughout history, whether through banishment, Roma/Gypsy

hunts or the Roma/Gypsy Holocaust of the twentieth century.

Roma/Gypsies: A European Minority charts the course of theseevents on the Roma/Gypsy consciousness and examines current-daypolicies of exclusion, containment and assimilation whilst also consid-ering the position of Roma/Gypsy communities in Eastern andCentral Europe in the wake of the fall of communism.

The authors Jean-Pierre Liégeois and Nicolae Gheorghe,renowned experts on this subject, discuss European and internation-al institutions’ responses to the growing sense of shared identity thatexists among Roma/Gypsy people, highlighting the achievements thathave been made to date and outlining the many issues still to beresolved.

To this end, Roma/Gypsies: A European Minority concludes witha set of recommendations concerning identity; non-discrimination;equality; asylum; participation; education and self-designation, argu-ing that a European-wide integrated approach to these issues is longoverdue.

Registered Charity #282305. An International educational agency with consultative status with the United Nations (ECOSOC). A company limited by guarantee in the UK #1544957.

Minority Rights Group

Minority Rights Group, an interna-tional human rights organizationand registered educational charity,investigates the plights of minority(and majority) groups suffering discrimination and prejudice – andworks to educate and alert publicopinion.

We produce readable and accuratereports on the problems ofoppressed groups around the world.We publish six new and revisedreports a year. To date we have pro-duced over 90 reports, a WorldDirectory of Minorities, severalbooks and education packs.

MRG works through the UN andelsewhere to increase the aware-ness of human rights issues and –with your help – is supportingminorities in the internationalarena.

For full details contact:Minority Rights Group379 Brixton RoadLondon SW9 7DEUK

Telephone: +44 (0) 171-978 9498Fax: +44 (0) 171-738 6265

MRG


Recommended