1. INTRODUCTION

If I said Travellers are an ethnic minority what would I mean?

What does it mean to recognise ethnicity?
In Canada there is an exemption for Sikhs from wearing a helmet when riding a motorbike or bicycle as they cannot wear one without removing their turban which is essential to their culture and identity.

Could something similar happen in Ireland in relation to the recognition of Traveller culture? For example, an exemption from the Control of Horses Act 1996?


How will Traveller ethnicity be recognised?

It may be recognised by the government or by law. There are four main sources of Irish law.

1. Constitution
2. Case Law
3. Statute/Acts
4. International law

 
Has Traveller ethnicity already been recognised?

Yes
Equal Status Act 2000
Incitement to Hatred Act 1989
Housing (Travellers Accommodation) Act 1998

No
Irish government said to the UN CERD Committee in 2004:

“The Government’s view is that Travellers do not constitute a distinct group from the population as a whole in terms of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. However, the Government of Ireland accepts the right of Travellers to their cultural identity”

Therefore while people of a different nationality or race are protected under CERD Travellers are not as they are not defined as an ethnic minority group.


We believe recognition will bring the following changes in Ireland:

• Recognition under international and European agreements
• Government policy tailored to Traveller culture
• Travellers culture recognised and respected and protected
• Laws will exempt Travellers where they threaten Traveller way of life

2. RECOGNITION OF TRAVELLERS AS AN ETHNIC MINORITY


1. History of definition of Travellers

a. The Commission on Itinerancy 1963 ‘itinerant’: “a person who had no fixed place of abode and habitually wandered from place to place, but excluding travelling show-people and travelling entertainers ...” (1963:12).

b. Travelling People Review Body 1981 “They are an identifiable group of people, identified both by themselves and by other members of the community (referred to for convenience as the ‘settled community’) as people with their own distinctive life style, traditionally of a nomadic nature but not now habitual wanderers.”

c. The Task Force on the Travelling People 1993 “the visible markers of Traveller culture include Traveller nomadism, the importance of the extended family, the Traveller language and the organisation of the Traveller economy and it discussed in some detail the significance of Traveller nomadism and the Traveller language”


2. Accommodation (cases and statutes of importance in date order)

a. John O’Reilly and Ors v Limerick Co Co HC 1989 – “The Housing Act 1966 does not impose a duty upon the housing authority to provide serviced halting sites”.

b. Housing Act 1988
Definition: “This section applies to persons belonging to the class of persons who traditionally pursue or have pursued a nomadic way of life”.
-    Section 13 clarified the powers of housing authorities to provide serviced sites.

c. Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998
This is the first piece of specific legislation to address Traveller accommodation.

d. The University of Limerick -v- Ryan, O’Reilly, John McCarthy, McCarthy, Limerick Co Co HC 1991 - “Section 13 must be taken to intend that the obligation of the Council to provide for housing needs extends …to the provision not of dwellings but of caravan sites.”

3. Equality and Non-discrimination (sources of law)

a. Constitution
Equality
Art 40.1 states: “All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law”.
Framing the debate in terms of ethnicity increases the likelihood of coming under.

b. Statutes
Prohibition to Incitement to Hatred Act 1989
Unfair Dismissals Amendment Act 1993
Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended by the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003)Definition: “….the community of people who are commonly called Travellers and who are identified (both by themselves and others) as people with a shared history, culture and traditions including, historically, a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland”



3. FAILURE TO RECOGNISE TRAVELLERS AS AN ETHNIC MINORITY


1. History:  Criminalization of Traveller culture

Different statutes of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries outlawed  “vagrant persons”, “idle persons”, tinkers and peddlars”.

Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 criminalised any person:
“(a) pretending or professing to tell fortunes, or using any subtle craft, means, or device, by palmistry or otherwise, to deceive and impose on any of His Majesty's subjects; or (b) wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon, not having any visible means of subsistence, and not giving a good account of himself.” 2  [ Found unconstitutional in King v Attorney General [1981] I.R. 233. ]

Gypsies Bill Northern Ireland 1950 which criminalised camping without consent of landowner and seizure of trespassing animals and allow for summary arrest. Some laws that seem neutral have been targeted at Travellers specifically or disproportionately used against Travellers. This is indirect discrimination. Eg: Criminal Trespass law 2002 – it is believed this used solely against Travellers.

2. Accommodation – Summary Evictions

Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1948, s.31 of which provides for the prohibition and exclusion of “Temporary Dwellings” from Local Authority areas.
Section 69 of the Roads Act 1993 deals with the erection and maintenance of temporary dwellings, and gives the power of seizure to Gardaí and authorised persons to remove caravans from certain types of roads.

Section 24 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003 amending Public Order Act gives a power of arrest and seizure to Gardaí, where a caravan is parked on public or private property without consent. Section 10 24 hour notice to remove if caravan is within five miles of an official halting site,  unfit for human habitation, or within a one mile radius of any Traveller accommodation and there is no obligation to provide Travellers with alternative accommodation.The continued eviction of Traveller families and individuals without the protection of some form of judicial sanction and court proceedings is contrary to international human rights standards. 

3. Horses – Lack of cultural exemption/housing plans having provision for horses

The Control of Horses Act 1996 allows local authorities or its agents to impound any horse found on land not belonging to the horse’s owner. Travellers have great difficulty complying with this Act as oftentimes they do not own the land on which they keep their horses. Over-zealous agents of the council have added to the problem.



4. EXAMPLES FROM OTHER COURTS

UK, NI, Australia, New Zealand, European Court of Human Rights

England and Wales

Race Relations Act in 1976 outlawed discrimination on racial grounds, followed closely the CERD Convention’s definition of racial discrimination.  Section 3(1) of the Act stated that discrimination on “racial grounds” meant “any of the following grounds, namely colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins”. Travellers were not expressly included like in Ireland.

Mandla v. Dowell Lee [1983] House of Lords

a Sikh boy who was refused entry to a school near Birmingham because he wished to wear a turban in accordance with Sikh tradition.  
“For a group to constitute an ethnic group, it must, in my opinion, regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics.  Some of these characteristics are essential; others are not essential but one or more of them will commonly be found and will help to distinguish the group from the surrounding community. 

The conditions which appear to me to be essential are these:

1. a long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive;
2. a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance.  In addition to these two essential characteristics, the following characteristics are in my opinion, relevant:
3. either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors;
4. a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group;
5. a common literature peculiar to the group;
6. a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it;
7. being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community ...”

Using these criteria, he held that Sikhs “are a group defined by a reference to ethnic origins for the purpose of the Act of 1976, although they are not biologically distinguishable from the other peoples living in the Punjab”.

Commission for Racial Equality v. Dutton [1989] 2WLR 17

London publican displayed a sign saying “No travellers” in his window, the Court of Appeal had to determine whether English gypsies constituted a “racial group” under the Act.  

Court said ‘ethnic’ is not used in that Act in a strictly biological or racial sense”.  Applying the Mandla v. Dowell Lee criteria, he held that there was sufficient evidence to establish that “gypsies are an identifiable group of persons defined by reference to ethnic origins within the meaning of the Act”.


Wrexham Borough Council v. Berry [2003] UKHL 26, at paragraph 41.
Planning Act cases involving illegally encamped gypsies, said that one of the matters a court should take into account when considering an application for an injunction, was “the retention of his [the gypsy Respondent’s] ethnic identity”

O’Leary & Others v. Allied Domecq & Others, unreported 29 August 2000
Central London County Court was dealing with a claim by a number of Irish Travellers that they had been refused service in five public houses in northwest London.  It was not contended that the reason why the Plaintiffs had been discriminated against was because they were Irish since one of the offending pubs catered for an almost exclusively Irish clientele.

Judge Goldstein and two assessors sat for six days listening to expert evidence and then applied the Mandla v. Dowell Lee criteria. They held that the Travellers met the two essential conditions laid down in that case, (1) possessing a long shared history which distinguished them from other groups (the court held that a history that could be traced back to at least the middle of the 19th century was sufficient to fulfil the Mandla test), and (2) having a distinct cultural tradition of their own.

On the question of a distinct cultural tradition, Judge Goldstein said the court had not had much difficulty.  They found that Travellers were plainly nomadic, even if some of them were now “settled”.  They preferred to be self-employed and had certain traditional occupations.  Some of them still practised match-making and they tended to marry within their own community.  They had certain taboos about pollution and, though overwhelmingly Catholic, they had a particular attachment to pilgrimages and rituals.

As for the non-essential criteria set out in the Mandla judgment, the court held that Irish Travellers did share “a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors”.  They had a common language, namely Cant, Gammon or Shelta, whether or not it was widely used any more.  While they did not have a common written literature, they did have a common oral tradition.  And Judge Goldstein said: “[O]ne of the few things that are actually conceded, they are undoubtedly a group which suffers disadvantage, discrimination and prejudice”.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform mentioned recently (at a session of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Human Rights on 11 March 2004) that the UK courts' and government's recognition extends only to Irish Travellers, suggesting that the key factor might be their Irish origin.  In fact, the Court in the Allied Domecq case went some way to meet that point by noting that one of the pubs which had refused entry to the Travellers in that case was itself patronised by "settled" Irish people so that the discrimination complained about was not based on the complainants’ Irishness.  In fact, the Court noted that if it had been based on the complainants' Irish origins, it would have been a straightforward issue of discrimination on grounds of nationality or race.


Northern Ireland

The courts in Northern Ireland would probably have had to follow the lead of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales and the House of Lords in this area, but the matter has been put beyond dispute by specific legislation.  Article 5(2)(a) of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 says:  

“In this Order, ‘racial grounds’ ... includes the grounds of belonging to the Irish Traveller community, that is to say the community of people commonly so called who are identified (both by themselves and by others) as people with a shared history, culture and traditions including, historically, a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland...”

Article 5(3) says: “In this Order ‘racial group’ ... includes the Irish Traveller community”.

And Section 75(5) of the Northern Ireland Act, 1998 says:  “In this section ... ‘racial group’ has the same meaning as in the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997”.

In the case of Northern Ireland it is clearly not their Irishness that leads to Travellers being treated as a distinctive ‘ethnic’ group; it is the fact of their being Travellers.

The shortcomings are:
1.    it does not define direct discrimination much like the 1976 Act
2.    It does not apply to all government departments only district Councils (not health, housing, etc.)

New Zealand

King-Ansell v. Police [1979] the court had to decide if Jews were an ethnic group:

“The real test is whether the individuals or the group regard themselves and are regarded by others in the community as having a particular historical identity in terms of their colour or their racial, national or ethnic origins.  That must be based on a belief shared by members of the group.

“[A] group is identifiable in terms of its ethnic origins if it is a segment of the population distinguished from others by a sufficient combination of shared customs, beliefs, traditions and characteristics derived from a common or presumed common past, even if not drawn from what in biological terms is a common racial stock”

European Court of Human Rights

Chapman v. the United Kingdom 2001
Refusal to grant gypsy planning permission to live in a caravan on her own land.  The Court accepted that gypsies constituted a distinct ethnic group in Britain and said: “[T]he Applicant’s occupation of her caravan is an integral part of her ethnic identity as a gypsy, reflecting the long tradition of that minority of following a travelling lifestyle”.  On the facts of the particular case, however, the Court found no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Australia

Relied on the judgments in the King-Ansell case in New Zealand and in Mandla v. Dowell Lee when deciding in the case of Jones v. Scully [2002] that Jews constituted a racial group for the purposes of the Australian Racial Discrimination Act, 1975.

Mabo v Queensland 1992
Until the 1992 High Court decision in what has come to be called the Mabo case it had been held legally that despite an estimated population of 300,000 aboriginal people, Australia was terra nullius or unoccupied land in 1788, and, as such, the indigenous people had no entitlement to their land. The dominant theme in Australian history then shifted from ignoring and justifying to including and challenging, and the histories of the violent destruction of Aboriginal societies and of Aboriginal resistance were finally being written. It was also at this time that Eddie Mabo and four other Torres Strait Islanders began their action for a declaration of native title to their traditional lands. The Meriam people were deemed entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the island of Mer.
The following year, the Native Title Act (1993) , which was introduced to provide for the recognition and protection of native title "recognises native title rights and sets down some basic principles in relation to native title in Australia; provides for the validation of past acts which may be invalid because of the existence of native title; provides for a future regime in which native title rights are protected and conditions imposed on acts affecting native title land and waters; provides a process by which native title rights can be established and compensation determined, and by which determinations can be made as to whether future grants can be made or acts done over native title land and waters". (Information obtained from the Attorney General's Office, 1993)

By passing this Statute, Australia's Parliament confirmed that it was not only the court but also the State itself that was protecting and promoting native title. The Australian Prime Minister said: "The starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians. It begins, I think, with that act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We practised discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice."
Recognised in history, courts, by government.


Could Mabo apply in Ireland?

The usual first step in such a process would be to set up a Commission on Traveller Title or else task a pre-existing-body, like the Law Reform Commission, to prepare a report. Alternatively, the process could be fast tracked by the publication of a bill, and to this end Frank Murphy solicitor prepared the draft heads of such a bill, modelled to an extent on the Australian Native Title Act 1993.

In the 40 year period since the first Government-commissioned Report in 1963 there has been a failure of Government policy to respond to the nomadic way of life, particularly in the area of accommodation provision. Furthermore, other aspects of social exclusion result from the current criminalisation of the nomadic way of life such as the anti-trespass legislation coupled with the failure to give access to land use based on the nomadic way of life.

In looking at the Australian experience, we see that after 200 years, in the Mabo case their High Court found a way to remedy the injustice caused by the failure to provide access to land use by recognising native title for the Aborigines and the State also sought to use this as a platform for reconciliation.

From examination of historical records, in particular the Folklore Survey in 1952, it appears that a similar type of case could be made for Travellers that would allow the recognition of Traveller title. In view of the importance that property has in our society, with its constitutional protection, property rights in general and the fact that property is the usual basis for the provision of a home, it is necessary that such title be recognised.

This might be done either by litigation or legislation and it could be fostered and promoted either in the current legal system, or if considered appropriate, with a separate Traveller legal system.


5. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON GOVERNMENT POLICY


In 2005, the Government launched the National Action Plan Against Racism (2005-2008) (NPAR), a four year programme designed to provide strategic direction towards developing a more intercultural inclusive society in Ireland. This began the process whereby local authorities developed anti-racism and diversity plans. NPAR included Travellers in its remit. The Office of the Minister for Integration took over in 2008 and works with the Garda Síochána, Local Authorities, Sporting Bodies, Government Departments to further progress the integration and diversity of cultural and ethnic minorities. However, as the government does not recognise Irish Travellers as an ethnic minority they are not within the remit of this new office. Recognition of ethnicity would potentially change this.


The National Development Plan 2007-2013 was launched in 2007, with an indication that some €36m would be invested across government departments over the lifetime of the Plan to support the integration of immigrants in Ireland. The National Development Plan and also the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2008-2010 recognise integration as “one of the most important challenges being faced by Irish society”. But Travellers’ integration appears nowhere within these Plans. Recognition of ethnicity could potentially change this.

National strategies in the following areas do not yet extend to Travellers: -
- Action Strategy to Support Integrated Workplaces
- HSE National Intercultural Health Strategy
- Intercultural Education Strategy
 - Strategy for Cultural Diversity and the Arts.



6. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON IRISH DOMESTIC LAW


1.    Affirmative Action

“Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity—affirmative action sometimes generates controversy.
The Royal College of Surgeons recently started an Access Programme for Travellers. The Law Centre is working toward a similar project for the Law Society and Bar Council.
One medical school in the US offered four reasons for this type of programme:

1. to reduce "the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities in medical schools and the medical profession"
2. to counter "the effects of societal discrimination"
3. to increase "the number of physicians who will practice in communities currently underserved" and
4. to obtain "the educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body"

Employment Equality Act 1998 – s.33 as amended by s.33 of the Equality Act 2004
"33.—Nothing in this Part or Part II shall render unlawful measures maintained or adopted with a view to ensuring full equality in practice between employees, being measures—(a) to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to any of the discriminatory grounds (other than the gender ground), (b) to protect the health or safety at work of persons with a disability, or(c) to create or maintain facilities for safeguarding or promoting the integration of such persons into the working environment".


2. Hate Crime Legislation in England and Wales

Definition of a hate crime: Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

Hate crime can take many forms including:

• physical attacks – such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
• threat of attack – including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded, malicious complaints
• verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace

UK’s Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.28 Meaning of “racially aggravated”
“(1) An offence is racially aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) above—
•    “membership”, in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
•    “presumed” means presumed by the offender.
(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on—
(a) the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or
(b) any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
(4) In this section “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.”


7. RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Race Directive (Council Directive 2000/43/EC)

-    A Directive to implement the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
-    Defines the concept of direct discrimination/ indirect discrimination and harassment.
-    Goes further than Irish equality leg and gives more protection.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is of the opinion that Travellers do not constitute a separate ethnic group within Irish Society, however it is clear that the provision of the Race Directive do apply to Travellers, although this thesis has not been tested in an Irish Court as yet. 2004 Act was meant to transpose it into Irish law. A case re DC jurisdiction for liquor license cases would test this in European Court of Justice.

2. European Convention of Human Rights

Article 8 of the ECHR is the right to respect for private and family life, the home, and correspondence. It has been acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights that the choice to live a Traveller or Gypsy way of life is a matter protected by the guarantee of respect for private life. (Chapman v UK)

Article 6 (1) is a guarantee of fair procedures in the determination of a persons civil rights and obligations. As mentioned above the fact that the Gardaí, and local authorities can carry out forced evictions without any judicial sanction or internal rights of appeal, make these sections open to challenge under Article 6.
3. Framework Convention on the Rights of Minorities 1998

The Convention is described as a framework, as it contains “programmatic” provisions, rather than specific individual rights. The provisions are not directly applicable, leaves each state with a measure of discretion in the implementation of the principles enshrined in the Convention. There is no definition of a national minority. They may cede to the state on their definition.

Committee of Ministers shall monitor the implementation of the Convention. Article 25: parties are periodically required to submit a State report to the Committee of Ministers, on measures taken to give effect to the principles set out in the Convention. The period has been set at every five years. At one point in the Irish State Report (page 47), the Report actually refers to “Travellers and other minority ethnic groups” and the great bulk of the Report is devoted to the position of Travellers in Ireland, thus effectively acknowledging that they do come within the ambit of the Framework Convention.  The conclusions on the Irish Report by the monitoring committee for the Framework Convention, which will presumably include their comments on the position of Travellers, have not been released as yet.

4. ICERD International Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination 2000.

 Article 1 defines racial discrimination as a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour descent, or national or ethnic origin.
Article 2: state parties agree to pursue a policy of eliminating racial discrimination.
Article 5: guarantees individual rights

Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, made up of 18 experts, nominated by state parties, but who serve in their individual capacity. The main activities of CERD are;
Article 9: the consideration of State reports, which are to be submitted every two years, or when the committee so requests
Article 11: adjudicating on interstate complaints and making recommendation in relation thereto
Article 14: allows for state parties to make a declaration recognising the competence of CERD to deal with individual or group petitions, alleging a violation of rights under the Convention. Where such a petition is received the state concerned is given an opportunity to respond, and remedy the matter. Thereafter the Committee can forward suggestions and recommendations, if any, to the State Party concerned and to the petitioner. This Article can only be relied on after all domestic remedies have been exhausted.

It is ironic that it was in the first Report of the Irish Government under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that the Government for the first time explicitly stated its belief that the Travellers were not an ethnic group. The position of the Government is that the assertion that Travellers are ethnically different from the majority of Irish people has not been proven. Travellers must be protected on an analogous basis. But they are not to be given the full protection of international law.

The term “ethnic origin” is not further defined in the CERD Convention, but in its decisions made clear that it regards Roma as an ethnic minority for the purposes of the Convention (Koptova v Slovakia 1998).

5. ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

Article 2 requires each State Party to respect the rights recognized in the Covenant

“without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Here Ireland’s report commented:

“Allegations are sometimes made of discrimination against the travelling community…. Some of the bodies representing travellers claim that members of the community constitute a distinct ethnic group. The basis of this claim is not clear… However, members of the community are undoubtedly entitled to all rights under the Covenant and not to be discriminated against as a group and it does not appear to be of particular significance whether their rights relate to their alleged status as an ethnic group or to their social origin.”

Article 27 states that “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.” Here Ireland’s report commented:
    
“Insofar as Ireland is concerned the only ethnic group that might be covered by this Article is the travelling community. Some of the bodies representing travellers claim that members of the community constitute a distinct ethnic group. The basis of this claim is somewhat unclear. However the Government of Ireland accepts the rights of travellers to their cultural identity, regardless of whether it may properly be described as an ethnic group. In any event there is no legal restriction on any such group ‘to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion or to use their own language’ as outlined in Article 27 of the Covenant”.

Would you agree there is no legal restriction to Travellers enjoying their own culture?


6. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities1992

Article 1 States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

Article 2 Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.

Article 4 States should, where appropriate, take measures in the field of education, in order to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the minorities existing within their territory. Persons belonging to minorities should have adequate opportunities to gain knowledge of the society as a whole.

Article 5 National policies and programmes shall be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.


7. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966

Article 1 All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 2 All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

Article 3 The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

8. Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 - Articles 17 and 30

Article 17
States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health.

To this end, States Parties shall:

(a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29;

(b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources;

(c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children's books;

(d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous;

(e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18.

Article 30

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.