The portrait of an activist in Austria: Raim Schobesberger, originally a Macedonian Rrom who lives in Salzburg.
Macedonia is saying the EU is planning a ban on Balkan refugees. This is already the case with the so-called “safe countries” but could be extended to Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro. This would bar Rroma who are discriminated in those countries from seeking asylum and would also deprive the community of a mean to improve their fate in those countries. This only happens if refugees are on the EU’s door.
Asylum seekers from so-called safe countries are systematically denied asylum in Germany. This, in spite of the fact that in many of these “safe” countries, the situation is far from stable or peaceful, as the example of Macedonia shows. Kosovo is now under discussion, unfortunately.
A television in part in Rromanes, in the middle of the French capital. The television was established in 2012 by a Rroma from Macedonia who lives in France, and the television aims at helping Rroma to integrate better in French society. The TV chanel is called after the Šutka, the largest Rroma settlement in Skopje.
A reportage on French TV, prime time.
An interesting interview of Nezdet Mustafas, the Rroma minister without portfolio of the Macedonian government on the motivations of refugees and the situation of Rroma in Macedonia in general. To take with a grain of salt, as Mustafas is working for the ultra nationalistic current government of Macedonia.
The European Roma Right Centre criticised several European countries on their handling of Rroma in general and on very particular cases too, such as in the case of France.
France, Macedonia, Italy, Czech Republic, and Bulgaria were cited.
The red-green coalition from Baden Württemberg will deport asylum seekers from Serbia and Macedonia, many of then Rroma, on the anniversary of the deportation of Rroma in that Region. This anniversary celebrated on the 24th of March commemorates the first train filled with Rroma and Sinti that departed from Offenburg.
What a date to choose …
Die Zeit (2014) reports on a recent judgment of the Münster administrative court. When assessing the application for asylum by a Serbian Rroma family, the court reached the verdict that Serbia does not constitute a safe country of origin for the Rroma minority. The judges justified their judgment, among others, by pointing out that unsuccessful asylum applicants can expect to be criminally prosecuted upon return. Thereby, the court also questions the new law, which declares Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina but also Serbia to safe countries of origin. Several administrative courts had agreed to the asylum applications of Romany families in the recent past: “The administrative court (AC) of Münster questions the constitutionality of the new asylum reform of the federal government. The judges granted an urgent application for asylum by a Serbian Roma family, and stopped their imminent deportation, said the AC. The court has thus set itself in conflict with the federal government, which declared the Balkan countries Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to safe countries of origin in November. The AC wants to clarify now in main proceedings, whether the law should be submitted to the federal constitutional court for review. When declaring a state to a safe country of origin, the legislators must make an overall assessment of the significance of political persecution conditions in the relevant country. Decisive are the criteria prescribed by the constitution. The legislator maybe did not sufficiently comply with this regarding the Serbian Roma and the negative Serbian emigration requirements. Moreover, the legislative history did not show that the decisions of administrative tribunals were taken into account. For instance, the administrative courts of Stuttgart and Münster upheld the urgent complaints of Serbian asylum seekers in a variety of cases.” Rroma are not politically persecuted in Serbia. However, that does not mean that they are not exposed to repeated discrimination in everyday life. Particularly the Rroma already economically marginalised. The assessment of the individual case should always be favoured against a reductionist assessment of the social situation in a country. Rroma have been provably integrated in Southeast Europe for centuries – as, Ottoman tax registers, among others, show and form part of all strata of society and professions. However, since the Yugoslav wars and the strengthened nationalism, Rroma increasingly face discrimination. Furthermore, there is the mentioned law of the Serbian criminal code that threatens asylum applicants with criminal prosecution upon return (compare Prantl 2014).
Sirleschtov/Birnbaum (2014) spoke with Thomas de Maizière, Germany’s interior minister and member of the Christian Democrat Party. In the talk, De Maizière justifies his successful efforts to declare Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia to be safe countries of origin. He states that although Rroma are badly treated in these three countries, they are not politically persecuted. Therefore, a refugee status for Rroma from these countries can no longer be acceptable: “A part of the Greens criticise me, saying I play people who come to us against each other. But that would mean by implication that Germany has to accept anyone who comes here. […] That is why the distinction between real political persecution and others who leave their homes for other reasons is the rational way and the path laid out by our constitution. A bad treatment of the Roma in some Balkan countries is just no political persecution. This is hard for those affected, but this distinction is necessary.” Rroma are indeed not politically persecuted in Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. Their integration is historically proven for the Balkans: since centuries, they belong to all social strata and professional groups. However, that does not mean that they are not exposed to massive discrimination in everyday life, especially since the strengthened nationalism of the Yugoslav Wars. The estimate how strong this discrimination is can only be critically evaluated in individual cases. Therefore, asylum applications should not be treated generally, but individually, to do justice to the fate of those persons affected.
Guggisberg (2014) reports on criminal Rroma clans that allegedly force children into crime. Parents surrender their children to an omnipotent clan chief – to whom they are indebted – for begging and theft and some even end up in prostitution. Guggisberg uncritically reproduces the perspective of the “Wiener Drehscheibe”, a social service for begging and stealing children who have been arrested by the police. Guggisberg does not question that the social educator Norbert Ceipek – the head of the institution – who identifies each begging or stealing child as a victim of human trafficking, could himself be subject to prejudices and be providing misinformation on Rroma: “Ceipek opens another photo file. It shows a Roma village in Romania, which he recently visited. He tells of houses, cobbled together from planks and plastic sheeting, and dirt roads full of garbage. In the middle is a magnificent villa. “It belongs to the clan chief. He rules the villages as a state within a state”, says Ceipek […]. Many of the children dealt with in Vienna belong to the Roma. […] “The phenomenon of Eastern European gangs of beggars is not new. But since a couple of months, it taken new proportions”, says Ceipek. Very active are the Bosnian gangs, he states. Every few weeks, they would bring the children to different European cities, according to a rotating system. The social worker explains that his aim was to provide a perspective to the children, a little education. They might get on better path.”” Alexander Ott, head of the Foreign Police Bern, who has already been quoted repeatedly in articles about criminal Rroma gangs and trafficking of children, has his say. He reproduces the usual prejudices about hierarchical Rroma clans with a clan chief who leads children into crime: “The network of child traffickers reaches from Eastern Europe to Switzerland. “The victims are recruited in Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Often they come from large Roma families, are purchased or borrowed”, says Ott. One sends the boys to steal, urges them into prostitution, or forces them to beg. The instigators know well that the Swiss justice system cannot prosecute the perpetrators because of their young age. Adolescent burglars are booming in the autumn and winter months. Ott emphasises that they have to deal with highly professional, specialised and hierarchically-run clans, who practice their craft since generations.” Rroma are not more criminal than other ethnic groups. They are not hierarchically organised, as is often claimed, but structured largely egalitarian. So-called “Rroma kings” are self-elected and have purely representative character. Guggisberg and experts’ claim that behind begging children there is inevitably trafficking and organized crime, is wrong.
The characteristics of transnational operating trafficker networks, as presented here, are questioned by social science research. Their existence itself is not denied, something that cannot be in the interest of combating injustice. But their manifestation, their number, their omnipotence and the motivations attributed to them have to be questioned. These are often tainted by ideological fallacies, brought into connection or even equated with ethnic groups such as Rroma. Furthermore, the equation of child migration and trafficking has to be set into context. The stereotype of Rroma as child traffickers dates back to their arrival in Western Europe, and is in part based on the racist notion that Rroma did actively recruit children for criminal gangs. Regarding the topic of child migration, social science studies convey a more complex notion on the subject and point out that crimes such as incitement to beg and steal or alleged child trafficking are often permeated by various morals in the analysis and assessment by authorities, who don’t appropriately consider the perspective and motivations of migrating children and their relatives, and instead force on them their own ideas and definitions on organised begging, criminal networks or child trafficking. Structural differences of the societies involved and resulting reasons for a migration are given too little consideration. In reality, behind begging children there are often simply impoverished families, in which the children contribute to the family income and who therefore do not correspond to bourgeois notions of a normal family and childhood. De facto child trafficking is rare according to the sociological studies. Furthermore, the incomes from begging are very modest, which makes them unattractive for organised crime. Guggisberg, who states that 200’000 children are recruited annually by the trafficking mafia, contradicts this.
At the end of the article, Guggisberg quotes another expert opinion by Norbert Ceipek, the director of the “Wiener Drehschreibe”: At 15, many of them would get married and have children themselves, so that the cycle of crime continues. Likewise, Guggisberg reproduces this racist prejudice uncritically. The majority of Rroma, who live integrated, go to work and send their children to school, remain unmentioned (compare Cree/Clapton/Smith 2012, O’Connell Davidson 2011, Oude Breuil 2008, Tabin et al 2012).
APA-OTS (2014) reports on a current Rroma conference in Vienna. From November the 10th to the 16th, under the slogan “Putren le jakha! – Open your eyes”, around 70 young Rroma activists from eleven countries came together to discuss the topic of “antiziganism”. The event was hosted by the Austrian Rroma association Rromano Centro: “Antiziganism is a form of racism that is directed against people that are stigmatised as gypsies.” The manifestations range from daily discrimination and structural racism to violent assault and murder. Under National Socialism, half a million people defined as “Gypsies” were murdered. This genocide is still little recognised. […] Mustafa Jakupov from Macedonia reports that Roma are being prevented from leaving their country: “At the insistence of Western European countries, strict border controls are carried out. Racial profiling means that many Roma are no longer allowed to leave their country. 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is again a country in Europe that does not allowed its citizens to leave.” […] ““Beggars” dominate the representation of Roma in the Austrian media and many journalists spread stereotypes that they do not question. These images lead to an increasing rejection,” Samuel Mago from Vienna stresses the responsibility of the media.” The term “antiziganism” has become an established concept, but is actually an unfortunate term, because by using the word “gypsy” it reproduces the derogatory term for a variety of groups as the Rroma, the Yeniche, the Irish Travellers, which have different historical backgrounds and characteristics (compare Die Presse 2014, Kurier 2014).
Mappes-Niediek (2014) reports on marginalised Rroma in Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia. He emphasises that it is not primarily the repeatedly criticised discrimination, but primarily the economic exclusion, the sometimes poor qualifications or the lack of relationships in the world of employment that keep Rroma marginalised. However, he disregards that there are Rroma who are well educated, but are not perceived as members of the minority. Also, not all Rroma have many children, as the Rromni he portrays: “As the world suddenly began to spin faster, Elena Costache was 34 years old. She lived with her husband and nine children in a house with four rooms in the Bucharest district Ferentari. She had a steady job in a bindery, where she packed the shipping goods. Then everything went quickly. The bindery was forced to close. Her husband also lost his job […]. That they are Roma or, as they say here, Țigani – Gypsies – for Elena, Cristina and Gheorghe is not worth a thought, besides their many problems. Nevertheless, their fate has to do with their ethnicity – though not as the simplifiers try to make believe. […] After the turnaround, the number of jobs fell to less than a half. Million industrial workers were attracted from the cities to the countryside, where the state refunded them the house with a hectare of arable land, which had once belonged to their grandparents. Many remained there and still live almost without money, only living from their plots. About ten percent of the population got nothing from the land distribution. Not because they wanted to discriminate against them, but because even their grandparents didn’t have any. The Roma were slaves in Romania since the Middle Ages, and were not allowed to own land.” Mappes-Niediek show that it is no general racism, which keeps the excluded Rroma at the margins of society, but that it is a combination of sometimes historically low professional qualifications with an economic marginalisation, which makes it difficult to break out of the spiral of poverty. However, it must be emphasized that Mappes-Niediek only portrays the marginalised Rroma, and therefore mistakenly equates the minority with an underclass. However, Rroma in South-eastern Europe – with the exception of Romania –have been integrated for centuries and are found in all professions.
The European Commission has announced in a recent press release that it awards seven distinguished organisations that are particularly involved in the integration of the Rroma in their countries. The winning organizations include: Roma Active Albania (RAA), which advocates the Rroma civil rights and draws attention to current topics of Romnja; the organization Citizens Association for the Promotion of Education of Roma Otaharin that is committed in Bosnia-Herzegonvina to better educational opportunities of the minority; in Kosovo The Ideas Partnership, which advocates for the integration of former beggars and promotes the enrolment of children; in Macedonia the organization Centre for Integration Ambrela that is committed to the promotion of Rroma in early childhood; in Serbia Hands of Friendship, which operates a parent-child education project; in Turkey the children’s art project Sulukule Roma Culture Development and Solidarity Association; and finally in Montenegro a project against child and forced marriages in Rroma communities, through the Centre for Roma Initiatives. The European Commission justifies its decision as follows: “We all – the European Commission, the governments, civil society organisations – need to send out the same message: Roma integration is an important policy. And it is not only investment for the benefit of this minority but it is also an investment to the benefit of society. Living in an environment in which each member of society contributes with their spirit and work force, will allow countries to grow strong and prosperous, from an economic, social and cultural perspective”, said Štefan Füle, Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, at the award ceremony.” Concerning the integration programmes of the warded organizations it must be remarked that begging Rroma or child marriages in no represent the norm among the minority.
– European Union (2014) Award for Roma Integration in the Western Balkans and Turkey. In: European Union online vom 1.10.2014. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1064_en.htm
Keywords: Rroma, Europe, European Union, integration projects, organization, awards, stereotypes
Dribbusch (2014), on the occasion of the nomination of Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia as safe countries of origin, argues for more discussion culture rather than reductionist polemics. Unfortunately, she mixes economic migration and political asylum and does not questions enough, how these categories intermingle, blend, and are dealt with: “The economic integration of people who have come to stay, must be openly debated because a solely humanitarian appeal is not enough to create acceptance. The question is: should taxpayers in Germany be responsible for offering a Roma woman from Bulgaria and their children, or a young African from Chad, better life opportunities? The answer could be yes. But only if there is also integration assistance, that means, not only should asylum seekers been freed of [current] work interdictions, but should also been paid language courses and qualification measures. […] If one wants to open up new possibilities for a poverty policy, it is also appropriate to set limits. It is acceptable that Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia are now defined as “safe countries of origin”, to speed up the asylum process. The asylum applications from Serbia recently skyrocketed.” Dribbusch is right when she calls for more integration help that consist of concrete offers and not just acceptance. However, she conveys a very one-sided notion of the minority, if she portrays Rroma as “economic refugees”. She negates the well-educated migrants, as well as individual experiences of discrimination that exist spite the safety from political persecution. Moreover, Rroma only constitute a part of the migrants from the Southeast Europe. There are also a lot of ethnic Serbians, Macedonians, Bosnians and others, who migrate to Western Europe (compare Die Presse 2014, Kılıç 2014).
Graff (2014) spoke with Marko Knudsen, the head of the European Centre for Antiziganism Research. Knudsen decidedly criticises the new asylum law that defines Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina as being safe countries of origin in the interview. For him it is beyond question that the Rroma are affected by marginalisation and discrimination in the three countries. The opinion that Rroma are not actively persecuted in these three countries, he deems inappropriate and trivialising. Therefore, the European Centre for Antiziganism Research will file a suit against the new law. The centre justifies its charge with the following three points: “Where is Germany’s historical responsibility, which is justified through the Nazi era? Unfortunately, it is nonexistent. For me as a Roma, this decision is absolutely reprehensible. As a German, I am ashamed. For this reason, we, as the European Centre for Antiziganism Research, see ourselves forced to take legal action against this law, because: first, it violates the principle of equal treatment. Second, it violates European anti-discrimination law. Third, there is political persecution of the Roma in Europe because of antiziganism that is passed as an unquestioned European cultural code from generation to generation, whereby it is implemented in the majority of society” (Knudsen 2014). Knudsen sees the strengthened nationalism in many European countries and the exclusion of minorities resulting from it, as well as extreme economic hardships, as equally important reasons for asylum for being open political persecution. Exactly this issue was the core of the political debate: are the Rroma in Southeastern Europe actively persecuted or are they “only” affected by extreme poverty and discrimination. There was no consensus concerning this issue. Knudsen also criticizes the pressure exercised on the part of the European Union on the new member states, that did not improve the situation of minorities in the countries concerned. However, this assessment has to be questioned. It is absolutely the responsibility of the European Union to pressure its new Member States to a better compliance with minority rights. If they are not able to actively implement the requirements, this is not the fault of Brussels (compare Martens 2014).
On September the 19th, the decision as to whether Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina will be declared safe countries of origin on part of Germany will be made. The debate about the security against persecution and discrimination in the three states is discussed especially in reference to the fate of the Rroma. In this regard, there are major disagreements whether and how Rroma are exposed to discrimination. While the proponents of the new law assume that the Rroma are indeed affected by poverty in the three countries, they claim that they are free of persecution. Just the opposite is stated by many refugee and asylum organizations, and also by the central council of German Sinti and Roma. These different views concerning the security situation of minorities in Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina reveal that the assessment of marginalization and discrimination are based on very different criteria: supporters of a poor security situation refer to meaningful individual cases of discrimination – famous are cases that proof the difficult access to health care and other institutions, or show the harassment by government officials: “Already now, the reasons people have to flee from Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are examined too superficially, criticises the Frankfurt lawyer Reinhard Marx. […] Especially [application from] Roma of the Western Balkan countries are already now mostly rejected without detailed examination “as manifestly unfounded”, the lawyer says. He tells of hearing reports and decisions of the branch offices of the BAMF [Federal Office for Migration and Refugees]. Refugees have reported “racist assaults, attempted rape of girls and suchlike.” “In reasoning of the refusal, this was not addressed all”, says the lawyer, the reasons for flight are not carefully examined, “which for me is no longer the rule of law” (Grunau 2014). In contrast, the proponents of the new law refer to the recognition of the Rroma by the political establishment of the countries, the appreciation of Rromanes, and the historical evidence in all strata of society of the integration of the minority, especially in the countries of former Yugoslavia. Ottoman tax registers proof this already for the 15th century, where Rroma are listed as lawyers, doctors and policemen (Rroma Foundation 2002). This integration does not mean that there is no discrimination since 1989, through the strong growth of nationalism in the countries of South Eastern Europe. Again, different evaluation criteria are applied: according to the proponents of the new law, there is discrimination but no systematic persecution. How can one accurately measured and assess the severity of discrimination? In Bosnia-Herzegovina, because of the Dayton Agreement, there is only a constitutional protection of Bosnians, Serbs or Croats, but no official recognition of other minorities. But this does not mean that minorities such as Rroma are not discriminated against in everyday life, the critics claim. The different opinions reveal that the knowledge about Rroma is still dominated by a lot of uncertainties and gaps in knowledge, and that the discrimination of a minority in various countries is anything but easily to determine. Therefore, in doubt, the individual experience of discrimination should always be favoured over a general assessment of the security situation. One owes that to persons who indeed suffer of discrimination. – Neues Deutschland (2014) reports that the stricter asylum law is being adopted because of the approval by the red-green government of Baden-Württemberg. The Green minister president of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, is now criticised because of his decision in his own party. Other German daily newspapers confirm the decision: Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are now safe countries of origin from Germany’s viewpoint. This means that asylum applications from these countries will be handled in an expedited fashion in the future and that discrimination will no longer be recognised as a reason for asylum (compare Brey 2014, Deringer/Lierheimer 2014, Frenzel 2014, Handelsblatt 2014, Lang 2014, Mappes-Niediek 2014, MDR 2014, Möhle 2014, Scholz 2014, Wallraff 2014, Wölfl 2014).
The daily news of the ARD (2014) reports on the ongoing discussions and protests because of the declaration of Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina as being “safe countries of origin”. Accordingly, the federal government will soon enact a law that puts these three countries on the list of countries safe of persecution. Thereafter, minorities like the Rroma will have very poor chances of obtaining asylum in Germany. This is being criticised especially by social democratic politicians and non-governmental organisations. Recently, the Central Council of German Sinti and Rroma has spoken out. Its chairman, Romani Rose, criticised in his statement that the three countries are anything but safe for Rroma: “In the three countries, the argument goes, there is no persecution, torture, violence or degrading treatment. […] Life for Rroma in Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina is anything but safe, Rose declared. “Large parts of the minority in these countries have no chance in the labour market, they are excluded from any participation in social life.” For Roma, which are merely tolerated in Germany, the implementation of the plans could mean deportation.” While it is true that the Rroma in the Balkans were exposed to little discrimination until 1989, and many of the common stereotypes about the minority originated in Western Europe, this does not mean that the exaggeration of ethnic differences and the marginalisation of the Rroma have not become a real issue since then that affect many members of the minority. The adoption of the new law is due to an increase of asylum applications from Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which are turned down in the majority of the cases as being unfounded. However, these decisions are also criticised, since individual fates of exclusion and persecution get too little attention and are not considered appropriately due to lack of evidence. The status of safe countries puts administrative estimates about the protection of the civilian population, especially minorities, over the individual experiences of those affected. Whether this is a smart procedure that meets the real-life experiences of victims of discrimination, should be critically assessed. What matters in the end is the individual fate and not the official status (compare Amtsberg 2014, Attenberger/Filon 2014, Die Welt 2014, Ulbig 2014).
Eastern Europe correspondent Mappes-Niediek (2014) contradicts this opinion: He claims that the Rroma in South Eastern Europe are often affected by poverty, but are not persecuted. In Macedonia and Serbia, the Rroma rather build part of local communities and are found in all social classes and positions. Even the Rromanes is widely accepted in Macedonia: “Traditionally, in Macedonia and Serbia, it is far less disparagingly spoken about Roma than in the neighbouring countries of Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. The major, wearing his chain of office and shaking hands, attend Roma celebrations. In the newspapers one respectfully speaks of “citizens of Roma nationality”, and ethnic Macedonians also attend Roma pilgrimages. The European cliché that Roma steal is unknown in both countries. […] If Roma are exposed to persecution somewhere in the region, then it is the EU-country Hungary, where right-wing extremist groups inflame the atmosphere, literally hunt for Roma and the police looks the other way. However, from EU-countries no asylum applications are accepted in principle. Even discrimination based on ethnicity is likely to be far less in Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia than what Roma have to endure in Hungary, the Czech Republic or France.” Thereby Mappes-Niediek addresses an important point: the difficulty of assessing the discrimination or acceptance of a minority that is already perceived very one-sided in the public in its entirety and complexity. For Mappes-Niediek, the Rroma in South Eastern Europe are particularly affected by poverty. This is certainly true for a part of the minority. But he also hides a part of reality: in particular the integrated Rroma, which can be found in all the countries of Europe and are not perceived as Rroma by the public. Rroma should not be equated with an underclass. They build part of all strata of society. Regarding the aspect of discrimination, the individual fate should still favoured to a reductionist, generalising assessment: because mechanisms of exclusion in a society cannot be read on a measuring instrument. They are subtly distributed in all spheres of a nation and not necessarily occur in the open.
Several German newspapers report on the latest study by the centre for anti-Semitism research in Berlin and the institute for prejudice and conflict research. For the study “Between apathy and rejection – Population attitudes towards Sinti and Roma” around 2,000 German citizens were interviewed. The study concludes that about a third of Germans feel Rroma as neighbours as being very or quite unpleasant. There is less sympathy towards Rroma than towards any other population group. Seventeen percent of the respondents consider them as very unappealing. This result is clearly linked to the opinion of the respondents that Rroma are responsible for the reservations towards their minority due to their own behaviour. This point is based on the false assumption that a visible minority of the minority can be equated with all Rroma. However, most Rroma are not delinquent and are integrated. This is ignored by the media and by the public. The following three results show how ingrained prejudices and resentments against the minority are: fifteen percent of the respondents consider Roma as criminals, fourteen percent as not assimilable, ten percent as lazy. Again, the prejudices are based on the public perception of a visible minority of the minority. The majority of the Rroma are integrated and are honest. The final result of the study is of particular concern: every second respondent thinks that a restriction of the entry requirements is an appropriate way to solve the problems with the minority. Again, there are misconceptions about a mass influx of poorly educated and delinquent Rroma. Rroma constitute only a part of all immigrants from South and Eastern Europe. Many of them are ethnic Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, etc. There are also many well-educated Rroma, who are also hidden in the media. Romani Rose, president of the central council of German Sinti and Roma, raised severe concerns about the results of the study: “anti-Semitism is outlawed in Germany, antiziganism enjoys largely a free rein”, criticised Romani Rose […]. He warned against connecting poverty with ethic origin. “The Jews were too rich, the Roma are too poor.” This is an unacceptable generalisation” (Peters 2014). After all, Rose sees it as positive that around 80% of the respondents knew about the persecution of the Rroma during National Socialism. Nevertheless, knowledge about the minority needs to be deepened more through history lessons. This contrasts with the opinion of almost a third of the respondents who feel no historical responsibility of Germany towards the minority. One in five is for the removal of the Rroma from Germany: a very thought-provoking insight. In response to the poor results, an expert commission shall be set up to report to the Bundestag regularly on discrimination against the minority in the fields of education, employment or housing. The anti-discrimination commissioner of the state, Christine Lüders, also sees a special need for action in the fight against prejudice among police forces. Rroma in Germany are still more frequently suspected of criminal activities as members of other ethnic groups. She argues that “indifference, ignorance and rejection together form a fatal mix that [enable and foster] discrimination against Sinti and Roma” (compare Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes 2014, Die Zeit 2014, Fürstenau 2014, Gajevic 2014, Gensing 2014, Lambeck 2014, MiGAZIN 2014, Süddeutsche Zeitung 2014).
Çaliskan (2014), general secretary of the German section of Amnesty International, reports on the upcoming recognition of Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as safe countries of origin by the German Federal Assembly. On this occasion, she elaborates on the contradictions behind the concept. According to her, the assessment that the countries concerned are free of persecution is not based on in-depth research and analysis, but on statistical findings that there are more applications for asylum from these states while there is a declining recognition of the applications; and are thus rejected by the courts as being unfounded. Çaliskan criticises this practice as a trivialisation of real discrimination taking place that particularly affects minorities such as Rroma: “The fact that only a few of the asylum seekers were recognised is not a proof of the “safety” in Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is rather a proof that even now the asylum applications are not examined thoroughly. Because the human rights situation in the three countries is anything from rosy. Especially Rroma are not “safe” from prosecution. They are structurally disadvantaged, living on the margins of society, often literally on the edge of cities, industrial areas, some families on dumping grounds. Often they are virtually cut off from work, medical care, and the children of reasonable education. Moreover, governments do not protect them from racist attacks and politicians partly stir up prejudices against them.” The denial of the status of “safe country of origin” would guarantee a more detailed examination of each case and protect the victims more effectively from discrimination and persecution. Admittedly, each case is still assessed in spite of the status of safe country of origin, but never as thoroughly and detailed, as it would if the status would not exist. Officially, a country can respect the security and rights of minorities. However, this does not mean that this really happens in everyday life and in individual cases, as shocking individual destines show. The legal evidence of an individual experience of discrimination is often difficult to prove, especially when official documents or witnesses are missing.
Rüssmann (2014) reports on the ongoing debate about the status of safe countries of origin, which Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are scheduled to receive from Germany. The draft law on the three Eastern European countries is currently being discussed in parliament. Because the representatives of the green party have turned against this attempt in all provinces until now, it is still pending. If only one green governed state agrees, the law can be adopted. Councils of refugees and asylum forums are decidedly opposing this attempt and they are reminding green party members of parliaments of the need for their steadfastness. The debate is fuelled by a recent decision of the Macedonian constitutional court: The court has ruled that the passport act, which allows the withdrawal of nationality when a Macedonian is deported due to a negative asylum application, is unlawful to Macedonia’s constitution and to the human rights. Added to this are questionable practices at the border, where potential asylum seekers are prevented from leaving: “Macedonia has, like Serbia, tightened its exit permits more and more. This was done under pressure from the EU to obtain the visa waiver. Therefore, since 2010, Macedonian border guards may prevent people from leaving when they harm international relations – as plain text: if a person wants to seek asylum in the EU. As a result, over 10,000 people, particularly Roma, have been denied exit by mid-2013, according to a pro-asylum reports, with reference to the human rights commissioner of the council of Europe and the U.S. state department.” To deny a citizen to leave his country contradicts international law. However, the German federal office for migration sees this differently and states that the right to leave is not a “basic human right”. As we already stated several times, there is also the problem that with the status of a safe country of origin, official assessments of the security situation of minorities in a given country are put above the real life experiences of individuals. Officially, a country can respect the security and rights of minorities. However, this does not mean at all that this really happens in everyday life, as shocking individual destinies reveal.
EN 
DE 
FR