The seminar was organized within the framework of the 3-year project 'Strengthening anti-discrimination capacity' financed by the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands (MATRA programme) and realised by the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies in cooperation with the Netherlands Helsinki Committee.  The main goals of the seminar was to raise issue of discrimination on different grounds in various spheres, with the specific accent on discrimination in employment; to discuss possible causes and remedies; to learn about good practices in Latvia and abroad. For this purpose, representatives of NGOs, government institutions, state enterprises and private sector have been invited to participate in the seminar.

After the opening words by the LCHRES director Ilze Brands Kehris, an introduction speech was delivered by Jos Kösters, executive director of the Netherlands Helsinki Committee. Mr. Kösters spoke of the EU enlargement process as of the process of mutual enrichment, and stressed importance of the common approach towards anti-discrimination policies, and the necessity to learn from each other.

The word was then given to Jenny Goldschmidt, Professor of Law at the University of Utrecht, and former Head of the Netherlands Equal Treatment Commission. Prof. Goldschmidt spoke of equality as a fundamental characteristic of the democratic society, and stressed the necessity of accounting for the vulnerability of certain groups of population, especially in the period of economic changes in the society. According to the Prof.  Goldschmidt, discrimination is an issue across all European countries, although people more often tend to perceive it as ‘neighbours, not their own, problem’. Discrimination cases may differ depending on the specific situation in the country, but many of them are surprisingly similar, regardless where it take place; therefore it is very important to exchange knowledge about anti-discrimination policies, and try to learn from the others’ mistakes whenever possible.

Prof. Goldschmidt gave an overview of the scope of the new EU anti-discrimination legislation, including the Race Directive and the Employment Directive, new provisions included in it, mechanisms of its implementation, and policies which should be based upon it. She spoke about differentiation between direct and indirect discrimination, shift of the burden of proof, victimization of the victims of discrimination. She stressed that equal pay is one of the most difficult problems to tackle, and gave an example of the Netherlands, where binding legislation for equal pay for men and women is in place for almost 25 years, but a gap in earnings still can be observed.  Prof. Goldschmidt also drew the audience’s attention to the importance for the employer to have an active anti-discrimination policy, and stressed that it is also in employers’ best interests to implement such a policy, because in the long run it will lead to an increase in productivity.  She then illustrated her main points with the examples of the cases of discrimination she has encountered while heading the Netherlands Equal Treatment Commission. In conclusion, the speaker stressed the importance of establishing of a specialized body, foreseen by the race directive, and its crucial role in the enforcement of the anti-discrimination legislation.

Next speaker, Robert Purkiss, an independent adviser on race equality and diversity issues, who has just completed his term of office as Chair of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), characterized equality as the most precious of all human rights. Mr. Purkiss made an observation that the human rights culture of Europe is being taken seriously in Latvia, which in his opinion is especially important given Latvia’s history of mixing and merging of different people and different ethnic groups. Mr. Purkiss stressed the importance of the EU directives which provide common anti-discrimination standards and are a necessary tool needed to counter discrimination and unequal treatment. The speaker said that he always encourages all countries to take the Directives and its requirements very seriously, and to progress beyond its minimal requirements and provisions. In his opinion, provision for discrimination based on nationality is particularly relevant for Latvia.  Mr. Purkiss has also warned about the long way to go between adoption of the anti-discrimination legislation, and its successful implementation in practice. According to him, the UK has laws against discrimination for nearly quarter of a century, but there is still a lot of work to be done. As a chair of the legal committee of the UK Commission for Racial Equality, Mr. Purkiss has been reviewing on average 2000 cases a year – claims of discrimination because of race or skin colour. Mr. Purkiss strongly believes that in order to make the legislative acts to work in practice, certain provisions should be built into it in the first place, like, for example, promotion of anti-discrimination and equality, and prosecution in case of non-compliance.  Like the previous speaker, Mr. Purkiss stressed the importance of the specialised body: ‘We have the law, but without a body to enforce it, to remind us, it is useless’.

A panel discussion ‘Migration and Discrimination’, moderated by the LCHRES director Ilze Brands Kehris, has followed. Aspects of discrimination against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, problems of the illegal migrants, current tendencies and future expectations of migration in Latvia, specifics of the Latvian labour market have been addressed by Elina Multinen, expert on refugees and minority rights; Ilmārs Mežs, head of Riga Bureau of International Migration Organisation; Ilvija Pūce, lawyer of the LCHRES; and Mihails Hazans, University of Latvia and Baltic International Centre for Economic Policy Studies.

Next two panel discussions, moderated by Marina Krupnikova, LCHRES, focused on discrimination in employment. Aleksejs Dimitrijevs, lawyer of the Secretariat of Special Task Minister for Society Integration, gave an overview of the present stage of implementation of the EU Race and Employment Directives into the Latvian legislation. Robert Purkiss spoke of the importance of mediation in the employment discrimination cases. Līvija Marcinkēviča, Latvian Association of Trade Unions, spoke of anti-discrimination from the employee’s perspective, while Artūrs Graudiņš, Latvian association of the Human Resources Management, looked at the problem from the employer’s side. Discussion participants have answered questions from the audience.

The other panel was dedicated to the best anti-discrimination practices. Henrijs Fogels, Kesko Food, and Eva Bērziņa, Unibanka, spoke of the employer’s code of conduct adopted at their respective enterprises. Ieva Leimane-Veldmeijere, LCHRES, told about positive examples of the employment of mentally disabled in Latvia. Māris Dzelzkalns, Union of Disabled People and Their Friends Apeirons, spoke of the best practice examples of employment of the disabled in Latvia. Speakers then answered the questions from the audience. The common conclusion of the discussion was that although there is some positive development in Latvia, and some good practice examples, they are by far few and apart, and systematical work in both tackling discrimination and in implementing anti-discrimination employment policies is necessary.