Example: Norway’s way of solving this issue

[Christer Lundquist]

An interesting conundrum here. As a journalist, I always keep in mind the wisdom of “less is more” and “KISS – (Keep It Simple, Stupid)”. In general, I would like the Constitution to be as compact and to the point as possible and avoid the temptation to keep adding things while struggling to subtract others. The issue of fundamental rights and protection of these is addressed already in the Preamble. This subject is how to deal with further reinforcement of Rights in the Articles. The discussion above asks: Can you have links to conventions in the Constitution? Or is it the right thing to include a full Bill of Rights? As I said, I’d go for a solution that restricts the Constitution itself to the bare minimum, but absolutely essential formulations. I think we can go with links to external conventions, provided this is later defined by law. But maybe a distilled Bill of Rights should be awarded space. I’m not sure.

BUT! I would like to share with you how my Norway has done this. Which is sort of a combination; fundamental rights are indeed included in our constitution. At the same time, it has one interesting Article that solves the issue neatly: Article 92, the first of the constitution’s Bill of Rights Segment, reads: “The authorities of the State shall respect and ensure human rights as they are expressed in this Constitution and in the treaties concerning human rights that are binding for Norway.” Thereafter come all the rights that are enshrined directly in the Constitution. NOTE: Article 92 does NOT OBLIGE LAWMAKERS to incorporate such conventions into Norwegian law, but if they want them to be elevated to more than just universal principles of good intentions, THIS MUST BE ENACTED in separate laws. Which has been done twice; The Human Rights Act of 1999 gives five conventions the force of Norwegian law insofar they are binding for Norway, and the extensive Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act of 2017 adds that the 1965 UN convention against all forms of racism “shall apply as Norwegian law”.

For reference, I will here show the relevant texts, which illuminate the distinction between Constitutional rights and convention-linked rights placed in their own Acts.
First, the Norwegian Constitution’s Bill of Rights (note the first Article 92, which solves the link to external conventions).
Then, you will see how 5 international conventions are incorporated into The Human Rights Act, in accordance with the link in the Constitution (which does not REQUIRE this).
Last, a snippet from The Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, which adds a sixth international convention into national law.

——————————–
The Constitution, as laid down on 17 May 1814 by the Constituent Assembly at Eidsvoll,
subsequently amended,
most recently by Resolutions of 14 May 2020.

E. Human Rights

Article 92.
The authorities of the State shall respect and ensure human rights as they are expressed in this Constitution and in the treaties concerning human rights that are binding for Norway.

Article 93.
Every human being has the right to life. No one may be sentenced to death.
No one may be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
No one shall be held in slavery or required to perform forced labour.
The authorities of the State shall protect the right to life and oppose torture, slavery, forced labour and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article 94.
No one may be taken into custody or otherwise be deprived of their liberty except in the cases determined by law and in the manner prescribed by law. Deprivation of liberty must be necessary and must not constitute a disproportionate infringement.
Persons arrested shall as soon as possible be brought before a court. Others who have been deprived of their liberty have the right to bring their deprivation of liberty before a court without unjustified delay.
Those responsible for the unwarranted arrest or illegal detention of a person shall be answerable to the person concerned.

Article 95.
Everyone has the right to have their case tried by an independent and impartial court within reasonable time. Legal proceedings shall be fair and public. The court may however conduct proceedings in camera if considerations of the privacy of the parties concerned or if weighty and significant public interests necessitate this.
The authorities of the state shall ensure the independence and impartiality of the courts and the members of the judiciary.

Article 96.
No one may be sentenced except according to law, or be punished except after a court judgment.
Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
No one may be sentenced to surrender property or accumulated wealth unless the assets have been used to commit or are profits from a criminal act.

Article 97.
No law must be given retroactive effect.

Article 98.
All people are equal under the law.
No human being must be subject to unfair or disproportionate differential treatment.

Article 99.
(Repealed by Resolution of 13 May 2014.)

Article 100.
There shall be freedom of expression.
No one may be held liable in law for having imparted or received information, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the seeking of truth, the promotion of democracy and the individual’s freedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by law.
Everyone shall be free to speak their mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Clearly defined limitations to this right may only be imposed when particularly weighty considerations so justify in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression.
Prior censorship and other preventive measures may not be applied unless so required in order to protect children and young persons from the harmful influence of moving pictures. Censorship of letters may only be imposed in institutions.
Everyone has a right of access to documents of the State and municipalities and a right to follow the proceedings of the courts and democratically elected bodies. Limitations to this right may be prescribed by law to protect the privacy of the individual or for other weighty reasons.
The authorities of the state shall create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse.

Article 101.
Everyone has the right to form, join and leave associations, including trade unions and political parties.
All people may meet in peaceful assemblies and demonstrations.
The Government is not entitled to employ military force against citizens of the state, except in accordance with the law, unless an assembly disturbs the public peace and does not immediately disperse after the articles of the statute book relating to riots have been read out clearly three times by the civil authority.

Article 102.
Everyone has the right to the respect of their privacy and family life, their home and their communication. Search of private homes shall not be made except in criminal cases.
The authorities of the state shall ensure the protection of personal integrity.

Article 103.
(Repealed by Resolution of 13 May 2014.)

Article 104.
Children have the right to respect for their human dignity. They have the right to be heard in questions that concern them, and due weight shall be attached to their views in accordance with their age and development.
For actions and decisions that affect children, the best interests of the child shall be a fundamental consideration.
Children have the right to protection of their personal integrity. The authorities of the state shall create conditions that facilitate the child’s development, including ensuring that the child is provided with the necessary economic, social and health security, preferably within their own family.

Article 105.
If the welfare of the state requires that any person shall surrender their movable or immovable property for the public use, they shall receive full compensation from the Treasury.

Article 106.
Everyone who resides legally in the realm may move freely within the borders of the realm and choose their place of residence there.
No one may be denied the right to leave the realm, unless so required out of consideration for effective legal proceedings or the performance of military service. Norwegian citizens may not be refused entry into the realm.

Article 107.
(Amended by Resolutions of 6 May 2014 and 27 May 2014, content moved to article 117.)

Article 108.
The authorities of the state shall create conditions enabling the Sami people to preserve and develop its language, culture and way of life.

Article 109.
Everyone has the right to education. Children have the right to receive basic education. The education shall safeguard the individual’s abilities and needs, and promote respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
The authorities of the state shall ensure access to upper secondary education and equal opportunities for higher education on the basis of qualifications.

Article 110.
The authorities of the state shall create conditions under which every person capable of work is able to earn a living through their work or enterprise. Those who cannot themselves provide for their own subsistence have the right to support from the state.
Specific provisions concerning the right of employees to co-determination at their work place shall be laid down by law.

Article 111.
(Amended by Resolutions of 6 May 2014 and 27 May 2014, content moved to article 120.)

Article 112.
Every person has the right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained. Natural resources shall be managed on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations which will safeguard this right for future generations as well.
In order to safeguard their right in accordance with the foregoing paragraph, citizens are entitled to information on the state of the natural environment and on the effects of any encroachment on nature that is planned or carried out.
The authorities of the state shall take measures for the implementation of these principles.

Article 113.
Infringement of the authorities against the individual must be founded on the law.

(This is an unofficial translation of the Norwegian version of the Constitution and is provided for information purposes only. In the event of any inconsistency, the Norwegian version shall prevail. This translation is provided by the Storting (The Norwegian Parliament).

—————————————-

The Human Rights Act
(Act of 21 May 1999 no. 30 relating to the strengthening of the status of human rights in Norwegian law)
Entry into force: 21.05.1999

Section 1.
The purpose of the Act is to strengthen the status of human rights in Norwegian law.

Section 2.
The following conventions* shall have the force of Norwegian law insofar as they are binding for Norway:

1. The Convention of 4 November 1950 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol no. 11 of 11 May 1994 and Protocol no. 14 of 13 May 2004, together with the following protocols:
a) Protocol of 20 March 1952
b) Protocol no. 4 of 16 September 1963 on the protection of certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the First Protocol to the Convention
c) Protocol no. 6 of 28 April 1983 concerning the abolition of the death penalty
d) Protocol no. 7 of 22 November 1984
e) Protocol No. 13 of 3 May 2002 concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances

2. The International Covenant of 16 December 1966 on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

3. The International Covenant of 16 December 1966 on Civil and Political Rights, together with the following protocols:
a) Optional Protocol of 16 December 1966,
b) Second Optional Protocol of 15 December 1989 on the abolition of the death penalty.

4. The Convention of 20 November 1989 on the Rights of the Child, together with the following protocols:
a) Optional Protocol of 25 May 2000 on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
b) Optional Protocol of 25 May 2000 on the involvement of children in armed conflict

5. The Convention of 18 December 1979 on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women with Optional Protocol of 6 October 1999.

* The Conventions referred to in are included in English as annexes to the Norwegian language version of the Human Rights Act. Direct links to the relevant annexes are provided.

Section 3.
The provisions of the conventions and protocols mentioned in section 2 shall take precedence over any other legislative provisions that conflict with them.

Section 4.
The conventions and protocols mentioned in section 2 shall be published in the Norwegian Law Gazette in one of the original languages and in a

Section 5.
The provisions of this Act shall also apply on Svalbard and Jan Mayen.

Section 6.
This Act shall enter into force immediately.

——————————-

The Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act
Act of 16 June 2017 no. 51 relating to equality and a prohibition against discrimination
Entry into force: 01.01.2018

Section 1. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to promote equality and prevent discrimination on the basis of gender, pregnancy, leave in connection with childbirth or adoption, care responsibilities, ethnicity, religion, belief, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age or other significant characteristics of a person.
«Equality» means equal status, equal opportunities and equal rights. Equality presupposes accessibility and accommodation.
This Act has the particular objective of improving the position of women and minorities. This Act shall help to dismantle disabling barriers created by society and prevent new ones from being created.

Section 5. UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
The United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965 shall apply as Norwegian law.

(This Act is very extensive, so for those interested in having a look at the whole law text, this is the link to the English version:)
https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2017-06-16-51#KAPITTEL_1

[Ramon Maynou]

ES: Me parece una buena propuesta.
Lo curioso es que en Noruega no exista discriminación por lengua.

EN: It seems like a good proposal.
The funny thing is that in Norway there is no discrimination based on language.

[Christer Lundquist]

Ramon; why do you find the provision for no discrimination based on language a curiousity? Is unusual elsewhere in Europe?
I suppose you are referring to the first Artcle of Section 2 in the last law I linked to:

« Chapter 2. Prohibition against discrimination
Section 6.Prohibition against discrimination

Discrimination on the basis of gender, pregnancy, leave in connection with childbirth or adoption, care responsibilities, ethnicity, religion, belief, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age or combinations of these factors is prohibited. «Ethnicity» includes national origin, descent, skin colour and language.»

• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Christer Lundquist.

[Ramon Maynou]

ES: Gracias por aclararme que «Etnia» incluye origen nacional, ascendencia, color de piel e idioma ». Pero ademas he comprobado que la palabra etnia incluye tambien religión, pero si se indica especificamente religión en el articulo. ¿Se resalta religión que se supone incluida en la palabra etnia pero no se incluye lengua? Tengo que decirles que es normal, Federico Mayor Zaragoza cuando era director general de la UNESCO (1987-1999) en sus intervenciones nunca nombraba la discriminación por lengua.
Para vuestra informacion sobre la discriminacion linguistica en Europa que los ciudadanos desconocen:
Parlamento Europeo. Pregunta parlamentaria. 22 enero 2004. Discriminación lingüística (“hablantes nativos”)1:
En su respuesta a la pregunta E-2764/02(1), la Comisión reconoce que “la condición de ser «hablante nativo» que figura en algunos anuncios de contratación es inaceptable con arreglo a las disposiciones comunitarias en materia de libre circulación de trabajadores, por ser ilegalmente discriminatoria. Por ello, la Comisión considera que la utilización de dicha expresión en las ofertas de empleo está prohibida por la legislación comunitaria”.
En los últimos años, las oficinas europeas de asistencia técnica, organizaciones no gubernamentales y empresas privadas, financiadas por la Comisión, han publicado más de 700 ofertas de empleo a escala europea reservadas exclusivamente a «hablantes nativos del inglés» y a candidatos con “inglés como lengua materna”. En dichas vacantes no se buscaba a personas con “dominio perfecto o muy bueno del inglés” sino explícita y exclusivamente a personas con inglés como lengua materna. Además, resulta que la publicación de tales ofertas sigue siendo frecuente. Determinadas organizaciones resultan sustituir actualmente expresiones como “inglés como lengua materna” por “inglés como lengua materna o equivalente” y “nivel de hablante nativo del inglés” convocando a continuación sólo a los candidatos con inglés como lengua materna.
1. ¿Tiene la Comisión la intención de intervenir al respecto? En caso afirmativo, ¿de qué manera? En caso negativo, ¿por qué motivos?
2. ¿Tiene la Comisión la intención de colaborar también en el futuro con organizaciones que discriminan a las personas cuya lengua materna no sea el inglés?
Y como respuesta1, la Comisión responde el 22 marzo 2004:
Respuesta del Sr. Dimas en nombre de la Comisión.
Preguntas escritas: E-0201/04, E-0210/04, E-0236/04, E-0241/04.
El programa comunitario de acción de lucha contra la discriminación adoptado por Decisión del Consejo de 27 de noviembre de 2000 se basa en el artículo 13 del Tratado de Ámsterdam, que confiere competencias a la Comunidad para luchar contra toda forma de discriminación basada en el origen étnico o racial, la religión o las convicciones, discapacidad, edad u orientación sexual. En consecuencia, la discriminación basada en la lengua no está incluida en las actividades potencialmente cubiertas por el programa, y por lo tanto la Comisión no se propone financiar tales actividades.

EN: Thank you for clarifying that “Ethnicity” includes national origin, ancestry, skin color and language. ” But I have also verified that the word ethnic group also includes religion, but if religion is specifically indicated in the article. Is religion highlighted that is supposed to be included in the word ethnicity but language is not included? I have to tell you that it is normal, Federico Mayor Zaragoza when he was director general of UNESCO (1987-1999) in his speeches he never mentioned discrimination by language.
For your information on language discrimination in Europe that citizens are unaware of:
European Parliament. Parliamentary question. January 22, 2004. Linguistic discrimination (“native speakers”) 1:
In its answer to question E-2764/02 (1), the Commission acknowledges that “the condition of being a ‘native speaker’ that appears in some recruitment notices is unacceptable under the Community provisions on the free movement of workers , for being illegally discriminatory. For this reason, the Commission considers that the use of this expression in job offers is prohibited by Community law ”.
In recent years, European technical assistance offices, non-governmental organizations and private companies, funded by the Commission, have published more than 700 job offers at European level reserved exclusively for ‘native English speakers’ and candidates with’ English as mother tongue”. These vacancies were not looking for people with “perfect or very good command of English” but explicitly and exclusively for people with English as their mother tongue. Furthermore, it turns out that the publication of such offers is still frequent. Certain organizations are currently substituting expressions such as “English as their mother tongue” by “English as their mother tongue or equivalent” and “level of native speaker of English”, summoning only candidates with English as their mother tongue.
1. Does the Commission intend to intervene in this regard? If yes, in what way? If not, for what reasons?
2. Does the Commission intend to also collaborate in the future with organizations that discriminate against people whose mother tongue is not English?
And in response1, the Commission responded on March 22, 2004:
Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission.
Written questions: E-0201/04, E-0210/04, E-0236/04, E-0241/04.
The Community action program to combat discrimination adopted by Council Decision of 27 November 2000 is based on Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which confers powers on the Community to combat all forms of discrimination based on ethnic origin or racial, religion or convictions, disability, age or sexual orientation. Consequently, discrimination based on language is not included in the activities potentially covered by the program, and therefore the Commission does not intend to fund such activities.

[Christer Lundquist]

What you describe is (almost) funny, since the only member state where citizens’ «native language» is English has left the building! Of course, jobs may require command of the world language English, but to require it to be a candidate’s native tongue? What a mess. We’ll leave it at that with a sorry laugh…

• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Christer Lundquist.

[Ramon Maynou]

ES: Gracias por tu contestación. Una pregunta simple: ¿Cuando y quien han tomado la desición de que el inglés es el idioma internacional? En el año 1961 se redacta «The Anglo-American Conference Report 1961», un documento confidencial destinado al British Council, «El inglés debe convertirse en el idioma dominante. […] La lengua materna se estudiará cronológicamente primero, pero, luego, el inglés, en virtud de su uso y funciones, se convertirá en el idioma principal». El informe también especifica que el inglés debe tender al monopolio en los campos culturales y volverse esencial en las especializaciones científicas y técnicas y que, en un entorno internacional, los angloparlantes deben ser completamente intolerantes con el uso de otros idiomas en el ejercicio de su participación.

EN: Thank you for your reply. A simple question: When and who made the decision that English is the international language? In 1961 “The Anglo-American Conference Report 1961” was written, a confidential document for the British Council, “English must become the dominant language. […] The mother tongue will be studied chronologically first, but then English, by virtue of its use and functions, will become the main language ”. The report also specifies that English must tend to a monopoly in cultural fields and become essential in scientific and technical specializations and that, in an international environment, English speakers must be completely intolerant of the use of other languages in the exercise of their participation. .
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=4jVeGWtzQ1oC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es

[Christer Lundquist]

Ramon, we are moving off topic, but the answer is: Prevalence, prescedence and globalisational evolution: It just happened. Like you answer a child: Why? Because it just is. English is the most widely spoken/understod langauge with 1.348 billion users, above no. 2, Mandarin Chinese. Further globalisation and internet access will only accelerate this organic development. (Sorry, Spanish and Norwegian & Co).

Moreover, from Wikipedia, the academic explanation:
«Academic consensus is that English is a world language, with some authors such as British linguists David Crystal and David Graddol going so far as to consider it the only one. Authors who take a pluralist approach nevertheless consider English to inhabit a unique position as the foremost world language; for instance, in Abram de Swaan’s global language system, English is the sole occupant of the highest position in the hierarchy: the hypercentral language. According to German sociolinguist Ulrich Ammon [de], “[t]here is virtually no descriptive parameter or indicator for the international or global rank of a language which, if applied to today’s languages worldwide, does not place English at the top”. Ammon and Mufwene both posit that what sets English apart as the foremost world language is its use as a lingua franca, whereas Crystal focuses on its geographical distribution.»

I think we should keep the board clear of more off topic discussion.

[Ramon Maynou]

ES: Gracias por tu contestación. Una pregunta simple: ¿Cuando y quien han tomado la desición de que el inglés es el idioma internacional? En el año 1961 se redacta «The Anglo-American Conference Report 1961», un documento confidencial destinado al British Council, «El inglés debe convertirse en el idioma dominante. […] La lengua materna se estudiará cronológicamente primero, pero, luego, el inglés, en virtud de su uso y funciones, se convertirá en el idioma principal». El informe también especifica que el inglés debe tender al monopolio en los campos culturales y volverse esencial en las especializaciones científicas y técnicas y que, en un entorno internacional, los angloparlantes deben ser completamente intolerantes con el uso de otros idiomas en el ejercicio de su participación. https://books.google.com.br/books?id=4jVeGWtzQ1oC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es

EN: Thank you for your reply. A simple question: When and who have made the decision that English is the international language? In 1961 “The Anglo-American Conference Report 1961” was written, a confidential document for the British Council, “English must become the dominant language. […] The mother tongue will be studied chronologically first, but then English, by virtue of its use and functions, will become the main language ”. The report also specifies that English must tend to a monopoly in cultural fields and become essential in scientific and technical specializations and that, in an international environment, English speakers must be completely intolerant of the use of other languages in the exercise of their participation. . https://books.google.com.br/books?id=4jVeGWtzQ1oC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es

[Author]

Posts