Extending the Agenda. Equality Bodies addressing Hate Speech

Date of article: 08/01/2019

Daily News of: 23/01/2019

Country:  EUROPE

Author: European network of equality bodies - EQUINET

Article language: en

Hate speech and hate crime are growing and damaging phenomena across Europe. This is recognised in the work of the European Commission and of the Council of Europe. European standards for equality bodies recommend that their mandate be extended to include hate speech. Few equality bodies have an explicit mandate on hate speech, many have, however, interpreted their mandate to include hate speech. This situation can leave them lacking the competences and resources required to make an impact.

The Equinet Perspective ’Extending the Agenda. Equality Bodies addressing Hate Speech’ was written by Niall Crowley, with the support of Equinet’s Policy Formation Working Group.

Equality Body Strategies

Twenty five equality bodies in 18 countries reported on their work for this perspective. Many identified a high priority for work on hate speech given its prevalence and given it drives discrimination and harassment. The national policy context is not always conducive to their work, with inadequate legislative provision and enforcement frameworks that lack capacity. Most equality bodies did not report comprehensive strategies underpinning their work on hate speech. This limits their focus on root causes of hate speech and their engagement in alternative narrative work.

Equality Bodies Prioritising Hate Speech

However, a wide range of action on hate speech was reported by these equality bodies. This involves casework, research, policy advice, promotion of good practice, and communication. Low levels of casework are the norm, though a few equality bodies reported significant levels. Casework is largely reported by equality bodies with a decision-making function. A concern to deepen the knowledge base on hate speech is evident in the research work of equality bodies. Policy advice has largely focused on improving the legal basis for prosecuting hate speech comprehensively and effectively.

Equality Bodies Taking Action

Good practice work by equality bodies has had a particular concern with supporting better enforcement in relation to hate speech by the relevant authorities. Work has also been done to enable educational establishments to address the issue and to engage political parties on the issue. Positive duties on public bodies, employers and service providers are valuable in driving good practice on hate speech. Communication work has largely been limited to making the issue of hate speech visible as a public concern.

Conclusions and Looking Forward

In looking forward, it would be useful if the European Commission and the Member States could:

  • enhance legislation on hate speech to ensure uniform definition, the coverage of all grounds, and a mix of criminal and administrative channels to address cases;
  • improve the policy context by developing multi-annual national action plans on hate speech;
  • and ensure equality body have mandates that explicitly enable them to address hate speech and are accorded the competences required for this.

It would be useful if equality bodies could:

  • explore and devise full and comprehensive strategies to address hate speech;
  • develop their communication work to include sustained and substantial action on promoting alternative narratives;
  • and engage with the European Commission Code of Conduct and secure funding for this work under European Commission calls for projects.

It would be useful if Equinet could:

  • enable peer learning and provide training for equality bodies to build their strategy on hate speech and, in particular, to innovate in responding to this issue.

Download

Equality bodies addressing hate speech (2018)
Equality bodies addressing hate speech (2018)

 

Read more

Ombudsman proposes investigation into Department’s handling of Personal Independence Payments (PIPs)

Date of article: 21/01/2019

Daily News of: 22/01/2019

Country:  United Kingdom - Northern Ireland

Author: Northern Ireland Ombudsman

Article language: en

The Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman has informed the Department for Communities that she is proposing, under new powers, to launch an investigation into the way the Department administers Personal Independence Payments (PIPs). The welfare benefit replaced Disability Living Allowance in June 2016.

The investigation would be the first under the Ombudsman’s ‘own initiative’ power, which allows for an investigation to take place where there is a suspicion of systemic maladministration.

Ombudsman Marie Anderson has written to the Department's Permanent Secretary stating that since June 2016 there have been a significant number of complaints about PIPs to her Office.

She also noted the high number of the Department's decisions which have been upheld by Mandatory Reconsideration, but then overturned by an Appeal Tribunal.

Following an assessment of the Department’s procedures, she stated that she was satisfied that the criteria for an own initiative investigation have been met.

Ombudsman investigations are normally only carried out on receipt of a specific complaint.

However, the ‘own initiative’ power allows the Ombudsman to act even when no complaint has been received.

The Ombudsman has received acknowledgement from the Department that they have received  she awaits further information.

Under the terms of the Public Services Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Act 2016, the Ombudsman must publish a report of any ‘own initiative’ investigation.

 

Notes:

The Ombudsman’s ‘own initiative’ powers were granted in section 8 of the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. They allow her to conduct an investigation if she has a reasonable suspicion that there is systemic maladministration, even if no complaint has been received.

 

The Ombudsman has identified the following criteria for selecting subjects for potential Own Initiative investigations:

 

1. The issue of concern has been identified by the Ombudsman to be one of public interest.

2. The issue of concern affects a number of individuals or a particular group of people.

 

Read more

Réunion du Comité des Experts de l’AMP-UEMOA à Niamey

Date of article: 21/01/2019

Daily News of: 22/01/2019

Country:  WORLD

Author: Association des Ombudsmans et Médiateurs de la Francophonie

Article language: fr

Du 16 au 19 décembre 2018 s’est tenue à Niamey au Niger, une réunion du Comité des Experts de l’Association des Médiateurs des Pays membres de l’Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (AMP-UEMOA). Placée sous la présidence de Maître Ali Sirfi Maïga, Médiateur de la République du Niger, Président de l’AMP-UEMOA, cette réunion a vu la participation très appréciable de l’Institution du Médiateur de la République du Bénin en la personne de Bienvenu Padonou, Directeur des recours. La réunion s’inscrit dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des décisions de la 5ème Assemblée Générale de l’Association et a pour but de se pencher sur la question de l’harmonisation du cadre statutaire de l’organisation et du fonctionnement de l’Institution du Médiateur dans l’espace UEMOA et sur la relecture des statuts et du règlement intérieur de l’Association.

Cliquez ici pour lire l’intégralité de l’actualité

Read more

Pensioner Dies After Health Board Fails to Recognise Kidney Failings: Ombudsman Investigation

Date of article: 21/01/2019

Daily News of: 22/01/2019

Country:  United Kingdom - Wales

Author: Public Services Ombudsman for Wales

Article language: en

An 89-year-old woman died after a health board failed to recognise or monitor her acute kidney failure and prescribed inappropriate levels of pain relief, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales has found.
 

The Ombudsman launched an investigation after a complaint was made about the care received by Mrs A (anonymised) in May 2017 from Cardiff and Vale University Health Board.

The Ombudsman found that the Health Board failed to recognise that Mrs A was at high risk of Acute Kidney Injury because of her age and existing health concerns, including acute kidney failure, from the time she was admitted.  In an attempt to control Mrs A’s back pain, she was prescribed pain relief at inappropriate levels (in the context of her pre-existing kidney failure) and, even when she began to decline, this was not reviewed.

The failure to monitor Mrs A’s medication and kidney function resulted in an acute kidney injury, which was probably preventable but was overlooked.  Failures to recognise the impact on Mrs A’s kidneys, monitor her hydration or change her medication meant that it went untreated and she became more unwell and sadly died.

The Ombudsman also found that a prescription of an antidote to counter the accumulation of opioid pain killers, which could not be filtered by Mrs A’s damaged kidneys, was prescribed too late.  Consequently, there was significant uncertainty about whether Mrs A’s death could have been avoided, had appropriate action been taken sooner.

He also criticised the Health Board for significant delays in the reporting, processing, investigating and managing of two safeguarding concerns raised by Mrs A’s family.  The first concern was raised following the appearance of bruising and the second concern was about Mrs A’s symptoms of slurring, losses in consciousness and apparent “fitting”, which appeared to the family to indicate that she had suffered a head injury but were more likely to have been attributable to the medication she was prescribed and the impact it was having on her kidneys.

Commenting on the report, Nick Bennett, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, said:

 “I am extremely concerned that Mrs A was prescribed pain relief at inappropriate levels with no safety checks and that even when she began to decline, neither her kidney function nor the medication she was prescribed were reviewed.

“It is also worrying that medication to counter the effects of opioid toxicity was not administered soon enough.  There is uncertainty over whether Mrs A’s death might have been avoided had appropriate action been taken sooner. This is a terrible injustice that Mrs A’s family are left to live with.

“Additionally, the Health Board acknowledged that following an allegation made by a family member regarding bruising to Mrs A, the relationship between her and staff was negatively influenced by the fact that the concern had been raised.  This is concerning and could represent a wider culture which may prevent patients from raising issues. Reporting a complaint and action taken should be seen as a positive act in that it assists organisational learning.”

The Health Board has agreed to a number of recommendations including providing a full and meaningful apology to the family of Mrs A and to offer financial redress of £5,500.

Read more