Bodies for the promotion of equal treatment (Article 13 Directive 2000/43)

• Author: Lappalainen, Paul
• Pages: 77-90

77

7 BODIES FOR THE PROMO TION OF EQ UAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive

2000/43)

a) Body/bodies design ated for the prom otion of equal treatment irrespective of

racial/ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Di rective

In Sweden, the specialised body d esignated for the promotion of equal treatment

irrespective of racial/ethnic origin, in accordance with Article 13 of the Racial Equality

Directive, is the Equality Omb udsman (DO). The DO has a broad anti -discrimination and

equality promotion mandate established by law (the Equality Ombudsman Act). The

grounds covered by the DO’s mandate are sex, transgender identity or expression,

ethnicity, religion and other beli ef, disability, sexual orientation, and age. The DO’s scope

of action includes, but is not limited to, working life, education, labour mark et policy

activities and employment services, starting or running a business and professional

recognition, membership of certain organisations, goods, services and housing, health and

medical care and social services, national milit ary service and civilian service and, to a

limited extent, public sector employment.

The head of the DO is appointed by the Government. All responsibility for the agency lies

with the head of the agency. There is no governing board.

b) Political, economic and social context of the designated body

In 2009 and 2010, there was extensive p ublic criticism of the Equality Ombudsman (DO).

Much of this had its beginnings in a case taken to court concerning discrimination against

a Muslim man. His labour market subsidy was withdrawn for failing to shake hands in an

interview for an apprentice position with a potential employer who was a woman. The DO

won the case in February 2010.246 This resulted in massive and almost unanimous criticism

of the DO in editorials. Feminists and politicians were especially critica l. Few seemed to

have read the actual judgment, and it was the DO that was criticised, but in general there

was little criticism of the court. On top of the media criticism of the DO, there were also

problems concerning the administrative management of the DO. In February 2011, the

head of the office was removed. News reports at the time stated that the Government

acted, among other things, due to a slowness of decision-makin g.247

Although it can be asserted that there is broad political support for the Equality

Ombudsman, this seems to be dependent on the DO being relatively u ncontroversial and

unchallenging. It appears to the author o f this report that victims of discrimination have

had less and less t rust in the DO, at least since 2011. The DO asserts th at it has become

more strategic. At the same time, according to a former Gender Equality Ombudsman, who

also has a PhD in equality law , the DO has moved from trying to use the law t o promote

equality through taking on cases and assisting victims, to merely pro viding information

concerning discrimination.248 Agreement with this criticism can be found among NGOs and

various experts in the field.249

246 Stockholm District Court, case T 7324-08, Equality Ombudsman v Arbetsförmedlingen (8.2.2010) available

at: https://www.do.se/globalassets/diskrimineringsarenden/tingsratt/dom-tingsratt-arbetsformedlingen-

omed-20067612.pdf.

247 See, for example, Expressen (2011), ‘Regeringen sparkar DO Katri Linna’ (The Government fires DO Katri

Linna), 1 February 2011, available at: https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/regeringen-sparkar-do-katri-

linna/.

248 Svenaeus, L. (2018) ‘Amnesti råder för brott mot diskrimineringslagen’ (There is an ongoing amnesty for

violations of the Discrimination Act) 30.02.2018, at: https://www.svd.se/amnesti-rader-for-brott-mot-

diskrimineringslagen.

249 Some examples: ‘Kritik mot DO: ”Lagen har urholkats”’ (Criticism of the DO: the law has been hollowed

out), interview with the union for journalists at https://www.etc.se/inrikes/kritik-mot-do-lagen-har-

urholkats. ‘DO får hård kritik för ”tandlöshet” och ”slarv’ (DO subject of hard criticism due to toothless and

careless work), a disability think tank, Independent Living Institute presents an analysis of the DO’s work

for a year on active measures at https://www.arbetaren.se/2018/10/19/do-far-hard-kritik-for-tandloshet-

och-slarv/. Also see in particular the criticism from the former Gender Equality Ombudsman, Lena Svenaeus