Procedural justice perceptions in the mediation of discrimination reports by a national equality body
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229120927921 |
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Procedural justice
perceptions in the
mediation of discrimination
reports by a national
equality body
Cath´
erine Van de Graaf
Abstract
National equality bodies (NEBs) must provide independent assistance to victims of
discrimination in complaints about discrimination. As the EU Directive 2000/43/EC only
introduced a minimum programme, there is great variety in design at the national level. In
this article, the focus lies on the out-of-court approach of the Belgian NEB (Unia) which
is founded on dialogue with the involved parties. Based on semi-directive interviews with
18 persons who reported discrimination and hate speech, the factors that contribute to
their satisfaction with the assistance procedure of the NEB are explored. This satis-
faction is approached from a socio-psychological perspective based on the relational
model of procedural justice which implies that people care about a fair procedure
because of the message it conveys to them about their relationship with the entity
enacting the procedure. As established in prior research on informal dispute resolution,
it was found that the quality of their interaction with the staff members at the NEB played
a great role in the assessment of the procedure.
Keywords
National equality bodies, procedural justice, discrimination, Belgium, religion, headscarf,
alternative dispute resolution
Human Rights Centre, Department of European, Public and International Law, Faculty of Law and
Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Corresponding author:
Cath´
erine Van de Graaf, Human Rights Centre, Department of European, Public and International
Law, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Email: catherine.vandegraaf@ugent.be
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
2020, Vol. 20(1) 45–61
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1358229120927921
journals.sagepub.com/home/jdi
Introduction
In most European societies, a rise of ethnic-cultural diversity (Lodewijckx, 2014;
Meissner and Vertovec, 2015) is yielding a growing potential for multicultural con-
flicts. In addition, phenomena such as the migration ‘crisis’ (e.g. see Schmiedel and
Smith, 2018) and the increasing threat of terrorism (Bayrakli and Hafez, 2017) create
an atmosphere in which Islamophobia prospers. Such a context is a fertile breeding
ground for discrimination and hate speech on the basis of culture, religion and lan-
guage in every layer of society.
There is a need for mediation of the conflicts that occur as a consequence of these
developments. In this context, national equality bodies (NEBs) have an important role to
play. According to the Racial and Gender Equality Directives, equality bodies need to
provide ‘independent assistance to victims of discrimination in pursuing their complaints
about discrimination’ (Council Directive 2000/43/EC). In Belgium, Unia acts as the
NEB to which cases of discrimination can be reported. The functioning of Unia and
other NEBs is often hampered by societal and political tensions that exist around certain
topics.
1
This contentiousness makes it fairly difficult for an equality body to approach
such issues.
Brems recognizes that in numerous multicultural conflicts, satisfying all stakeholders
is impossible. Still, ‘it is possible to address the matter in a manner that all stakeholders
experience as correct, and in which nobody feels disrespected or ex cluded’ (Brems,
2018, p. 18). Procedural fairness research has demonstrated in various settings that
besides the final outcome, the manner in which one’s case is handled matters to people
as well. Fair procedures inform people that they are respected individuals and hold a
positive standing within the group (De Cremer and Tyler, 2005).
Empirical findings on the design of a fair procedure have been translated into
evidence-based recommendations in various contexts, especially courts (Burke and
Leben, 2007; Tyler, 2007–2008). Yet, Unia (the Belgian equality body) only resorts
to legal action in exceptional cases: only 1%of cases are taken to court.
2
This means that
the majority of reports are settled through negotiation and mediation, a context in which
the integration of procedural fairness requirements remains limited (Shapiro and Brett,
1993). Especially in procedures that address multicultural conflicts, strong arguments
have been uttered in favour of an optimalization of procedural justice (Brems, 2018). As
such, research that aims to understand how victims who report discrimination perceive
the mediation process at a NEB, such as Unia, is critical. Hence, in this article,
I conducted semi-structured interviews to allow them to express – in their own terms –
how they view the fairness of the mediation procedure. This provides a rare and empiri-
cally rich window into procedural justice perceptions in this specific context, which can
prompt future procedural justice research and the improvement of NEB’s procedures.
This article has been divided into four parts. Firstly, the focus is on the theoretical
knowledge that is necessary to place the study in a larger framework. After that, the
methodology, the selected cases of alleged discrimination and the impact on the inter-
viewees will be explained. The third part will focus on the results of the current study.
Finally, I will discuss these results and what lessons can be drawn for the future func-
tioning of both the Belgian equality body and its European counterparts.
46 International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 20(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial