What would Havel say?

Equal access to education, housing, legal protection, opportunities and social inclusion are rights that all citizens should be afforded.

Photo: Fil Sys

I was stuck on the 17 tram in Prague on 18th December. I was getting tickets at the National Theatre (Národní Divadlo) and it was starting to rain. I had bought the British weather with me. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a bright red sculptured heart which was obscured by a steady stream of people. As I headed over to see what was going on, I saw the name above the heart: Václav Havel.

It was the sixth anniversary of Vaclav Havel's death. The dissident, president, playwright and human rights advocate was arguably one of the most important figures during the downfall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, and as stated by Lech Walesa, definitely "deserved a Nobel Prize".  What was evident from the messages engraved on the heart and the score of people leaving candles, Havel gained in life and in death the everlasting admiration of the Czech people.

It has nearly been three months since I started the Erasmus programme at Charles University in Prague. As I have explained in my previous posts, I am also in Czechia to conduct research for my dissertation which asks pertinent questions about the human rights of Czech Roma children. In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights, ruled that the segregation of Roma children into "special schools" (separated from the mainstream school system) was contrary to the Convention right to an education. It is now 2017 and it is my aim to see if any real progress has been made and whether areas of Roma educational rights need further strategic litigation.

The Spirit of Charter 77

While standing at the red hearts and observing Prague citizens placing messages, flowers and candles by the memorial to their beloved President, I thought of something.

Havel and other prominent dissidents, who would go on to form a new democratic government in 1989, were also chief architects of Charter 77. Although signatories knew that they would inevitably be punished for their dissent, the Charter called for the Communist regime to grant citizens basic civil and political rights. The Czech people know their history and know very well that Havel and fellow signatories suffered greatly for their contempt of totalitarianism, that gratitude being one of many factors which peacefully toppled the Communist government in 1989.

Havel, I am sure, meant the Charter to apply to every citizen in the former Czechoslovakia and in the modern day Czechia.  The last sentence of the original Charter states:

We believe that Charter 77 will contribute towards all citizens in Czechoslovakia working and living as free people.

The key word in this final call for universal Human Rights is a small word: "all".  All definitely means all and that must include the Roma communities in modern day Czechia. Equal access to education, housing, legal protection, opportunities and social inclusion are rights that all Czech citizens should be afforded. However, this is far from the case for the Roma community.

The Exempt

Photo by S. Evans (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Recent figures suggest that the Roma community have not enjoyed the freedoms described in Charter 77 or those contained in the new Czech Constitution and Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. There is a stark difference between legal protection and tangible human dignity and respect.

Amnesty International consistently describes the Roma as one the most discriminated ethnic groups in Europe and the evidence seems to back this up.  In a 2010 poll, 83% of Czechs said that Roma were "socially maladjusted" and 45% did not want to see Roma on the streets full stop. With these mainstream attitudes, it is little wonder why discriminatory practices within the housing and education sectors are normalised.

During the winter semester in Prague, I took a course in International Human Rights, which invariably took into account some Czech cases.  One case was memorable: the Maticní Street Controversy. The UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination examined the case and concluded that the erection of a physical barrier in Usti nad Labem between the Roma block of flats - described as "houses of horror" - and the 'white neighbourhood' adjacent was contrary to Czechia's obligation to respect universal human rights. The response of the Czech government to the problem was, unfortunately, a classic example of how to further marginalise Roma. Instead of integration, improving relations between the two communities, providing education and employment programmes or improving the quality of housing; the government simply paid off the "whit home owners" and bought their houses. Whether intentionally or not, the national and the local municipal government had created a ghetto - an irreversible decision that would compound the social marginalisation of the Roma in the local area for decades to come. 

In the field of education, an Open Society Report from 2010 concluded that Roma children were 27 times more likely than majority children to be placed within practical schools. After the D.H Case in 2007, "special schools" were ruled to be contrary to the Convention rights to an education and not to be discriminated against on the basis of race/ethnicity. However, what the figures seem to suggest is that the quasi-automatic placement of Roma children in "special schools" (where the mainstream curriculum is not followed) continues even after this landmark case.  Although I plan to further research this area, it appears that the only modification is the name of these schools - now dubbed "practical schools".

Havel's Memory

Walking back from those red hearts in Národní Divadlo , there were a mixture of feelings. One of respect for Havel, a great man who fought and led a movement based on human rights, but also one of disappointment.  Disappointment that the legacy of his life and of Charter 77 had not be applied to all citizens.

I ask: what would Havel say if he saw the current situation of the Roma people and the little to no change in their treatment? I know the answer, the question is, do others?