Special Eurobarometer 296 European Commission

Discrimination in the European Union:

Perceptions, Experiences and Attitudes

Fieldwork February – March 2008 Publication July 2008

Report

Special Eurobarometer 296 / Wave 69.1 – TNS opinion & social

This survey was requested by Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities and coordinated by Directorate-General for Communication

This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 3

1. SETTING THE CONTEXT ........................................................................... 5

2. THE PERCEPTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE ................................ 7

2.1 The perceived level of discrimination.........................................................7

2.2 Attitudes to diversity in the private and public spheres...............................10

3. EXPERIENCE OF DISCRIMINATION ....................................................... 12

3.1 Personal experienceof discrimination......................................................12

3.2 Experience of multiple discrimination.......................................................15

3.3 Seeingothers discriminated against........................................................16

4. COMBATTING DISCRIMINATION ........................................................... 19

4.1 Assessment of efforts made to fight discrimination....................................19

5. KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW ..................................................................... 22

5.1 Knowledge of one’s rights as a victim of discrimination ..............................22

6. VIEWS ABOUT EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN EMPLOYMENT...................... 25

6.1 Factors which put people at a disadvantage..............................................25

6.2 Support for measures to provide equal opportunities in employment............28

6.3 Support for monitoring measures............................................................30

7. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF ETHNIC ORIGIN ........................... 34

7.1 The perceived extent of ethnic discrimination ...........................................34

7.2 Changes in the perceptions of ethnic discrimination...................................38

7.3 Measuring discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin................................40

7.4 Attitudes towards different ethnic groups.................................................41

7.5. Attitudes towards Roma .......................................................................43

8. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY ................................. 46

8.1 The perceived extent of disability discrimination........................................46

8.2 Changes in the perceptions ofdiscrimination on grounds of disability...........48

8.3 Measuring disability discrimination..........................................................50

8.4 Attitudes to disabled people...................................................................51

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

9. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION................. 52

9.1 The perceivedextent of discrimination on basis of sexual orientation...........52

9.2 Changes in the perceptions of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation......................................................................................54

9.3 Measuring discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation..........................56

9.4 Attitudes to homosexual people..............................................................57

10. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE............................................ 59

10.1 The perceived extent of discrimination on basis of age.............................59

10.2 Changes in the perceptions of discrimination on grounds of age ................61

10.3 Experience of age discrimination...........................................................63

10.4 Attitudes to older and younger people in the highest political office............64

11. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION OR BELIEF ................. 66

11.1 The perceived extent of discrimination on basis of religion or belief............66

11.2 Changes in the perceptions of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief....................................................................................................68

11.3 Experience of discrimination on basis of religion or belief..........................70

11.4 Attitudes to people of a different religion or belief....................................71

12. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER ..................................... 73

12.1 The perceived extent of discrimination on basis of gender.........................73

12.2 Changes in the perceptions of discrimination on grounds of gender............75

12.3 Experience of discrimination on basis of gender.......................................77

12.4 Attitudes to women in the highest political office.....................................78

13. MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION .............................................................. 79

13.1 The perception of multiple discrimination ...............................................80

CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 83

ANNEXES Technical specifications Questionnaire Data tables

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

INTRODUCTION

The European Union has every reason to be proud of its anti-discrimination legislation which is among the most extensive in the world. In 2000, the European Union adopted two very wide-ranging laws1 to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. As far as racial and ethnic origin is concerned, the legislation extends to other aspects of daily life, such as education and social services. These texts come in addition to the numerous laws that have been adopted at EU level since 1975 to promote equality between women and men in the workplace2.

However, calling for equal rights and adopting laws to promote and protect them is not enough to ensure that equal opportunities are enjoyed by everyone in practice. 2007 was therefore designated as the “European Year of Equal Opportunities for All”. It was an initiative leading the way to a bolder strategy seeking to give momentum to the fight against discrimination in the EU3.

The aim of this European Year was to inform people of their rights, to celebrate diversity and to promote equal opportunities for everyone in the European Union. With more than 430 national actions and over 600 events spreading the messages of the Year in the 30 participating countries, significant gains were made in this respect.

In anticipation of this Year of Equal Opportunities for All, the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunity Opportunities commissioned a survey about discrimination and inequality in Europe, conducted in the summer of 20064.

This current report represents a follow-up to this survey, tracking how perceptions and opinion in this field have changed in the intervening year. Several new questions are also asked in the current survey, for example dealing with the subject of ‘multiple discrimination’.

Both surveys were carried out by TNS Opinion & Social network – this current one between February 18th and March 22nd, 2008. The methodology used is that of Eurobarometer surveys as carried out by the Directorate General for Communication (“Research and Political Analysis” Unit)5. A technical note on the manner in which interviews were conducted by the Institutes within the TNS Opinion & Social network is appended as an annex to this report. This note indicates the interview methods and the confidence intervals6.

1 Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 and Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000. Both directives are based on Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty establishing the European Community which reads: "the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation". Discrimination occurring in the workplace on the grounds of sex is prohibited by several other directives that have been adopted since 1975. 2 For more information on the rights to non discrimination and equal opportunities, please see www.equality2007.europa.eu or www.stop-discrimination.info 3 More details can be found in the ‘Framework strategy for non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all’ published by the European Commission in 2005, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/pubst/poldoc/com07_en.pdf

4 Discrimination in the European Union: (special Eurobarometer 263). Fieldwork June-July 2006.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_263_en.pdf 5 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm 6 The results tables are included in the annex. It should be noted that the total of the percentages in the tables of this report may exceed 100% when the respondent has the possibility to give several answers to the same question.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

The findings from this survey provide a good insight into the perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and awareness of discrimination and inequality in the European Union in 2008.

In the report the six legally prohibited forms of discrimination in the EU are examined: discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, age, disability and sexual orientation. The report proceeds with the following structure:

In analysing each of these issues we first examine overall results at the EU level, noting any significant evolutions compared to the 2006 survey. Here it should be noted that the 2006 results are based on the then 25 EU Member States, as was the state before the accession of Romania and Bulgaria in January 2007. This is followed by a breakdown of results by country, before a detailed look at relevant variations between different segments of society. These groups are all derived from answers to sociodemographic questions asked in the survey:

In addition some results are strongly linked with key attitudinal positions, namely:

In the report, individual countries are represented by their official abbreviations. Readers are reminded that survey results are reported at a total level, the accuracy resting upon the sample size, margin of error and standard deviation.

7 D47.1 Do you have friends or acquaintances who are…? 8 QA3 In the past 12 months have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed on the basis of one or more of the following grounds? Was it a discrimination on basis of...? QA4 In the past 12 months, have you witnessed someone being discriminated against or harassed on the basis of one or more of the following grounds? Was it discrimination on basis of...?

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

1. SETTING THE CONTEXT

This chapter aims at establishing the background to the issue of discrimination. We look at the extent of diversity in respondents’ social circles and how many Europeans define themselves as belonging to a minority group.

- Diversity in friends is most widespread in terms of religion, disability, ethnicity -

When considering the issue of discrimination, an important analytical distinction to be made is whether respondents count members of different groups amongst their own social circle9. As will be seen later in the survey, this has considerable impact on attitudes to the subject.

Over half of all Europeans have friends or acquaintances who are of a different religion or have different beliefs to them (61%), who are disabled (55%) or of a different ethnic origin to them (55%). It is comparatively rarer for respondents to have homosexual friends or acquaintances (34%) or to have Roma friends (14%).

There is large variation here between countries, which are in part explained by demographics. For example, 47% of Bulgarians say that they have friends who are Roma, compared to just 2% of Maltese who give the same answer. Clearly this is related to the respective proportions of the local populations who are Roma.

However, cultural attitudes also play a factor, particularly with regards to homosexuality. Here, 69% of Dutch respondents say they have homosexual friends, whilst just 3% of Romanians say the same. This reflects - inter alia - varying attitudes towards homosexuality, which will be explored in greater detail below.

We can observe that peoples’ contact with others who are “different” from themselves varies depending on the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics10. For each type of friend/acquaintance included in the survey, the main determining factors are:

Having friends/acquaintances of different ethnic origin:

  1. o Becomes less common with age.

  2. o The longer people stayed in full-time education, the more likely it is.

  3. o Is somewhat more common among men than it is among women.

  4. o Is more common in urban areas than rural areas.

  5. o Naturally, more common amongst those not living in their country of birth.

9 D47 Do you have friends or acquaintances who are…? 10 Full results for this question can be found in the annexes of this report

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Having Roma friends/acquaintances:

o It is least likely among people aged 55 and over.

Having homosexual friends/acquaintances:

  1. o Is much less likely amongst those aged 55 or above.

  2. o Is considerably more likely the longer a respondent has stayed in education.

  3. o Is somewhat more common in urban areas than rural areas.

Having disabled friends/acquaintances:

  1. o Is more common when people themselves have a chronic physical or mental health problem.

  2. o The longer people stayed in full-time education, the more likely it is.

Having friends/acquaintances of a different religion or different beliefs:

  1. o Is less likely among people aged 55 and over than among younger people.

  2. o The longer people stayed in full-time education, the more likely it is.

- Few Europeans feel they are part of a minority group –

Very few respondents in the European Union consider themselves as belonging to a minority group11. Overall 87% do not define themselves as being part of a minority in any respect, whilst only a minimal share consider themselves as falling into any of the minority groups under discussion here12. Four percent of Europeans are unable to answer to this question.

QD51 Where you live, do you consider yourself to be part of any of the following? Please tell me all that apply. EU27 (%)

It is interesting to see that only low proportions consider themselves to be part of each minority group given that there would be a much higher proportion of the EU population who do not belong to majority ethnic/religious groups, who are not heterosexual or who are disabled13.

11 No general definition of minority was offered to the interviewees when they were asked this question. A list of the minority groups under discussion here was read out. 12 D51 Where you live, do you consider yourself to be part of any of the following?

13 For example, the percentage of disabled people in the total EU population has been variously estimated at between 16% and 20%, depending on the definition of disability used.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

2. THE PERCEPTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE

2.1 The perceived level of discrimination

- Discrimination on ethnic grounds is considered the most widespread -

Discrimination based on ethnic origin (62%) is seen to be the most widespread form of discrimination in the EU, followed by discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (51%) and disability (45%).

For two of the six grounds of discrimination examined in this survey (all those for which discrimination is legally prohibited in the EU14), a higher proportion of Europeans consider discrimination to be widespread than to be rare: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and especially ethnic origin are both seen as widespread by the majority15 .

It is also the case that a substantial share of Europeans – over one third in each case think that discrimination on the grounds of disability, age, religion or belief and gender is widespread. It can be noted that at the same time, however, all of them are perceived to be ‘rare’ by an absolute majority, whilst discrimination on the grounds of disability is said to be rare by a relative majority.

Q1 Perception of discrimination on the basis of…

- % EU

…ethnic origin

2008 2006

…sexual orientation

2008 2006

…disability 2008 2006

…age

2008 2006

…religion or belief

2008 2006

…gender

2008 2006

NB: “Don’t know” and “non-existent” (SPONTANEOUS) answers are not shown Note: 2008 figures based on EU27, 2006 based on EU25

14 The EU Member States are free to adopt stricter anti-discrimination legislation, for example prohibiting discrimination based on additional grounds, and many have done so. 15 QA1 For each of the following types of discrimination, could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, it is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)?

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- The perception that discrimination is widespread has evolved over the past

year (a slight diminution) –

Making the comparison with results from the 2006 survey, we can see two developments. Firstly, for some grounds of discrimination, there has been a decrease in the proportion of respondents who believe discrimination to be widespread. In most cases this evolution is a slight one, although it is notable that there is a more substantial change in opinion on disability-based discrimination: 45% now consider this to be widespread compared to 52% in 2006.

Later in the report we analyse these results in greater detail, highlighting considerable differences in perception between countries and depending on socio-demographic and cultural factors as well as personal experience of discrimination.

It should also be noted that respondents were also able to give the spontaneous answer that they consider a particular type of discrimination to be non-existent in their country. Although a different type of response than that the two ‘rare’ answers (fairly rare and very rare), a non-existent answer should be seen as a highly positive response. The proportions giving such answers are 5% for discrimination on religious grounds, 4% for discrimination on age grounds, 3% on disability, gender and sexual orientation grounds and 2% on ethnicity grounds.

- Except for ethnic origin, discrimination is seen as being less common now than five years ago

When asked to make a comparison with the situation five years ago, respondents are most likely to say that discrimination on various bases has become less widespread. This is particularly true for discrimination on the basis of disability, and gender where over two-thirds (67% in both cases) consider that this has become less widespread. Furthermore, over half of respondents think that discrimination concerned with sexual orientation, age and religion or beliefs has become less widespread. However, there still exist sizable proportions who express contrary views.

The exception to this overall pattern is discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, where a slightly higher proportion of respondents consider this to be more widespread than 5 years ago (48% vs. 44% with the opposite view). Thus, this basis of discrimination is considered to be both the most widespread and is the most likely to be seen to have been on the rise in recent years.

Comparing results with those from 2006 we can see that there have been notable drops in the share of ‘more widespread’ answers for discrimination based on age, disability (both -5 percentage points), religion or beliefs (-4) and gender (-3).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Q2 Is Discrimination now more or less common than it was 5 years ago on the basis of…? -% EU

Less Widespread

More widespread

NB: “Don’t know” answers are not shown Note: 2008 figures based on EU27, 2006 based on EU25

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

2.2 Attitudes to diversity in the private and public spheres

In this year’s survey, respondents were asked two new questions, with the intention of uncovering their attitudes to different groups16. These questions required the respondent to say how comfortable they would be having someone from these groups either as a neighbour or in their country’s highest political office, using a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 represents being ‘totally comfortable’17.

-Overall, the average European is comfortable with diversity; a notable difference is when it comes to having a Roma neighbour

In general, for both scenarios, respondents tend towards the ‘comfortable’ end of the scale.

This is especially true for the ‘neighbour’ example, where the average respondent is highly comfortable with disability (an average score of 9.1 out of 10), different religion or belief to their own (8.5) and homosexuality (7.9). While on average there is a high level of comfort with the idea of having a neighbour from a different ethnic origin (8.1), the level of comfort drops to 6.0 at the prospect of having a Roma neighbour (6.0). As is shown in the detailed section on Roma (see section 7.5), it is also the case that 24% would feel uncomfortable with having a Roma neighbour.

These overall figures mask variation according to socio-demographic groupings and between countries, with these treated later in the report (see chapters 7-10 and 12).

Q6 For each of the following situations, please tell me using this scale from 1 to 10 how you would personally feel about it.On this scale, 1 means that you would be very uncomfortable and 10 means that you would be totally comfortable with the situation.

16 QA6.1 For each of the following situations, please tell me using this scale from 1 to 10 how you would personally feel about it. On this scale, '1' means that you would be "very uncomfortable" and '10' means that you would be "totally comfortable" with this situation.

QA8.1 And using a scale from 1 to 10, please tell me how you would feel about having someone from each of the following categories in the highest elected political position in (OUR COUNTRY)?

17 The defined groups for these questions were tailored for each of the two scenarios. Thus for the neighbour situation, ethnicity was asked as ‘having a person from a different ethnic origin than yours as a neighbour’, whilst for the political office situation it was asked as ‘a person from a different ethnic origin than the majority of the population’. Roma were tested only in the neighbour situation, whereas someone aged over 75, under 30 and a woman were tested only in the political office question.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

For the question on the highest political office, the picture is somewhat more varied. Here respondents have no qualms with this position being occupied by someone with a different religion or belief than the majority of the population (9.0), a woman (8.9) or a disabled person (8.0). There is more reluctance when it comes to homosexuality (7.0) and having a different ethnic origin than the rest of the population (6.4). Age is also an issue, especially if a person were to be over 75 (5.4), but also if they were to be under 30 (6.4).

Q8. And using a scale from 1 to 10, please tell me how you would feel about having someone from each of the following categories in the highest elected political position in (YOUR COUNTRY)?

Again, these overall figures mask variation according to socio-demographic groupings and between countries, with these treated later in the report (see chapters 7, 9-13).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

3. EXPERIENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

Thus far we have seen evidence of the perceived extent of discrimination in Europe. In general, this is more likely to be seen as rare rather than widespread and on the decrease rather than on the rise. At the same time, the proportions answering that discrimination is widespread are substantial and in particular discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin is seen both as being widespread and as having increased in the last five years by a majority of Europeans. In this chapter we analyse discrimination, either as directly experienced by the respondent or witnessed as a third party.

3.1 Personal experience of discrimination

- 15% of Europeans say they were discriminated against in the last year -

In the course of the 12 months leading up to the survey, 15% of respondents report that they personally felt discriminated against or harassed on the basis of at least one of the grounds under consideration here: gender, disability, ethnic origin, age18, sexual

orientation, religion or belief.19 85% of Europeans say that they have not felt
discriminated against in the year prior to this survey.
The most common basis for self-reported discrimination is age, with 6%

experiencing this over the course of the year. This is followed by gender discrimination, which 3% report having experienced. A similar question was asked in 2003 in the then 15 Member States20. The results were very similar to those obtained in this survey: age discrimination ranked first with 5% of Europeans saying that they had been discriminated on this basis while the proportion of those who had experienced other forms of discrimination remained at 3% and below.

QA3 In the past 12 months have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed on the basis of one or more of of the following grounds? Was it a discrimination on basis of...? Please tell me all that apply. - % EU27

Yes

Age Gender For another reason Ethnic origin Religion or belief Disability Sexual orientation DK

18 Note: it was intentionally not specified in the questionnaire whether this would be being older or younger so as to allow the respondent to interpret ‘age discrimination’ as they see it. 19 QA3 In the past 12 months have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed on the basis of one or more of the following grounds? 20 Special Eurobarometer 168 “Discrimination in Europe” at

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_168_exec.sum_en.pdf

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

In terms of country results, the variations are rather moderate. The highest annual rate of self-reported discrimination is seen in Austria (25%), with age discrimination accounting for a large share of this: 11% of Austrians say they experienced age discrimination over the 12-month period. A high figure of 19% is recorded in Italy, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Age discrimination is again a large part of this in the Czech Republic, where 12% report experiencing this. Greece is the only country where a single-digit result is recorded (7%).

As would be logically expected, there are a number of differences according to social and demographic factors related to the different kinds of discrimination:

  • Gender discrimination is experienced more by women (5%) than by men (1%).

  • Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin is especially commonplace amongst respondents who were born outside of Europe21 (23%). It is also more common amongst people born in Europe but outside the EU (10%) and people living in an EU country other than where they were born (9%) than it is for those living in their country of origin (2%).

21 Caution: small base size for respondents born outside of Europe (543)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

  • 8% of respondents with a chronic physical or mental problem experience discrimination on grounds of disability, compared to just 1% of those without such a problem.

  • Respondents who are aged 25-39 are less likely to be discriminated on age grounds than other aged groups (15-24, 6%; 25-39, 3%; 40-54, 6%; 55+, 7%).

- There is a clear link between experiencing discrimination and feeling part of a minority -

There is a strong correspondence between respondents defining themselves as part of a minority group and the experience of discrimination, with this particularly notable for discrimination on the grounds of disability or ethnicity.

This suggests either that self-perceived minorities are more likely to experience discrimination or that the experience of discrimination or harassment is a significant factor in people perceiving themselves to be a ‘minority’ in these term.

The graph below illustrates this link. For example, 23% of those Europeans who say that they belong to a minority group in terms of their ethnic origin also say that they have felt discriminated on these grounds in the last 12 months (note that the numbers falling into these groups are small and thus the figures shown below should be treated with caution). In contrast, the reported rate of experienced ethnic discrimination stands at only 2% when we consider all Europeans and not just those who define themselves as belonging to a minority group.

Q3/D51 In the past 12 months have you personally felt discriminated

against or harassed on the basis of one or more of the following grounds? -% EU27

% of those self-defining as minority who experience discrimination on relevant ground

Disability

Ethnic origin

Sexual orientation

Religion or belief

Bases: All self-defining as a minority in ground under consideration (Disability n=519; Ethnic origin n=917; Sexual orientation n=190; Religion or belief n=905). Caution: small bases. NB: For the question on self-defining as part of a minority, there were no options for ‘age’ or ‘gender’.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

3.2 Experience of multiple discrimination

- 3% of Europeans say they experienced multiple discrimination in the last year

Of the 15% of Europeans who experienced discrimination in the 12 months before their interview, 12% experienced ‘single ground’ discrimination and 3% experienced this on multiple grounds (i.e. they gave more than one answer to the question asking them on which grounds they experienced discrimination)22.

Given the low proportion of respondents who experienced discrimination over the 12 month period in question, it is not possible to give a precise indication of the types of multiple discrimination that coincide in being experienced as one of the three types of multiple discrimination outlined at the beginning of the chapter.

However, as an indicative measure, we can show the proportion of respondents who experience discrimination on a given ground who experienced multiple discrimination over the course of a year. The following observations can be made based on the table below:

  • In terms of absolute numbers of respondents, age discrimination is the most common ground for discrimination (1550). Consequently, it is also in this group that the highest number of respondents indicate that they have been discriminated against on other grounds as well (509, 2% in the EU as a whole);

  • However, when looking at the percentages of those who have experienced multiple discrimination as a proportion of those who have experienced discrimination on each of the grounds mentioned here, we see that respondents who have encountered discrimination on the grounds of religion/belief and sexual orientation are the most likely to have experienced multiple discrimination (57% and 50% respectively).

% experiencing discrimination on certain grounds who experience multiple discrimination

GROUND EU27 ETHNIC GENDER SEXUAL ORIENTATION AGE RELIGION /BELIEF DISABILITY OTHER
ALL EXPERIENCING DISCRIMINATION ON GROUND* 3980 639 841 349 1550 437 543 675
ALL EXPERIENCING DISCRIMINATION ON GROUND WHO EXPERIENCE MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION 802 227 373 174 509 251 205 115
% experiencing multiple discrimination in the EU 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0%
% experiencing multiple discrimination out of those who have experienced discrimination 20% 36% 49% 50% 33% 57% 38% 17%

*Note: small bases: table for indicative purposes only

22 QA3 In the past 12 months have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed on the basis of one or more of the following grounds? Was it a discrimination on basis of...?

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

3.3 Seeing others discriminated against

- Around 3 in 10 Europeans report witnessing discrimination or harassment in the past year -

An alternative measure of the extent of discrimination is to ask whether respondents have witnessed other people being discriminated against or harassed.

Just under 3 in 10 (29%) say they have seen this happening in the 12 months that led up to their interview23. It is quite logical that this figure is higher than that for self-reported discrimination, for a number of reasons:

  • There may be more than one witness to an incident of discrimination (i.e. it would be ‘double-reported’).

  • A given respondent may also witness more than one incident of discrimination over the course of a year and thus be ‘double counted’ in this way.

● Perceptual factors: if a respondent is to some extent sensitive to the idea of
discrimination they are more likely to perceive an incident as being one of
discrimination.

Q3/Q4 - Experience of discrimination -% EU27

% personally experienced

% witnessed

Ethnic origin Age Disability Religion or Sexual Gender belief orientation

We also notice that, when we examine specific grounds for discrimination, the order of results differs between self-reported and third party-witnessed discrimination. Considering the latter, ethnic origin is the most common with 14% saying they witness discrimination on this ground, whilst age is the second most common with 7% saying they witness this. This order represents a reversal of the top two items seen for the question on self-reported discrimination.

23 QA4 In the past 12 months, have you witnessed someone being discriminated against or harassed on the basis of one or more of the following grounds?

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

As was the case for the question regarding personal experiences of discrimination, a similar question concerning witnessing discrimination was asked in the 2003 Eurobarometer on discrimination24. Again, the results are broadly similar25 to those obtained in this survey: Europeans are most likely to witness ethnic discrimination.

- Wide variation in results from one country to the next -

Looking at the country results, we see that a high proportion of Swedes (46%) say that they witnessed discrimination over the period in question, with Austria (42%) again figuring prominently. In both these countries, the large overall figure is in particular a result of high rates of claims to have witnessed discrimination on ethnic grounds (24% in Sweden, 17% in Austria).

Third-party reported discrimination, on any ground, is lowest in Malta (14%).

24 Special Eurobarometer 168 “Discrimination in Europe” at

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_168_exec.sum_en.pdf 25 It should be kept in mind that the 2003 Eurobarometer was carried out within the 15 Member States which consisted the European Union at that time.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- Several factors influence how likely someone is to say they have seen discrimination or harassment

Carrying out a deeper analysis, we can distinguish between three different layers that influence results for these questions: general factors that make a respondent more likely to witness discrimination, personal experience of discrimination and the effect of social contact with people from minority groups.

Concerning general factors, the following are likely to increase a respondent’s chances of claiming to have witnessed discrimination:

  • Being younger rather than older: 42% of those aged 15-24 report witnessing discrimination or harassment, compared to 19% of those aged 55+.

  • Staying in full-time education for longer: 35% of respondents staying in education until the age of 20 or above witness discrimination compared to 21% of those finishing at the age of 15 or earlier.

  • Living in an urban area (34%) rather than a rural village (24%).

It should be noted that these are all groups who are more likely to have diverse social circles (see chapter 1) and this is a key factor in making respondents more likely to report having witnessed discrimination (see below). They are also groups who are more likely to have higher levels of media access, thereby making them more ‘sensitive’ to discrimination issues.

There is a very strong relationship between having experienced discrimination oneself and witnessing it happening to others: 22% of those who were not discriminated against themselves in the period in question report having seen it happening elsewhere, compared to 66% of respondents who were discriminated against on one ground and 79% of those discriminated against on multiple grounds (these being respondents who report experiencing discrimination on more than one ground in the 12 months before the survey)26.

Having a social network characterised by diversity clearly has an effect in making a respondent more likely to witness discrimination on the relevant ground.

There is also a strong link between having witnessed discrimination happening (or indeed being discriminated against) and the belief that discrimination is widespread. We explore this in more detail in the chapters below on specific types of discrimination.

26 Caution: note small base size here (802 discriminated against on multiple grounds)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

4. COMBATTING DISCRIMINATION

4.1 Assessment of efforts made to fight discrimination

- Opinion on national efforts made to combat discrimination is split half and half between those who think these suffice and those who do not

Taking aggregate results at EU level, we can see that opinion is evenly split as to whether sufficient efforts are being made in respondents’ countries to fight all forms of discrimination: 47% think that this is the case, with 48% expressing the opposite view. Only 5% give a ‘don’t know’ answer indicating that awareness is high for this topic27.

Opinion tends to be more qualified than absolute, with answers for ‘yes’, to some extent’ and ‘no, not really’ (both 36%) outnumbering those for ‘yes, definitely’ (11%) and ‘no, definitely not’ (12%).

QA11. In general, would you say that enough effort is made in (OUR COUNTRY) to fight all forms of discrimination? -% EU27

No, definitely not DK

Yes, definitely

12% 5%

11% No, definitely not 15%

Yes, to some extent 36% 36%

2006/EU25 DK

really 36%

Compared to the results from the 2006 survey, we can see that positive answers have increased slightly (+2 from 45%) whilst negative answers have decreased (-3 from 51%).

27 QA11 In general, would you say that enough effort is made in (OUR COUNTRY) to fight all forms of discrimination?

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

The highest proportions who think that enough effort is being made are found in Finland and Cyprus (both 66%), followed by the Netherlands (64%). At the other end of the scale, 30% of Poles and 31% of Swedes and Latvians feel current efforts are sufficient.

There appears to be no clear relationship here between evaluations of the efforts being made to combat discrimination and perceptions of it being widespread or not in a particular country (see chapters 6-12). As just one example, Sweden and Latvia are both countries where a low proportion of respondents think that current efforts suffice, but in Latvia discrimination is generally seen as very rare whilst in Sweden it is seen as much more widespread.

Considering the evolutions at country level, no significant changes have been recorded since 2006 with a few exceptions: respondents in Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands are significantly more satisfied with the efforts made to fight discrimination in their countries (+14, +8 and +8 points respectively) while Slovenians and Greeks are less likely to think that efforts suffice than in 2006 (-5 both).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

In terms of general socio-demographic factors, respondents are more likely to feel that more effort needs to be made in their country if they are:

  • Female: 50% of women think current efforts do not suffice, compared to 45% of men.

  • Young: 53% of those aged 15-24 say not enough effort is made, compared to 43% of those aged 55+.

We also note that there is a political element to viewpoints here, with respondents having left-wing views (52%) more likely than respondents with right-wing views (44%) to think that more effort needs to be made.

- Those who think discrimination is widespread are more likely to feel that current efforts to fight it do not suffice

It is important to note here that evaluations of measures being taken at national level are very much related to views on the pervasiveness of discrimination in society.

Respondents who perceive discrimination to be widespread are more likely to feel efforts are insufficient.

QA11. In general, would you say that enough effort is made in (OUR COUNTRY) to fight all forms of discrimination? Total % QA1. RESPONDENTS PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION IN (OUR COUNTRY) TO BE WIDESPREAD
Disability Ethnic origin Gender Sexual orientation Age Religion or beliefs
Yes No 47% 48% 38%58% 43% 54% 39% 57% 40% 56% 40% 55% 42% 55%

Similarly, experience of discrimination – whether it has happened to the respondent personally or whether they claim to have witnessed it happening to someone else – is also an important influence on opinion on the sufficiency of efforts made to fight discrimination.

QA11. In general, would you say that enough effort is made in (OUR COUNTRY) Total % QA3. EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION IN LAST 12 MONTHS QA4. WITNEDISCRIMINA12 MONTHS SSED TION IN LAST
to fight all forms of discrimination? No Single Ground Multiple Grounds* Yes No
Yes No 47% 48% 49%46% 37% 58% 32% 64% 50% 44% 38% 59%

*Note: Results for multiple grounds should be considered as indicative due to the small base (802), i.e. only 3% of Europeans have experienced multiple discrimination in the last 12 months.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

5. KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW

In this brief chapter we examine the extent to which citizens are aware of their rights in cases of discrimination and harassment. We have already seen some evidence of some awareness in this area from the low proportions of “don’t know” answers to questions examined in previous chapters.

5.1 Knowledge of one’s rights as a victim of discrimination

- The majority of Europeans do not know their rights related to discrimination or harassment -

One-third of EU citizens say that they know their rights, should they be a victim of discrimination or harassment (33%). Over half (53%) give the opposite answer, with the remainder saying that ‘it depends’ (11%). As the graph below shows, these figures are very close to those recorded in 200628.

QA12 Do you know your rights if you are the victim of discrimination or harassment? -% EU

NB: 2006 results based on EU25 countries, 2008 based on EU27

Although the direction of results in most countries is close to the overall EU average, there are nonetheless some countries where more respondents say they would know their rights than say they would not: Finland (62% would know vs. 30% would not), Malta (49% vs. 37%) and Slovenia (44% vs. 38%). In Cyprus, there is an even split (45% vs. 45%). The lowest proportions knowing their rights are recorded in Bulgaria (17%) and Austria (18%).

It can be noted that Austria is also the country where the highest share of respondents say they have been discriminated against in the past month (25%).

28 QA12 Do you know your rights if you are the victim of discrimination or harassment?

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Although the EU average has remained stable over the last year, there are a number of countries that have seen substantial fluctuations in knowledge of rights since the last survey. There has been a particularly notable increase in Estonia (+14 points from 19%).

Knowledge of rights: Notable changes 2006 – 2008

Note: Figures shown = % ‘yes’

2006 2008 Change

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- Length of education an important influence on knowledge -

Education is a key influence on knowledge, with the latter generally increasing the longer a respondent has spent in education. Nevertheless, we note that even amongst those educated until the age of 20 or above, more people say that they would not know their rights (46%) than say they would (41%).

QA12 Do you know you rights if you are the victim of discrimination or harassment Total % Yes BY AGE OF FINISHING FULL-TIME EDUCATION
1516-19 20+ Still studying
Yes No 33% 53% 24%62% 33% 53% 41%46% 35% 49%

It is important here to consider whether respondents have actually experienced discrimination or not, as these respondents are most in need of being aware of their rights.

We can see that these respondents do have a slightly higher level of awareness – 36% of those experiencing discrimination on a single ground and 37% of those experiencing it on multiple grounds say that they know their rights, compared to 33% of those who did not experience discrimination. However, this gap is not a large one and it could be argued that raising awareness amongst those who have already experienced discrimination or are liable to do so in future is a matter of high importance.

QA12 Do you know you rights if you are the victim of discrimination or harassment Total % Yes QA3. BY EXPERIENCE OFLAST 12 MONTHS DISCRIMINATION
NO SINGLE GROUND MULTIPLE GROUNDS*
Yes No 33% 53% 33%54% 36% 47% 37% 47%

*All respondents who experienced discrimination on more than one ground over course of last 12 months

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

6. VIEWS ABOUT EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN EMPLOYMENT

The European Union Equality Employment Directive implements the principle of equal treatment in employment and training irrespective of religion or belief, disability, sexual orientation and age29. The so called Racial Equality Directive30 provides the same protection regarding race and ethnic origin, as well as applying outside the labour market, for example to social protection and access to goods and services. This comes in addition to the numerous laws adopted in the past 30 years to fight discrimination based on sex and to allow for equal treatment between women and men in the workplace.

In this chapter we examine three aspects of equal opportunities in employment – factors which are seen as putting some people at a disadvantage, support for measures aimed at ensuring equal opportunities and support for the monitoring of the implementation of equal opportunities policies.

6.1 Factors which put people at a disadvantage

In order to test perceptions of equal opportunities in the workplace, respondents were asked which factors they feel may put job applicants at a disadvantage, were a company to choose between two candidates with otherwise equal skills and qualifications31.

- A job candidate’s look, age and ethnicity are seen as the factors most likely to put them at a disadvantage -

As can be seen from the chart below, it is clear that the EU public still feel that a ‘level playing field’ in employment is far from a reality, with significant shares of respondents seeing a range of criteria as being likely to lead to disadvantage.

In analysing these results, it should be borne in mind that there may be some degree of ‘under-claim’ in that some respondents may feel it is more socially acceptable to give certain answers (particularly if they are thinking about the question in terms of whether they themselves were to be hiring).

The most commonly-mentioned of the criteria is the candidate’s look, dress-sense or presentation, which 50% feel would be a disadvantage. This is followed by age (45%), skin colour or ethnic origin (42%) and having a disability (41%).

Regarding the latter of these, it can be seen that compared to the previous report, there has been a drop of 8 points in the percentage of respondents who feel that disability would be a disadvantage (a drop from 49% to 41%). This is in line with the fact that – compared to 2006 – respondents are now considerably more likely to say

29 EC Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. 30 EC Directive/2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. This Directive offers a more comprehensive protection than the EC Directive 2000/78/EC (see above foot note): it covers employment and occupation and also education, social protection (including social security and healthcare), social advantages and access to goods and services, including housing.

31QA7 In (OUR COUNTRY), when a company wants to hire someone and has the choice between two candidates with equal skills and qualifications, which of the following criteria may, in your opinion, put one candidate at a disadvantage?

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

discrimination on the basis of disability is rare in their country (see chapter 7, below). There has also been a decrease in the proportion saying that the candidate’s age would be a disadvantage (-4 points, from 49%).

It is also encouraging to see that there has been a slight increase in the proportion of respondents who answer that none of the mentioned factors would put a respondent at disadvantage (+3 points from 2% to 5%).

The only item showing a year-on-year increase is the expression of a religious belief (+4 points, from 22%).

Q7. In [COUNTRY], when a company wants to hire someone and has the choice between two candidates with equal skills and qualifications, which of the following criteria may, in your opinion, put one candidate at a disadvantage?

2006 2008

50%The candidate’s look, dress-sense or presentation

51% 45%

The candidate’s age

49% 42%

The candidate’s skin colour or ethnic origin

45% 41%

A disability

49% 38%

The candidate’s general physical appearance

39% 34%

The candidate’s way of speaking, his or her accent

34% 26%

The expression of a religious belief 22% 22%The candidate’s gender

22% 21%The candidate’s sexual orientation*

19% 18% Whether the candidate is a smoker or not

17% 14%

The candidate’s name

13% 9%

The candidate’s address

9% 5%

None of those (SPONTANEOUS)

2% 1%Others (SPONTANEOUS)

1% 3%DK

3%

NB: 2006 results based on EU25 countries, 2008 based on EU27 *NB: in 2008 this item was given as ‘The candidate’s sexual orientation (for example, being gay or lesbian)’

It is important to note that whilst most of the factors examined in this question represent ‘discrimination’ if they are used as the basis for a hiring decision, this is not the case for the factor seen as most likely to lead to disadvantage – look, dress sense or presentation. For many jobs, presenting a professional appearance will be as important an aspect as skills and qualifications.

- Managerial respondents especially sensitive -

Interestingly, managers are more likely than the average European to say that each factor would put a candidate at a disadvantage. This may well be due to the fact that they are especially likely to be carrying out hiring at their places of work. This difference is true for all factors examined in the question, but especially for look, dress sense or presentation (managers +13 points compared to average), general physical appearance, accent (+11) and expression of religious belief (+9).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008 Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

QA7 In (OUR COUNTRY), when a company wants to hire someone and has the choice between two candidates with equal skills and qualifications, which of the following criteria may, in your opinion, put one candidate at a disadvantage? Total % MANAGERS Difference (Managerstotal)
Look, dress sense or presentation 50% 63% +13
Age 45% 51% +6
Skin colour or ethnic origin 42% 46% +4
Disability 41% 46% +5
General physical 38% 47% +9
appearance
Way of speaking, accent 34% 45% +11
Expression of religious belief 26% 35% +9
Gender 22% 26% +4
Sexual orientation 21% 22% +1
Smoker or not 18% 24% +6
Name 14% 21% +7
Address 9% 14% +5
6.2 Support for measures to provide equal opportunities in employment

-The EU public is highly supportive of equal opportunities measures -

As we have seen above, respondents consider that several factors other than skills and qualifications play a role in the selection of job applicants. Perhaps because of this, there is strong support for the implementation of specific measures aimed at providing equal opportunities in the field of employment. This support ranges from 83% for specific measures depending on disability to 65% for measures depending on sexual orientation.

A similar question was asked in 2006, although it should be noted that the question wording has subsequently been modified to include specific examples of the types of ‘measures’ that could be implemented32 (special training schemes or adapted selection and recruitment processes). Because of this, the evolutions shown in the graph below should be treated with caution. Overall, there appears to be a slight decline in support for special measures depending on disability, age and gender while the opposite is true for ethnic origin. The ranking of the grounds for special measures, however, remains identical to that seen in 2006.

Q9.Measures being adopted to provide equal opportunities for everyone in the field of employment In favour of or opposed to measures depending on…? - % EU

…disability

2008

2006

…age

2008

2006

…gender

2008

2006

…ethnic origin

2008

2006

…religion or belief

2008

2006

...sexual orientation **

2008

2006

NB: 2006 results based on EU25 countries, 2008 based on EU27 *NB: note different question wording in 2006 and 2008 (see footnote 17) **NB: in 2008 this item was given as ‘The candidate’s sexual orientation (for example, being gay or lesbian)’

2008: Q9: Would you be in favour of or opposed to specific measures being adopted to provide equal opportunities for everyone in the field of employment? Measures such as, for example special training schemes or adapted selection and recruitment processes, for people depending on their…

2006: Would you be in favour of or opposed to specific measures being adopted to provide equal opportunities for everyone in the field of employment? Specific measures for people depending on their…

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

As an overall pattern, it can be seen that the youngest age group is the most favourable towards specific measures being adopted. This is not so true for measures based on age, where the difference is that those aged 55+ are slightly less supportive.

QA9 In favour of specific measures being adopted to provide equal opportunities for everyone in the field of employment…depending on. Total BY AGE
Age 15-24 Age 25-39 Age 40-54 Age 55+
Disability Age Gender Ethnic origin Religion or belief Sexual orientation 83% 80% 77% 72% 70% 65% 85%81%80%77%74%70% 85% 81% 77% 73% 71% 67% 83%80%77%73%69%66% 81% 78% 76% 69% 68% 61%

There is also a political aspect to this issue, with those on the right of the political spectrum being less supportive of equal opportunities measures than those on the left or in the centre.

QA9 In favour of specific measures being adopted to provide equal opportunities for everyone in the field of employment…depending on.. Total BY POLITICAL POSITIONING
LEFT CENTRE RIGHT
Disability Age Gender Ethnic origin Religion or belief Sexual orientation 83% 80% 77% 72% 70% 65% 85%82%78%75%71%68% 84% 81% 78% 74% 71% 68% 80% 78% 75% 67% 66% 60%

Ultimately, however, we stress that any variations in results between different groups represent minor variations on the overall pattern, which is that of wide support for equal opportunities measures.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

6.3 Support for monitoring measures

As a new question this year, respondents were asked a second question33 about equal opportunities measures in the workplace, with this being more specific for ethnic origin. This question arose from the results revealed by the 2006 Eurobarometer: discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin was perceived as the most widespread throughout the EU and, as we have already seen above, this also holds true in the 2008 study.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they support or oppose two measures:

  • Monitoring the composition of the work-force in order to evaluate the representation of people from ethnic minorities.

  • Monitoring recruitment procedures to ensure that candidates from ethnic minorities have the same chance of being selected for interview or hired as other candidates with similar skills and qualifications.

- The majority of Europeans support monitoring measures aimed at evaluating equality in the workplace based on ethnicity -

QA10.1 Monitoring the composition of the work-force to evaluate the representation of people from ethnic minorities -% EU27

Totally support 21%

Somewhat support 36%

Overall respondents are favourable towards both of these proposals, although a greater proportion support monitoring recruitment procedures (71%) than support monitoring the composition of the work-force (57%). This provides clear evidence of strong support for active measures to ensure and monitor equality of opportunity at work.

33 QA10. To what extent do you support or oppose the following in the workplace?

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

QA10.2 Monitoring the recruitment procedures to ensure that candidates from ethnic minorities have the same chance of being selected for interview or hired as other candidates with similar skills and qualifications -% EU27

DK Totally support 34%

For the first item on monitoring the composition of the work-force for representation, the most supportive publics are found in Cyprus (78%), Greece (77%) and Denmark (71%). In most other countries, support is higher than opposition with the exceptions of Germany (40% support vs. 54% oppose), Latvia (41% vs. 45%), Slovakia (42% vs. 49%) and Austria (42% vs. 46%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

There is a certain correspondence here with the feeling that discrimination based on ethnic origin is widespread in one’s country – with the countries where there is strongest support for monitoring work-force composition also being those where discrimination on ethnic origin is perceived to be widespread. In particular we note that perceptions of ethnic discrimination are more prominent in Greece (76%) and Denmark (75%) than in Latvia (27%) and Slovakia (50%).

For the second item concerned with recruitment procedures, the country-by-country picture is more homogenous, with an absolute majority in all countries being in support. The most favourable respondents of all are found in Denmark (84%), Sweden (83%), the Netherlands (82%) and France (80%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- Stronger support amongst the young

As for the measures examined in the preceding section, there is greater support for these monitoring measures amongst the youngest respondents:

  • 80% (+9 compared to EU average) support monitoring recruitment procedures;

    • 64% (+7) support monitoring workplace composition.

    • As might be expected, respondents who self-define as being part of an ethnic minority are also more supportive of these measures:
  • 77% (+6 compared to EU average) support monitoring recruitment procedures;

    • 67% (+10) support monitoring workplace composition.

    • We also see a replication of the above pattern for results broken down by political positioning, with respondents who are towards the political right showing a lower than average support for the monitoring measures under consideration here:
  • 68% (-3 compared to EU average) support monitoring recruitment procedures;

  • 54% (also -3) support monitoring workplace composition.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

7. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF ETHNIC ORIGIN

From this chapter onwards, we make a more detailed examination of discrimination on different bases. This covers the following areas:

  • The perceived extent of the type of discrimination in the respondent’s country.

  • How these views have changed over time.

  • Country differences for measures of reported discrimination – both as experienced by the respondent and witnessed as happening to someone else.

  • Attitudes to the particular group in question, as measured by the questions on comfort with having a person of that group as a neighbour or the person elected to the highest political office of one’s country.

7.1 The perceived extent of ethnic discrimination

- Ethnic discrimination seen as being widespread by the majority of Europeans-

Of the six forms of discrimination examined in the survey, discrimination on the ground of ethnic origin is seen as being the most widespread: 16% think that this is very widespread in his or her country, whilst 46% think that it is fairly widespread. Just under a quarter think that it is fairly rare (24%) with a further 9% considering that it is very rare and just 2% giving the spontaneous answer that it is non-existent in their country. Four percent say that they ‘don’t know;’

There is a considerable degree of variation from one country to the next in opinion on the prevalence of ethnic discrimination. It is seen as being widespread by at least three-quarters of Dutch (79%), Greek, French, Italian, Swedish (all 76%) and Danish (75%) respondents. At the other end of the scale, fewer than 3 in 10 Lithuanians (23%), Latvians (27%) and Poles (28%) share this view.

The above figures should be interpreted in context of the particular ethnic profiles of the given countries and the extent to which issues such as ethnicity, immigration and multi-culturalism feature in public discourse.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- Variations in perceptions of ethnic discrimination do not match variations in reports of being discriminated against

This wide difference between country results is a complex phenomenon that defies a simple explanation. In the first place, the perception of ethnic discrimination as being widespread is not related to more people actually experiencing discrimination in these countries: in all of the countries where at least three-quarters see ethnic discrimination as being widespread, no more than 3% report having been discriminated against on ethnic grounds themselves (compared to the EU average of 2%).

Again, an explanation for this could be that the perception of ethnic discrimination in national contexts is driven by the prominence of related issues in the national media and the visibility of ethnic minority populations.

However, there is a relationship between ethnic discrimination reported as witnessed (rather than experienced) by the respondent and the belief that discrimination is widespread, as shown in the table overleaf.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Ethnic Witnessed Discrimination discrimination on widespread ethnic grounds % %

(diff from EU) (diff from EU)

76% 17%

Greece

(+14) (+3)

76% 11%

Italy

(+14) (-3)

75% 25%

Denmark

(+13) (+11)

27% 8%

Latvia

(-35) (-6)

We can see that:

  • The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark are countries where higher than average proportions of respondents claim to have witnessed ethnic discrimination, and think that this is widespread in their country.

  • This link does not hold for Greece, France and Italy.

  • The reverse link (fewer witnessing ethnic discrimination, fewer believing it is widespread) is evident in Lithuania, Latvia and Poland.

An alternative means of exploring different perceptions is looking at how they differ according to socio-demographic and political factors.

- Having friends of a different ethnic origin makes respondents more sensitive to discrimination on this basis

Here an important factor is having friends who are of a different ethnic origin than the respondent. Of those respondents for whom this is the case, 67% say that discrimination is widespread in their country. The figure drops to 55% for those without such friends.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

We have already noted (see chapter 2) that respondents with friends who represent a certain type of diversity are more likely to say they have witnessed discrimination taking part on that particular ground. Given that the same is also true for believing this kind of discrimination to be widespread, we can conclude that the make-up of one’s social circle is key in making the individual more ‘sensitive’ to thinking they have seen different types of discrimination and believing it to be common.

Interestingly, those who consider themselves to be part of an ethnic minority are not much more likely than average to think that ethnic discrimination is common in their country.

QA1.1 DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF ETHNIC ORIGIN Total % D47. FRIEDIFFERENORIGIN NDS WITH T ETHNIC D51. SELF-DEFINED MINORITY
Yes No Ethnic*
Widespread Rare 62% 33% 67%29% 55% 38% 64% 31%

*Note: In this table, the figures for those who say that they belong to an ethnic minority should be considered as indicative due to the small base (917). In other words, 3% of Europeans consider themselves to be part of an ethnic minority.

Finally, we note that the belief that ethnic discrimination is more widespread is:

  • More common amongst the youngest group of respondents (66%) than the oldest (57%).

  • More frequent in the respondents who spent the longest time in education (65%) than those who spent the shortest time (59%).

  • More likely to be held by respondents with left-wing political views (68%) than by those with centrist (61%) or right-wing views (60%).

As will be shown below, these distinctions are seen for most types of discrimination, rather than being specific to ethnicity.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

7.2 Changes in the perceptions of ethnic discrimination

Having examined in detail the static picture in terms of perceived ethnic discrimination, we now briefly examine the dynamic view. This can be done in two ways:

  • By comparing the current perception that ethnic discrimination is widespread with that recorded in 2006.

  • Through examining the question on whether ethnic discrimination is perceived to be more or less widespread than it was five years ago.

-Though levels of ethnic discrimination are perceived as high, this belief has receded slightly since 2006

Taking the first approach, the overall EU results show a slight decrease in the perception that ethnic discrimination is widespread (from 64% to 62%) with an increase in the belief that is it is rare (from 30% to 33%).

It is encouraging to see that there are a number of countries where the share of respondents who think that ethnic discrimination is widespread has fallen compared to 2006. This is especially the case in Slovenia, where the proportion of respondents expressing this opinion has fallen 13 percentage points, from 56% to 43%. Germany is the only country where we see a sizable increase (+8 points, from 48% to 56%).

Perception of ethnic discrimination as widespread in country: Notable changes 2006 – 2008

Note: Figures shown = % ‘very widespread’ + %’fairly widespread’

2006 2008 Change

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- Views evenly split concerning ethnic discrimination now as compared to five

years ago

Taking the second approach, based on a more medium-term comparison with five years ago, the overall EU results are evenly balanced, with 48% saying that they think ethnic discrimination is more widespread and 44% that it is less widespread. These figures are similar to those recorded in 2006, when the same question (evolution over 5 years) was asked (49% more widespread; 42% less widespread).

We can see that in the last 5 years, ethnic discrimination is perceived to have become especially more widespread in the Netherlands (71%), Denmark (69%) and Hungary (61%).

The countries where ethnic discrimination is most perceived to have become less widespread are Cyprus (74%), Poland (67%) and the Czech Republic (60%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

7.3 Measuring discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin

In this survey we have used two methods to measure discrimination – whether someone has personally felt discriminated against in the last 12 months or whether they think they have seen someone discriminated against in the same period.

Regarding the measure for personal experience of discrimination, we do not present the results for each country here, as on the whole they do not much exceed the overall EU average of 2%. We do note, however, that 6% of Estonians and 5% of Luxembourgers say that they were discriminated against on grounds of ethnicity in the 12 months leading up to the survey. This may well be linked to particular ethnic groups who live in these countries.

Country results for witnessing ethnicity-based discrimination vary from the EU average (14%) more than they do for witnessing other types of discrimination. As was demonstrated earlier, those countries with the highest shares of respondents who think that they saw ethnicity-based discrimination occur (The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden) are also those where it is seen as being the most widespread.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

7.4 Attitudes towards different ethnic groups

We end this chapter by examining attitudes to ethnic diversity as measured by the questions on how ‘comfortable’ or not respondents would be to have someone with a different ethnic origin or - more specifically - a Roma as a neighbour.

- The average European is very comfortable with having someone from a different ethnic origin than theirs as a neighbour

Overall, Europeans are very comfortable with the idea of having someone from a different ethnic origin than theirs as a neighbour. On the scale of 1 to 10, with 10 representing ‘Totally comfortable’ and 1 ‘Very uncomfortable’, 44% give the maximum 10 out of 10, with the average result being 8.1.

In terms of individual countries, most show results close to the EU average. At the same time it is true that in Austria (6.3), the Czech Republic (6.5) and Italy (6.6), the average respondent is somewhat less comfortable34.

Highest results by country Luxembourg (9.2)
Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Sweden (9.1)
Lowest results by country Italy (6.6)
Czech Republic (6.5)
Austria (6.3)

As seen throughout the survey, the composition of a respondent’s social circle is an important influence. Here, respondents with friends or acquaintances of a different ethnic origin are more likely to feel comfortable with having the same as a neighbour (average of 8.6 compared to 7.5 for those without such friends or neighbours).

34 The full country results for this question can be found in the annexes to this report.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Linked to this, the groups who are most comfortable with a neighbour of a different ethnicity than theirs are also those who we have seen earlier are most likely to have a diverse social circle. On average:

  • The youngest respondents (8.4) are more comfortable than the oldest (7.8).

  • Respondents with the longest educations (8.6) are more comfortable than those with the shortest educations (7.6).

  • Respondents with left wing views (8.3) are more comfortable than those with right wing views (7.7).

-A lower level of comfort recorded for the question on highest political office -

Europeans appear to be significantly less comfortable with the idea of having a person from a different ethnic origin in the highest elected political position in their countries than they are about the idea of having such a person as a neighbour. The EU average stands at 6.4 for this question compared to 8.1 for the question concerning neighbours. Again high variations are concealed by the average figure: the results range from 8.1 in Sweden to 3.9 in Cyprus.

The socio-demographic patterns seen above also apply for this question: young and well-educated respondents as well as those who have friends of a different ethnic origin feel the most comfortable with ethnic diversity in high political positions.

Highest results by country Sweden 8.1
Spain, France, Poland 7.4
Lowest results by country Greece 4.7
The Czech Republic 4.5
Cyprus 3.9

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

7.5. Attitudes towards Roma

In addition to the general measures of attitudes towards ethnic groups in society, a more detailed question was asked to ascertain attitudes towards Roma, who collectively form the largest ethnic minority in the enlarged EU. It can be recalled here that in the 2006 survey35, 77% of Europeans were of the opinion that being a Roma was a disadvantage in society. Here we examine how Europeans feel about having a Roma person as a neighbour.

-Around a quarter of Europeans would feel uncomfortable having a Roma neighbour: a striking difference to the level of comfort with a person from a different ethnic origin in general -

Attitudes towards Roma in the private sphere were examined using the ‘neighbour scenario’ whereby respondents were asked to rate how comfortable they would be having various neighbours on a ten-point scale, where 10 represents the highest level of comfort.

The EU average level of comfort is much lower than it is for having a neighbour of a different ethnic origin (6.0 compared to 8.1). While 36% of respondents give one of the three most comfortable answers (8, 9 or 10 points), 24% would be uncomfortable (1, 2 or 3 points) with this idea. By way of comparison, just 6% of EU respondents give one of these uncomfortable answers for someone from a different ethnic origin in general.

The table on the following page presents individual country results in two different forms: the average result on the 10 point scale and the percentage of respondents who give the three most comfortable (8, 9 or 10 points) and uncomfortable (1, 2 or 3 points) answers. We also show the percentage of respondents in each country who have friends and acquaintances who are Roma.

On both measures we see a large degree of variation – in Poland, a majority of respondents (58%) say they would feel comfortable (an answer of 8, 9 or 10); the average score in the country is 7.5. Swedes are also on the whole comfortable (average score 7.1%; 52% answering 8, 9 or 10). By contrast, in the Czech Republic as well as in Italy almost half of respondents would feel uncomfortable (47% in both countries answering 1, 2 or 3; average Czech score 3.7; average Italian score, 4.0). It is also the case that more than a third of people would be uncomfortable with a Roma neighbour in Ireland (40%; 4.8), Slovakia (38%; 4.5), Bulgaria (36%; 4.8) and Cyprus (34%; 5.6).

35Discrimination in the European Union’ (January 2007), pp. 42-44

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_263_en.pdf

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Comfort with Roma neighbour: country results36

Average (on scale from 1 to 10) Comfortable (8,9,10) Uncomfortable (1,2,3) Friends/ acquaintances Roma
PL 7.5 58% 12% 7%
SE 7.1 52% 14% 9%
FR 6.9 48% 15% 14%
LU 6.9 36% 13% 6%
ES 6.8 42% 13% 32%
MT 6.8 43% 18% 2%
DK 6.7 47% 21% 4%
NL 6.7 40% 13% 5%
BE 6.6 45% 16% 6%
UK 6.3 40% 22% 11%
EL 6.2 42% 26% 6%
LT 6.2 42% 25% 12%
RO 6.2 34% 20% 42%
SI 6.1 36% 24% 13%
EU27 6.0 36% 24% 14%
EE 5.9 36% 28% 7%
DE 5.8 33% 25% 5%
PT 5.7 24% 19% 26%
CY 5.6 37% 34% 4%
HU 5.5 28% 28% 42%
FI 5.5 25% 25% 20%
AT 5.3 22% 28% 3%
LV 5.2 24% 28% 26%
BG 4.8 21% 36% 47%
IE 4.8 24% 40% 6%
SK 4.5 17% 38% 37%
IT 4.0 14% 47% 5%
CZ 3.7 9% 47% 18%

Socio-demographic variation follows the pattern established above for ethnicity in general – i.e. the most comfortable respondents with having a Roma neighbour are those who are young (6.6), who spent the longest time in education (6.5) and who have left-wing political views (6.5).

There also looks to be a complex relationship between having a Roma friend or acquaintance and the level of comfort with having a Roma neighbour:

36 QA6.1 For each of the following situations, please tell me using this scale from 1 to 10 how you would personally feel about it. On this scale, '1' means that you would be "very uncomfortable" and '10' means that you would be "totally comfortable" with this situation…Having a Roma as a neighbour.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

On the one hand, there is the case of Spain where a high proportion of respondents have Roma friends or acquaintances (32%) and there is also a higher than average level of comfort with having a Roma neighbour (6.8). We also see that in Romania 42% have Roma friends or acquaintances and the average comfort level (6.2) is marginally higher than average.

However, we can also see that several countries where a very high proportion of people have Roma friends tend to fall towards the bottom end of the ranking in terms of comfort. This is especially the case for Bulgaria (47% of respondents say they have Roma friends; average level of comfort 4.8), Hungary (42%; average level of comfort 5.5) and Slovakia (37%; average level of comfort 4.5).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

8. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY

8.1 The perceived extent of disability discrimination

- Around a half of Europeans perceive discrimination based on disability to be widespread

A slightly higher proportion of respondents perceive discrimination on the basis of disability as being rare (49%; 15% very rare, 34% fairly rare) in their country than think that it is widespread (45%; 10% very widespread, 35% fairly widespread). Three percent think that discrimination based on disability is non-existent in their country and a further three percent say that they ‘don’t know’.

As with the question on ethnic discrimination, country-by country results exhibit a strong degree of variation, with the countries where discrimination is seen as most widespread being France (61% widespread), Italy (56%) and Portugal (55%). The countries where this perception is least common are Malta (21%), Ireland (25%), and Cyprus (both 30%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- Those with disabled friends and the disabled themselves are the most likely to see discrimination on these grounds as widespread

There are several variables that are linked to the perception of discrimination on the basis of disability being widespread.

For example, having friends who are disabled makes one more likely to believe that discrimination is wide in the country where one lives – this same link was also seen for discrimination on ethnic grounds.

However, unlike the results described above for ethnicity, those respondents who consider themselves to be part of a minority in terms of disability are more likely to think that discrimination is widespread (respondents who self-define as an ethnic minority are not much more likely to say that ethnic discrimination is widespread).

QA1.6 DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF DISABILITY Total % QD47.4 FRIENDS WHO ARE DISBALED QD51. SELF-DEFINED MINORITY
Yes No Disabled*
Widespread Rare 45% 49% 49%47% 40% 52% 62% 34%

*Note: Results for self defined minority as disabled should be considered as indicative due to the small base (519), i.e. only 2% of Europeans consider themselves to belong to this minority group.

Further factors that make respondents more likely to consider disability-based discrimination as widespread include:

  • Being female (48% widespread) rather than male (42%).

  • Being aged between 15 and 54 (15-24, 48%; 25-39 & 40-54, both 47%) rather than 55 or over (41%).

  • Holding left-wing political views (49%) as opposed to centrist (44%) or right-wing views (42%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

8.2 Changes in the perceptions of discrimination on grounds of disability

-The EU public is now much less likely to see discrimination based on disability as widespread

In this area there has been a notable shift from the results recorded in 2006, when 52% gave a ‘widespread’ answer (7 percentage points higher than this year) and 42% a ‘rare’ answer (7 points lower).

With the overall EU results showing a large move away from the belief that discrimination on the grounds of disability is widespread, it is not surprising to see that the same change in opinion is very large in certain countries. Those where this shift can be measured in double-digits are shown in the table below.

Perception of discrimination on basis of disability as widespread in country: Notable changes 2006 – 2008

Note: Figures shown = % ‘very widespread’ + %’fairly widespread’

2006 2008 Change (% points)

- Over two-thirds say discrimination based on disability is less widespread than five years ago

Further evidence of the clear change in perceptions regarding discrimination on the basis of disability comes from the question comparing current levels to those five years ago. Here, less than a quarter of all respondents say that discrimination on grounds of disability is more widespread (24%; 4% far more widespread, 20% much more widespread), whilst over two-thirds say it is less widespread (67%; 16% far less widespread, 51% slightly less widespread).

Furthermore, the share of respondents who say that discrimination based on disability is more widespread has dropped since 2006 (-5 points from 29%) with a corresponding increase in the proportion saying it has become less widespread (+5 points from 62%).

In all countries, the majority view is that discrimination on this basis is now less widespread.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008 Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

8.3 Measuring disability discrimination

- 2% of EU respondents discriminated against on grounds of disability over the course of a year

Across the EU, 2% of respondents say they were discriminated against because of a disability in the 12 months preceding the survey, with 7% saying that they have witnessed this happening to someone else.

Highest results by Austria, Sweden (11%)
country
United Kingdom (10%)
Cyprus, Portugal, Ireland (4%)
Lowest results by
country
Malta, Greece (3%)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

8.4 Attitudes to disabled people

- Low level of prejudice against disabled neighbours

On the 10-point ‘comfort-scale’, the average European has a comfort level of 9.1 with the idea of having a disabled neighbour. This is the highest rate of the 6 scenarios tested for this exercise. Over 6 in 10 respondents answered 10 out of 10 – i.e. that they would be totally comfortable (61%).

Country results do not differ much from the very high EU result. Apart from in the Czech Republic (7.2) all countries register scores in excess of 8 points on the ‘comfort scale’.

With the overall average score being so high, it is unsurprising that there are very few distinctions to be made concerning different social groups. We do note, however, that those who have friends who are disabled show a somewhat higher level of comfort than those without such friends (9.3 compared to 8.8).

- Relatively high acceptance of disabled persons in the highest political office-

Reflecting the high levels of feeling comfortable with a disabled neighbour, the average European would be ready to welcome a disabled person in the highest elected political office in their country. On the scale from 1 to 10, the average comfort level is 8.0, with 42% of Europeans answering 10 out of 10, i.e. feeling totally comfortable with this idea.

Highest results by country Cyprus (9.9) Finland (9.2)
UK (9.8) Denmark, UK (9.0)
Sweden (9.7)
Lowest results by country Austria (8.3) Bulgaria (5.7)
Italy (8.2) Czech Republic, Portugal, Slovenia (6.2)
Czech Republic (7.2)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

9. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION

9.1 The perceived extent of discrimination on basis of sexual orientation

-Over half of EU respondents think that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is widespread in their country

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is seen as the second most widespread form of discrimination in the EU, behind that on the basis of ethnic origin. Over half think that the former is widespread (51% widespread; 13% very widespread, 38% fairly widespread), as opposed to 41% who think that it is rare (30% fairly rare, 11% very rare). Three percent think discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is non-existent in their country and 6% ‘don’t know’.

Examining country results, we can see that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is seen as being particularly widespread in many of the Mediterranean countries. For example, the three countries where it is seen as most widespread are Cyprus, Greece (both 73%) and Italy (72%). Portugal (65%) and France (59%) also have results above the EU average of 51 %.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Looking towards the lower end of the ranking, we can see that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is seen as much less widespread in many of the newer entrants to the EU – the bottom three countries are Bulgaria (20%), the Czech Republic (27%) and Slovakia (30%).

It can also be noted that a lower than average proportion of respondents in these countries report that they have friends who are homosexual37; having such friends makes one more likely to think that discrimination on these grounds is widespread.

QA1.3 DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF SEXUAL Total D47.3 FRIENDS WHO ARE HOMOSEXUAL
ORIENTATION % Yes No
Widespread Rare 51% 41% 56% 41% 48% 42%

Other factors in perception of the extent of discrimination based on sexual orientation also follow the patterns examined above:

  • The youngest respondents (59%) see it as being more widespread than the oldest (45%).

  • It is seen as more common by respondents on the political left (54%) than those in the centre (49%) or on the right (50%).

  • It is perceived as slightly more widespread by women (52%) than by men (49%).

  • Those respondents who stayed in education until at least the age of 20 (52%) are more likely to see it as widespread than those who finished studying at the age of 15 or younger (48%).

37 In Bulgaria, 7% have homosexual friends; In the Czech Republic, 15%; In Estonia, 13%. The EU average is 34%.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

9.2 Changes in the perceptions of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation

-No change from 2006 in perception of extent of discrimination against homosexuals

The perception of how widespread discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality is has remained more or less stable since 2006 (whereas for other grounds it is generally seen as being less widespread now than in 2006). The belief that it is widespread has increased by just 1 percentage point (from 50% in 2006) whilst the view that it is rare has stayed exactly the same (at 41%).

At the same time, we can see that there have been a number of significant changes at the level of individual countries, with the most prominent of these being the 14 point drop amongst Slovenians in the belief that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is widespread. At the same time, significantly more Hungarians and Germans now believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation is widespread in their country than in 2006.

Perception of discrimination on basis of sexuality as widespread in country: Notable changes 2006 – 2008

Note: Figures shown = % ‘very widespread’ + % ‘fairly widespread’

2006 2008 Change

-Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation seen as less widespread now compared to five years ago

When making a medium-term comparison with five years ago, respondents are much more likely to say that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is now less widespread (61%) than they are to say it is more widespread (29%). When we compare this to the 2006 results, we can see that there has been a slight shift away from ‘more widespread’ answers (-2 points from 31%) towards ‘less widespread’ (+3 points from 58%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

In virtually all countries of the EU, the majority opinion is that discrimination based on sexual orientation is now less widespread. The one exception here is Hungary, where 48% think it is now more widespread and 43% that it is less widespread.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

9.3 Measuring discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation

-Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation much more likely to be reported as seen rather than experienced

Just 1% of citizens across the EU report having been discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation over the year before the survey. However, we do note that this figure rises to 5% in Italy.

As with the general pattern, a higher proportion of respondents think they have witnessed this discrimination taking place (6%). Swedes (13%) and Austrians (10%) are the most likely to say this.

Highest results by country Sweden (13%)
Austria (10%)
Netherlands, Denmark, Italy (8%)
Lowest results by Lithuania, Malta (2%)
country Bulgaria (1%)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

9.4 Attitudes to homosexual people

- Most Europeans are comfortable with having a homosexual neighbour

The average European is largely comfortable with the idea of having a homosexual person as a neighbour, with an average of 7.9 on the ten-point ‘comfort scale’. Furthermore, 45% say that they would be totally comfortable with this

(i.e. a score of 10/10). Nine percent give the spontaneous answer that they would be indifferent.

Swedes (9.5) are the most comfortable with this idea, followed by Dutch and Danish respondents (9.3). A much lower level of comfort is seen in Bulgaria (5.3), Latvia (5.5) and Lithuania (6.1).

Highest results by Sweden (9.5)
country Netherlands, Denmark (9.3)
Lowest results by country Lithuania (6.1)
Latvia (5.5)
Bulgaria (5.3)

We also note that there are several countries where a very high proportion of respondents give the spontaneous answer that they would be indifferent to having a homosexual neighbour. This share reaches at least a quarter in the Czech Republic (27%) Bulgaria, Latvia and Luxembourg (all 25%).

In Bulgaria, it is also the case that 12% answer that they ‘do not know’ or refuse to give an answer (compared to only 1% at EU level). It is important to draw a distinction between a ‘don’t know’ answer and an ‘indifferent’ answer: in the former case the respondent is either unable to conceive of the situation (or unable to give an answer) whereas in the latter they could do so but are either unable to formulate a position or are completely ambivalent. Only further research, such as through in-depth qualitative interviews, could help in interpreting the precise reasons behind the high figures for these answers in certain countries.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Although the overall level of comfort with the scenario of having a homosexual neighbour (gay man or lesbian woman) is high, there are a number of distinctions that can be made between different groups:

  • Respondents who stayed in education until the age of 20 or over (8.5) are more comfortable than those who finished education when they were aged 15 or younger (7.2).

  • Women (8.1) show a higher comfort level than men (7.6).

  • Respondents aged 55 or over show a lower than average level of comfort (7.4).

  • Respondents with left-wing views (8.3) are more comfortable than those with centrist (8.0) or right-wing views (7.4).

These distinctions follow the familiar pattern, although in this specific case the gap between results for women and men is a notable finding, as is the extent of the difference made by education levels.

-Most Europeans would feel comfortable with having a leader who is homosexual in their country -

On average, Europeans tend to feel comfortable with the idea of having a homosexual holding the highest political office in their country. On the comfort scale from 1 to 10, the EU average is 7.0. Over a third of Europeans (36%) would feel totally comfortable with this situation: giving a rating of 10 out of 10.

Highest results by country Sweden (9.1)
Denmark (9.0)
Netherlands (8.8)
Lowest results by country Romania (3.9)
Bulgaria, Cyprus (3.5)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

10. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE

10.1 The perceived extent of discrimination on basis of age

It should be remembered that when respondents were asked to estimate the extent of age discrimination, they were not asked to differentiate between whether it is on the grounds of old or young age. Thus respondents will have had different ideas in mind when thinking about this question.

- 42% of Europeans see discrimination on the basis of age as widespread

Regardless of the above distinction, 42% think of age discrimination as being widespread, with 52% saying it is rare. In more detailed terms, 8% of people in the EU think it is very widespread, 34% think it is fairly widespread, 35% fairly rare and 17% very rare. 4% answer spontaneously that they think it is non-existent, with 2% unable to give an answer.

A very high share of Hungarian respondents say that age discrimination is widespread in their country (67%), with the Czech Republic (58%), Latvia (52%) and Portugal (51%) also recording high results. Under a quarter of Irish and Luxembourger respondents (both 24%) think that it is widespread in their country.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- Older respondents are more likely to say age discrimination is widespread

Although we have already noted that we cannot be sure whether a respondent associates ‘age discrimination’ with the young or the old, it can be seen that respondents aged 40 or over are more likely to say it is widespread. This is logical and also in direct contrast to the other types of discrimination, which are more likely to seen as widespread by the youngest group of respondents.

QA1.4 DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF AGE Total % BY AGE
15-24 25-39 40-54 55+
Widespread Rare 42% 52% 36%58% 39% 56% 45% 50% 44% 48%

Other distinctions are more along typical lines seen for other types of discrimination:

  • Women (44%) are more likely to see age discrimination as widespread than men (39%) are;

  • Left-wing respondents (45%) think it is more common than do those with centrist (40%) or right-wing views (41%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

10.2 Changes in the perceptions of discrimination on grounds of age

- Compared to 2006, more people now think age discrimination is rare -

Since 2006 the belief that age discrimination is widespread has dropped (-4 points from 46%), whilst the view that is rare has increased (+4 points from 48%).

In line with this, there are a number of countries where we have seen a large fall in the belief that discrimination is widespread, most notably Cyprus (-21 points from 48%) and Romania (-16 points from 46%). The only country showing a significant movement in the opposite direction is Sweden (+5 points from 36%).

Perception of discrimination on basis of age as widespread in country: Notable changes 2006 – 2008

Note: Figures shown = % ‘very widespread’ + %’fairly widespread’

2006 2008 Change (% points)

Cyprus 48% 27% -21

Bulgaria 51% 38% -13

Estonia 47% 36% -11

Lithuania 54% 45% -9

Malta 39% 31% -8

Ireland 30% 24% -6

Czech Rep. 63% 58% -5

When invited to make a comparison with the situation five years previously, respondents are much more likely to say that discrimination on age grounds is now less widespread (57%; 43% slightly less widespread, 14% far less widespread) than they are to say it is more widespread (33%; 6% far more widespread, 27% slightly more widespread).

This balance of results is also seen for most individual countries, although more than half consider that age discrimination is now more widespread in Hungary (61%) and the Czech Republic (53%). In Slovakia, there is an exact split between the proportions thinking it is more and less widespread (48% for both).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008 Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

10.3 Experience of age discrimination

- Age discrimination is the type most frequently experienced

In terms of respondents reporting being discriminated against themselves, age forms the most common ground for this, with 6% reporting that this happened in the 12 months leading up to the survey. Here there is not a significant gap between experienced and witnessed discrimination, with 7% answering affirmatively to the latter.

This high figure may well be due to the fact that age is an attribute everyone has and young and old may be susceptible to discrimination under various (often differing) circumstances.

Age discrimination seems to be particularly prominent in the Czech Republic, with 12% saying they have experienced age discrimination and 16% that they have witnessed it. Other countries showing higher than average levels of reported discrimination – on one or both measures – are Austria, Slovakia and Sweden.

EXPERIENCED AGE DISCRIMINATION (Q3) WITNESSED AGE DISCRIMINATION (Q4)
EU average 6% EU average 7%
1 (Highest) 2 3 Czech Rep. (12%) Austria (11%) Hungary (9%) Czech Rep. (16%) Sweden (15%) Slovakia (14%)
Lowest Greece, Portugal (2%) Malta (1%)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

10.4 Attitudes to older and younger people in the highest political office

The ‘neighbour’ scenario was not asked in terms of age discrimination, meaning instead we present here attitudes to having older or younger people occupying the highest political position of the respondent’s country. Here, respondents were asked how comfortable they would be with someone aged under 30 or a person aged over 75 in this position.

- Relatively low levels of comfort with both a very young and a very old holder of the highest political office

Having someone aged under 30 or above 75 in the highest political office of one's country both provoke significantly more discomfort than some of the other scenarios presented to respondents - such as having someone from a religious minority or a woman in office (see section 1.3).

Of the two, respondents are – on average – more comfortable with the idea of someone aged under 30 (6.4) than they are with that of someone aged over 75

(5.4) in this position.

Considering the example of a person aged under 30, the countries most receptive to having such a political leader are Romania (7.8), Poland (7.6) and Denmark (7.5). A very low score is recorded in Germany (4.8)38.

Highest results by country Romania (7.8)
Poland (7.6)
Denmark (7.5)
Lowest results by Cyprus, Finland (5.7)
country Germany (4.8)

As would be expected, we can see a clear relationship between a respondent’s age and answers to this question, with the expressed level of comfort decreasing the older the respondent.

38 The full results for this question can be found in the annexes of this report.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- Serious doubts expressed over an office holder aged above 75

For the situation with a person older than 75, it is notable that the highest average comfort levels in individual countries do not exceed the EU average by a long distance. Even in the country with the highest results - Spain (6.1) - the average score is just

0.7 points higher than the EU average (5.4).

Bulgarian and Latvian respondents are, on the whole, strongly against being led by a person of this age (both 3.6).

Highest results by Spain (6.1)
country Poland, United Kingdom (6.0)

Czech Republic (3.9)

Lowest results by country

Bulgaria, Latvia (3.6)

Having seen the link between being younger and feeling comfortable with a younger political leader, we might suppose that the reverse would be true for having an older leader. In fact, we see that this is not the case – it is the youngest respondents who are more comfortable with an older leader.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

11. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION OR BELIEF

11.1 The perceived extent of discrimination on basis of religion or belief

-Around a half of respondents in the EU think that discrimination on religious or belief grounds is rare

As is the case for most types of discrimination, that on the basis of religion or belief is perceived by more respondents as being rare than widespread:. 51% think it is rare and 42% that it is widespread. Four percent say, spontaneously, that it is non-existent and 3% ‘don’t know’.

Again responses are more moderate than extreme, with 33% and 34% saying respectively that this type of discrimination is fairly widespread or fairly rare, compared to 9% saying it is very widespread and 17% that it is very rare.

Discrimination based on religion/belief is seen as most widespread of all in Denmark (62%), followed by France (57%) and the UK (56%). We note that these are all countries where immigration issues feature prominently in public debate. At the other end of the scale, just 10% of Latvians and 11% of Lithuanians and Czechs think this type of discrimination is common in their country.

The map below demonstrates that all the new Member States are below the EU average and towards the bottom of the ranking. This indicates that discrimination based on religion and belief is considered to be significantly less widespread in these countries than in the 15 ‘old’ Member States.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

In terms of social groupings, opinion follows the familiar pattern, with this type of discrimination being more likely to be perceived as widespread by:

  • The youngest respondents (49%) rather than the oldest (37%).

  • Respondents with left-wing views (45%) more so than those with right-wing views (39%).

  • Respondents with friends who have a different religion or belief than their own (44% vs. 38% of those without such friends).

  • Respondents who self-define as a religious minority (57%).

QA1.5 DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF RELIGION OR BELIEF Total % D47.5 FRIHRELIGION AVE DIFENDS WHO OR BELIEF FERENT D51. SELF-DEFINED MINORITY
Yes No Religious*
Widespread Rare 42% 51% 44%50% 38% 53% 57% 37%

*Note: Results for those who consider themselves to be part of a religious minority should be considered as indicative due to the small base (905), i.e. only 3% of Europeans say that they belong to a religious minority.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

11.2 Changes in the perceptions of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief

- Discrimination on religious or belief grounds is seen as less widespread than it was in 2006

Overall, the opinion that discrimination on the basis of religion or belief is widespread has dropped since 2006 (-3 points from 45%), whilst the view that it is rare has increased (+4 from 47%). Thus we have moved from a state of opinion that is split roughly evenly to one where a majority think discrimination is rare.

Despite this overall shift, the belief that discrimination on grounds of religion or belief is widespread has increased significantly in Spain (+10 points from 31%). Nevertheless for most countries where opinion has shifted, it is in the opposite direction – most notably in Slovenia (-15 points from 48%).

Perception of discrimination on basis of religion or belief as widespread in country: Notable changes 2006 – 2008

Note: Figures shown = % ‘very widespread’ + %’fairly widespread’

2006 2008 Change (% points)

- The majority say that discrimination on religious grounds is less widespread than five years ago

When making the comparison with five years ago, over half of all respondents think that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief is now less widespread (52%). Under 4 in 10 think it is more widespread (38%).

Most countries follow the overall pattern with more respondents thinking discrimination is now less widespread. This belief is expressed at extremely high levels in the Czech Republic (81%), Cyprus (80%) and Slovakia (76%).

At the same time, there are several countries where a majority of respondents consider discrimination to be more widespread: the Netherlands, Denmark (both 66% more widespread vs. 31% less widespread), the United Kingdom (53% vs. 36%), France (51% vs. 37%) and Belgium (51% vs. 46%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008 Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

11.3 Experience of discrimination on basis of religion or belief

- 2% of Europeans say they were discriminated against on grounds of religion or belief in a year

Across the EU, 2% of respondents say that they were discriminated against on grounds of religion or belief in the year leading up to their interview. There are no countries where this figure is particularly large, with the highest result being that for Austria (4%).

In terms of witnessing discrimination, 6% say that they saw this happen on the grounds of religion or belief in the year before interview. By a long distance, the highest result here is recorded in Denmark (15%).

Highest results by country Denmark (15%)
Germany (8%)
France, Belgium (7%)
Lowest results by country Portugal, Slovakia, Lithuania (1%)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

11.4 Attitudes to people of a different religion or belief

-Most Europeans are open to a neighbour with a different religion or belief than theirs as a neighbour

The average European is extremely comfortable with the idea of having someone of a different religion or belief as a neighbour - giving a rating of 8.5 out of 10 for how comfortable they would be. This means that this scenario ranks second (behind a disabled neighbour) in terms of comfort out of the five evaluated. Over half (51%) of respondents give a rating of 10 out of 10.

Respondents from Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France and Ireland are the most comfortable (9.2 all), with those from Austria the least comfortable (6.9).

Highest results by Poland, Sweden, UK, France, Ireland
country (9.2)
Lowest results by country Portugal (7.3)
Italy (7.2)
Austria (6.9)

All social groups show high levels of comfort with the idea of a neighbour with a different religion or beliefs, although there is evidently a significant difference in results when comparing those with and without friends who have a different religion or beliefs.

QA6.5Level of comfort with a neighbour having EU D47.5 HAVE FRIENDS DIFFERENT RELIGION/BELIEF
different religion or belief average Yes No
Average score out of 10 8.5 8.9 7.9

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Finally, regarding the question of holding the highest political office, different religion/belief does not seem to be much of a hindrance to getting to such position: the average comfort level for having a person of a different religion or belief than the majority of the population is 9.0. In fact, in comparison to the other characteristics discussed in this question (age, gender, disability, ethnic origin, sexual orientation), Europeans would feel the most comfortable with a leader with a different religion/belief than the majority of the population.

Highest results by country Sweden (9.8)
Denmark, Luxembourg (9.6)
Lowest results by country Austria (8.3)
Italy (8.2)
Portugal (8.1)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

12. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER

12.1 The perceived extent of discrimination on basis of gender

-Gender discrimination is seen as the least widespread form in the EU, although still perceived as widespread by over a third of Europeans

Discrimination on the basis of gender is considered to be the least widespread form of discrimination in the EU: 36% of respondents say that this is widespread, with just 6% of thinking it is ‘very widespread’ and 30% that it is ‘fairly widespread’. Over half (56%) think that it is rare, this being comprised of 20% who consider it to be very rare and 36% who think it is fairly rare. 3% think that it does not exist in their country and a further 5% are unable to answer.

This overall pattern is reversed in Spain (54% ‘widespread’), Sweden (50%) and Italy (49%) where more respondents think gender discrimination is widespread than think it is rare. At the other end of the scale, just 13% of Bulgarians think gender discrimination is widespread in their country.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

- Women are much more likely than men to say gender discrimination is common

Although both sexes are more likely to see gender discrimination as rare than widespread, it is notable that the gap between the two answers narrows when we consider the results for female respondents and widens for male respondents.

QA1.2 DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF GENDER Total % BY GENDER
MALE FEMALE
Widespread Rare 36% 56% 33% 60% 40% 52%

The usual differences according to political leanings – with those to the left being more likely to think that discrimination is widespread – are also strongly evident in the case of gender discrimination. Respondents on the political left are more likely to say that this is widespread than rare by a gap of just 8 percentage points, with this rising to 27 points for those in the centre and 25 points for those on the right.

QA1.2 DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF GENDER Total % POLITICAL VIEWS
LEFT CENTRE RIGHT
Widespread Rare 36% 56% 43%51% 33% 60% 34% 59%

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

12.2 Changes in the perceptions of discrimination on grounds of gender

-Gender discrimination is seen as less widespread than it was in 2006

Compared to the results from 2006, we see that discrimination on gender grounds is now perceived as being less widespread. The proportion answering either very or fairly widespread has decreased (-3 points, from 39%), with a corresponding increase in the share of those answering either fairly rare or very rare (+3 points, from 53%).

Several individual countries reflect this overall trend, most notably Cyprus, Slovenia and Malta where the proportions considering gender discrimination to be widespread have decreased by 12, 11 and 10 percentage points respectively.

Perception of discrimination on basis of gender as widespread in country: Notable changes 2006 – 2008

Note: Figures shown = % ‘very widespread’ + %’fairly widespread’

2006 2008 Change

- Over two-thirds say gender discrimination is less widespread than it was five years ago

Taking the measure based on a comparison with the situation five years previously, we see comprehensive evidence that discrimination based on gender is seen as having declined considerably. Less than a quarter (24%) think that it is now more widespread, whilst over two-thirds (67%) hold the contrary opinion.

In many countries, the opinion that discrimination is now less widespread reaches even higher proportions. This is especially the case in Cyprus (84% less widespread) and Denmark (79%). It is also the opinion expressed by at least three-quarters of respondents in the Netherlands (77%) Greece, Belgium (both 76%), Finland and Sweden (both 75%).

Hungary is the only country where more respondents think that gender discrimination is now more widespread than five years ago (47%) than think it is now less widespread (46%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008 Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

12.3 Experience of discrimination on basis of gender

-3% of Europeans say they have experienced gender discrimination in the past 12 months

In the EU as a whole, 3% of respondents say that they experienced discrimination on the basis of gender in the 12 months before they were interviewed, with this rising to 7% in Sweden and 6% in Austria and Italy.

When it comes to having witnessed gender discrimination, 5% of the total sample report having done so in the year before interview. A very large proportion of Swedes (17%) say that they saw this happen during the 12 month period in question. This is considerably higher than the second-ranking country (Austria, at 9%).

EXPERIENCED GENDER DISCRIMINATION (Q3) WITNESSED GENDER DISCRIMINATION (Q4)
Highest EU average (3%) EU average (5%)
1 2 2 Sweden (7%) Austria (6%) Italy (6%) 1 2 3 Sweden (17%) Austria (9%) Czech Rep., Spain (8%)
Lowest Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, Ireland (1%) Malta (1%)

- Gender discrimination is experienced much more by women than by men

Although gender discrimination can encompass both sexes, it is experienced by a much higher proportion of women (5%) than men (1%). However, there is no difference between the sexes when it comes to witnessing discrimination (both male and female 5%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

12.4 Attitudes to women in the highest political office

- The average European is highly comfortable with a female holding the highest political office

As was also the case for the issue of age discrimination, the issue of gender was not addressed in the question involving the neighbour scenario. Here instead we examine results for how comfortable respondents say they would be in having a woman occupy the highest political office in their country.

This idea causes little problem for the vast majority of Europeans surveyed, with the average ‘comfort rating’ being 8.9 out of a maximum of 10. Exactly 6 out of every 10 (60%) answer that they would be very comfortable to have a woman in this position. Just 1% would be very uncomfortable.

All countries record a very high average result here, with the Swedes being most comfortable of all with the idea of a female Prime Minister (average score 9.8 out of 10, 91% answering ‘very comfortable’).

Interestingly Sweden is also the country where the highest proportions claim to have witnessed/experienced discrimination, as well as showing an above average perception of discrimination as being widespread. Thus it seems that in Sweden being ‘sensitive’ towards perceiving this discrimination and being open towards women in political office go hand-in-hand.

Highest results by country Sweden (9.8)
Denmark (9.6)
Estonia, Ireland, Luxembourg (9.4)
Lowest results by Austria, Italy (8.1)
country Portugal (7.9)

There is also something of a gender difference here with women showing an average level of comfort higher than that for men (9.2 vs. 8.7). However, we emphasize that this is a minor variation on the overall pattern, which is that EU citizens show very little prejudice in terms of gender when it comes to the issue of political office.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

13. MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION

Multiple discrimination occurs when a person is discriminated against on more than one ground and can be experienced in different ways:

In this survey, the issue of multiple discrimination was addressed in two ways. Firstly, the question on experience of discrimination allowed respondents to give multiple answers, thereby enabling a distinction between experience of single and multiple discrimination (see section 3.2). Secondly, regardless of their own experience, all respondents were asked a question on how widespread they consider the phenomenon of multiple discrimination to be.

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

13.1 The perception of multiple discrimination

After having had the concept of multiple discrimination explained, respondents were asked to evaluate how widespread or rare they consider it to be in their country, using the same scale as was used for evaluating discrimination on particular grounds39.

- Over 1 in 3 Europeans see multiple discrimination as widespread

Thirty-seven percent of respondents say that they consider multiple discrimination to be widespread (4% very widespread; 33% fairly widespread), while 48% consider it to be rare (16% very rare; 32% fairly rare). This places multiple discrimination roughly in line with most of the single-ground types of discrimination dealt with in the above chapters. The closest parallels here are with discrimination on grounds of disability, age and religion and belief – which are all seen as being rare by a somewhat higher proportion than considers them to be widespread (see section 2.1).

1 in 20 (5%) give the spontaneous answer that multiple discrimination does not exist in their country, whilst a further 1 in 10 (10%) give a ‘don’t know’ answer, indicating that they may struggle either to understand the concept of multiple discrimination, or to give an evaluation of it.

QA5. Could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, multiple discrimination is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)? -% EU27

Non-existent

39 QA5 We have just been discussing discrimination based on ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or belief, and\ or disability. Some people may experience discrimination on the basis of more than only one of these characteristics. If they experience discrimination on several grounds, we call this ‘multiple discrimination’. Could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, multiple discrimination is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)?

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Despite the fact that there is not an overwhelming gap between the EU figures for those answering ‘widespread’ and those answering ‘rare’ (+11 percentage points for ‘rare’), it still the case that there are only two countries where more respondents give the former answer as opposed to the latter. These are France (49% widespread vs. 42% rare) and Italy (49% widespread vs. 38% rare).

Personal experience of discrimination is a key influence on perceptions of multiple discrimination: experience of discrimination makes one more likely to say multiple discrimination is widespread and – as would be naturally expected – experiencing multiple discrimination makes one even more likely to say this.

QA5 OPINION ON MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION Total % PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF DISCRIMINATION (Q3)
NONE SINGLE GROUND MULTIPLE GROUNDS*
Widespread Rare 37% 48% 33%51% 55% 36% 68% 25%

*Note: Small base size (802)

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Views on the extent of multiple discrimination are strongly related to those on single-ground discrimination. As would be expected, respondents who perceive the latter to be widespread are considerably more likely to say the same of multiple discrimination.

QA5 OPINION ON MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION TOTAL % QA1. THOSE WHO THINK DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF…IS WIDESPREAD
Ethnic origin Gender Sexual Orientation Age Religion / belief Disability
% Widespread 37% 50% 55% 51% 51% 55% 52%
% Rare 48% 40% 34% 38% 38% 35% 37%

As was noted above in the sections on single-ground discrimination, the composition of one’s social circle is a key influence when it comes to opinion on the prevalence of discrimination. This is also true when it comes to evaluations of multiple discrimination.

This is particularly the case for those with friends who are homosexual (46% widespread vs. 45% rare) and those with friends who are Roma (42%, both rare and widespread).

QA5 OPINION ON MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION TOTAL % D47. BY HAVING FRIENDS WHO ARE…
Different ethnic origin Roma Homosexual Disabled Diff. Religion/ belief
% Widespread 37% 42% 42% 46% 40% 40%
% Rare 48% 46% 42% 45% 47% 48%

Finally, the same other groups who are more likely to see one particular type of discrimination as being widespread are also more likely to say that multiple discrimination is a common problem in their country, these being:

  • Women (40%) more than men (34%).

  • The youngest age group (44%) rather than the oldest (31%).

  • Those on the political left (43%) more than centrists or right-wingers (both 34%).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

CONCLUSION

This survey examines discrimination and related issues from three different angles:

Starting with the demographic perspective, while the vast majority of Europeans do not define themselves as belonging to any ‘minority group’ (87%), the social circle of the average European is characterised by a fair degree of diversity, in particular with regards to religion/belief (61% have friends with a different religion or beliefs to theirs), ethnicity and disability (55%). No significant differences were recorded on this measure since 2006.

As concerns the perceived extent of discrimination, large proportions of Europeans think that discrimination is widespread in their country: 62% for ethnic origin (33% rare), 51% for sexual orientation (41% rare), 45% for disability (49% rare), 42% for age (52% rare) and for religion/belief (51% rare), and 36% for gender (56% rare).

Generally speaking, discrimination is seen as being more rare than widespread, although not dramatically so (aside from the case of gender). This should be qualified by the facts that discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin and sexual orientation are seen by absolute majorities as being widespread.

Interestingly, discrimination is seen as being on the decline - although not dramatically so -both in the short and medium terms: the perception that current discrimination is widespread has declined somewhat since 2006 and respondents also express the belief that discrimination is now less widespread than it was five years ago.

Three results stand out in particular:

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

Roma neighbour, compared to just 6% who say the same for a neighbour from a different ethnic origin than theirs.

Regarding this latter question aimed at uncovering attitudes towards minority groups in the private sphere, we see that Europeans are highly comfortable with the idea of having a member of most minority groups as a neighbour. This is certainly true when it comes to disability (9.1 average ‘comfort level’ out of a maximum of 10), someone with a different religion or beliefs (8.5), with a different ethnic origin (8.1) or who is homosexual (7.9). As indicated above, the figure for a Roma neighbour is, however, significantly lower (6.0).

A slightly higher level of reservation is expressed about different groups should they reach the highest political office in the country – particularly an incumbent aged over 75 (5.4), under 30 (6.4) or with a different ethnic origin than the majority of the population (6.4). The ideas of the highest political office holder being from a religious minority (9.0) or female (8.9) are largely accepted however.

In terms of measuring actual incidents of discrimination rather than perceptions, this survey has established useful benchmarks: 15% claim they were discriminated against in the 12 month period before the survey, with the most common form being age discrimination (6%); 29% claim they saw someone else being discriminated against, with the most commonly witnessed form being that based on ethnicity (14%).

This survey also breaks new ground in providing an initial examination of ‘multiple discrimination’ – where people are discriminated against on more than one ground, either on the same or different occasions. This is a not insignificant phenomenon, with 3% experiencing this over the course of a year (12% experience single-ground discrimination) and 37% of the wider public seeing it as being widespread (roughly in line with most forms of single-ground discrimination). More work can only help illuminate this area, particularly with regards to which types of discrimination ‘intersect’ and the cumulative effect of this on persons discriminated against.

With regards to opinions on efforts to combat discrimination, we can see that overall evaluations of the sufficiency of these in national contexts are evenly split: half of Europeans think current efforts suffice while the other half think that more effort is required. One area where more effort can undoubtedly be of help is to increase the knowledge Europeans have of their rights in the eventuality of being discriminated against: just 33% say they are currently aware of these.

No significant improvement has been recorded on this measure since 2006 (32%).

More specifically, when it comes to employment issues, there is strong support across the board for a range of measures aimed at increasing equal opportunities for all grounds examined. This includes the monitoring of recruitment procedures and work-force composition for ethnic minorities (supported by 71% and 57% respectively).

Special EUROBAROMETER 296 DISCRIMINATION IN THE EU 2008

It is perhaps appropriate to conclude by saying that the various results summarised above are themselves characterised by diversity when they are broken down for examination on the basis of different social groupings. Though these distinctions vary from one question to the next, it can be seen that the youngest respondents, women, those with the longest educations and those with political views that tend to the left form a distinct cluster: in general these respondents are more likely to have a diverse social circle, to think discrimination is widespread, to say they have seen it happen and to be more comfortable with various groups in both public and private life.

Overall, we note that whilst this survey has seen some encouraging improvements in the area of discrimination in the EU, there remains room for future improvement – which it is hoped will become evident in future surveys.

ANNEXES

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

EUROBAROMETER SPECIAL N°296 « Discrimination in the European Union » TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Between the 18th of February and the 22nd of March 2008, TNS Opinion & Social, a consortium created between Taylor Nelson Sofres and EOS Gallup Europe, carried out wave 69.1 of the EUROBAROMETER, on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Communication, “Research and Political Analysis”.

The SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER N° 296 covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in each of the Member States and aged 15 years and over. The basic sample design applied in all states is a multi-stage, random (probability) one. In each country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for a total coverage of the country) and to population density.

In order to do so, the sampling points were drawn systematically from each of the "administrative regional units", after stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus represent the whole territory of the countries surveyed according to the EUROSTAT NUTS II (or equivalent) and according to the distribution of the resident population of the respective nationalities in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling points, a starting address was drawn, at random. Further addresses (every Nth address) were selected by standard "random route" procedures, from the initial address. In each household, the respondent was drawn, at random (following the "closest birthday rule"). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in people's homes and in the appropriate national language. As far as the data capture is concerned, CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) was used in those countries where this technique was available.

ABBREVIATIONS COUNTRIES INSTITUTES N° INTERVIEWS FIELDWORK DATES POPULATION 15+
BE Belgium TNS Dimarso 1.012 21/02/2008 16/03/2008 8.786.805
BG Bulgaria TNS BBSS 1.000 18/02/2008 03/03/2008 6.647.375
CZ Czech Rep. TNS Aisa 1.070 22/02/2008 12/03/2008 8.571.710
DK Denmark TNS Gallup DK 1.032 18/02/2008 18/03/2008 4.432.931
DE Germany TNS Infratest 1.562 19/02/2008 16/03/2008 64.546.096
EE Estonia Emor 1.000 22/02/2008 17/03/2008 887.094
EL Greece TNS ICAP 1.000 20/02/2008 11/03/2008 8.691.304
ES Spain TNS Demoscopia 1.004 19/02/2008 16/03/2008 38.536.844
FR France TNS Sofres 1.054 18/02/2008 17/03/2008 46.425.653
IE Ireland TNS MRBI 1.000 18/02/2008 19/03/2008 3.375.399
IT Italy TNS Abacus 1.036 18/02/2008 07/03/2008 48.892.559
CY Rep. of Cyprus Synovate 506 19/02/2008 16/03/2008 638.900
LV Latvia TNS Latvia 1.004 22/02/2008 18/03/2008 1.444.884
LT Lithuania TNS Gallup Lithuania 1.009 20/02/2008 14/03/2008 2.846.756
LU Luxembourg TNS ILReS 513 18/02/2008 22/03/2008 388.914
HU Hungary TNS Hungary 1.000 20/02/2008 17/03/2008 8.320.614
MT Malta MISCO 500 18/02/2008 15/03/2008 335.476
NL Netherlands TNS NIPO 1.023 18/02/2008 17/03/2008 13.017.690
AT Austria Österreichisches Gallup-Institut 1.008 18/02/2008 10/03/2008 7.004.205
PL Poland TNS OBOP 1.000 20/02/2008 12/03/2008 32.155.805
PT Portugal TNS EUROTESTE 1.000 20/02/2008 18/03/2008 8.080.915
RO Romania TNS CSOP 1.024 18/02/2008 13/03/2008 18.246.731
SI Slovenia RM PLUS 1.026 18/02/2008 18/03/2008 1.729.298
SK Slovakia TNS AISA SK 1.049 20/02/2008 03/03/2008 4.316.438
FI Finland TNS Gallup Oy 1.001 20/02/2008 20/03/2008 4.353.495
SE Sweden TNS GALLUP 1.007 20/02/2008 16/03/2008 7.562.263
UK United Kingdom TNS UK 1.306 18/02/2008 13/03/2008 50.519.877
TOTAL 26746 18/02/2008 22/03/2008 400.756.031

For each country a comparison between the sample and the universe was carried out. The Universe description was derived from Eurostat population data or from national statistics offices. For all countries surveyed, a national weighting procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was carried out based on this Universe description. In all countries, gender, age, region and size of locality were introduced in the iteration procedure. For international weighting (i.e. EU averages), TNS Opinion & Social applies the official population figures as provided by EUROSTAT or national statistic offices. The total population figures for input in this post-weighting procedure are listed above.

Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage. With samples of about 1,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits:

Observed percentages 10% or 90% 20% or 80% 30% or 70% 40% or 60% 50%
Confidence limits ± 1.9 points ± 2.5 points ± 2.7 points ± 3.0 points ± 3.1 points

QUESTIONNAIRE

IF OTHER or DK THEN CLOSE INTERVIEW

QA1 For each of the following types of discrimination, could you please tell me whether, in your QA1 Pour chacun des types de discrimination suivants, dites-moi si, selon vous, il s’agit de quelque
opinion, it is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)? chose de très répandu, assez répandu, plutôt rare ou très rare en (NOTRE PAYS). Des
Discrimination on the basis of… discriminations sur base …

(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)

(READ OUT – ROTATE) Very wide spre ad Fairl y wide spre ad Fairl y rare Very rare Non-exist ent (SP ONT ANE OUS ) DK
1 Ethnic origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 Gender 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 Sexual orientation (for example being gay or lesbian) (M) 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 Age 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 Religion or belief (M) 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 Disability 1 2 3 4 5 6

EB65.4 QA1 TREND SLIGHTLY MODIFIED SI AUTRE ou NSP ALORS FIN D'INTERVIEW

(MONTRER CARTE AVEC ECHELLE – UNE REPONSE PAR LIGNE)

(LIRE – ROTATION) Très répa ndu Plutô t répa ndu Plutô t rare Très rare Inexi stant (SP ONT ANE ) NSP
1 De l’origine ethnique 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 Du sexe 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 De l’orientation sexuelle (par exemple être homosexuel ou lesbienne) (M) 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 De l’âge 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 De la religion ou des convictions 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 D’un handicap 1 2 3 4 5 6

EB65.4 QA1 TREND LEGEREMENT MODIFIE

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 3/55

(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)

(MONTRER CARTE AVEC ECHELLE – UNE REPONSE PAR LIGNE)

(READ OUT – ROTATE) Far more widesprea d Slightly more widesprea d Slightly less widesprea d Far less widesprea d DK
(LIRE – ROTATION) Beaucoup plus répandues Un peu plus répandues Un peu moins répandues Beaucoup moins répandues NSP
1 Ethnic origin 1 2 3 4 5
2 Gender 1 2 3 4 5
3 Sexual orientation (for example being gay or lesbian) (M) 1 2 3 4 5
4 Age 1 2 3 4 5
5 Religion or belief (M) 1 2 3 4 5
6 Disability 1 2 3 4 5
1 De l’origine ethnique 1 2 3 4 5
2 Du sexe 1 2 3 4 5
3 De l’orientation sexuelle (par exemple être homosexuel ou lesbienne) (M) 1 2 3 4 5
4 De l’âge 1 2 3 4 5
5 De la religion ou des convictions 1 2 3 4 5
6 D’un handicap 1 2 3 4 5

EB65.4 QA2 TREND SLIGHTLY MODIFIED EB65.4 QA2 TREND LEGEREMENT MODIFIE

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 4/55

QA3 In the past 12 months have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed on the basis QA3 Au cours des 12 derniers mois, vous êtes-vous personnellement senti(e) discriminé(e) ou of one or more of of the following grounds? Was it a discrimination on basis of...? Please tell

harcelé(e) à cause de l’une ou plusieurs des raisons suivantes ? S'agissait-il d'une me all that apply.

discrimination ou d'un harcèlement sur base ... ? Veuillez me donner toutes les réponses qui s’appliquent à la situation.

(DO NOT READ OUT – SHOW CARD WITH LETTERS – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE) (NE PAS LIRE – MONTRER CARTE AVEC LETTRES – PLUSIEURS REPONSES POSSIBLES)

Ethnic origin
Gender
Sexual orientation
Age
Religion or belief
Disability
No
For another reason
DK
1,

De l’origine ethnique
Du sexe
De l’orientation sexuelle
De l’âge
De la religion ou des convictions
D’un handicap
Non
Pour une autre raison
NSP
1, 2,

2, 3,

3, 4,

4, 5,

5, 6,

6, 7,

7, 8,

8, 9,

9,

NEW NOUVEAU

QA4 In the past 12 months, have you witnessed someone being discriminated against or harassed QA4 Au cours des 12 derniers mois, avez-vous été le témoin d’une discrimination ou du on the basis of one or more of of the following grounds? Was it discrimination on basis of...?

harcèlement d’une personne à cause de l’une ou plusieurs des raisons suivantes ? S'agissait-

Please tell me all that apply.

(SHOW CARD - MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

Ethnic origin
Gender
Sexual orientation
Age
Religion or belief
Disability
No
For another reason
DK

NEW

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

il d'une discrimination ou d'un harcèlement sur base ... ? Veuillez me donner toutes les

réponses qui s’appliquent à la situation.

(MONTRER CARTE – PLUSIEURS REPONSES POSSIBLES)

De l’origine ethnique
Du sexe
De l’orientation sexuelle
De l’âge
De la religion ou des convictions
D’un handicap
Non
Pour une autre raison
NSP

NOUVEAU

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 5/55

QA5 We have just been discussing discrimination based on ethnic origin, gender, sexual

QA5 orientation, age, religion or belief, and\ or disability. Some people may experience discrimination on the basis of more than only one of these characteristics. If they experience discrimination on several grounds, we call this ‘multiple discrimination’. Could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, multiple discrimination is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)?

(SHOW CARD – READ OUT)

Very widespread
Fairly widespread
Fairly rare
Very rare
Non-existent (SPONTANEOUS)
DK

1 2 3 4 5 6

NEW

Nous venons juste de parler de discrimination basée sur l’origine ethnique, le sexe, l’orientation sexuelle, l’âge, la religion ou les convictions et\ ou un handicap. Certaines personnes peuvent faire l’objet de discrimination sur base de plusieurs de ces caractéristiques à la fois. Nous appelons le fait d’être discriminé pour plusieurs raisons de la "discrimination multiple". Pouvez-vous me dire si, selon vous, la discrimination multiple est très répandue, plutôt répandue, plutôt rare ou très rare en (NOTRE PAYS) ?

(MONTRER CARTE - LIRE)

Très répandue
Plutôt répandue
Plutôt rare
Très rare
Non-existant (SPONTANE)
NSP

1 2 3 4 5 6

NOUVEAU

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 6/55

QA6 For each of the following situations, please tell me using this scale from 1 to 10 how you would personally feel about it. On this scale, '1' means that you would be "very uncomfortable" and '10' means that you would be "totally comfortable" with this situation.

(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE - ONE ANSWER PER LINE) - (IF RESPONDENT EXPERIENCES ANY DIFFICULTY IN UNDERSTANDING THE TERM 'ROMA', EXPLAIN AS

INSTRUCTED IN BRIEFING) QA6

(READ OUT – ROTATE) 1 Very 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Indiff erent DK (LIRE – ROTATION) 1 Très 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tout Indiff érent NSP
unco mfort ly comf (SP ONT mal à à fait à (SP ONT
able ortab le ANE OUS l’aise l’aise ANE OUS
) )

Pour chacune des situations suivantes, pourriez-vous me dire sur une échelle de 1 à 10, comment vous la ressentiriez personnellement. Sur cette échelle, '1' signifie que vous seriez "très mal à l’aise" et '10' que vous seriez "tout à fait à l’aise" face à cette situation. Coment ressentiriez-vous ... ?

(MONTRER CARTE AVEC ECHELLE - UNE REPONSE PAR LIGNE) - (SI LE REPONDANT A DES DIFFICULTES A COMPRENDRE LE TERME 'ROM', EXPLIQUER COMME STIPULE

DANS LE BRIEFING)

1 Having a Roma as a neighbour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 Having a disabled person as a neighbour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3 Having a homosexual (gay man or lesbian woman) as a neighbour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Que votre voisin\ votre voisine soit un\ une Rom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 Que votre voisin\ voisine soit une personne handicapée 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3 Que votre voisin\ voisine soit une personne homosexuelle (homme homosexuel ou femme lesbienne) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 7/55

4 Having a person from a different ethnic origin than yours as a neighbour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5 Having a person with a different religion or belief than yours as a neighbour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4 Que votre voisin\ voisine soit une personne d'une origine ethnique différente de la vôtre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5 Que votre voisin\ voisine soit une personne d'une religion ou de convictions différentes des vôtres 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NEW

NOUVEAU

QA7 In (OUR COUNTRY), when a company wants to hire someone and has the choice between

QA7

En (NOTRE PAYS), lorsqu’une entreprise cherche à embaucher quelqu’un et qu’elle a le

two candidates with equal skills and qualifications, which of the following criteria may, in your

choix entre deux candidats de compétences et de qualifications égales, quels sont, dans la

opinion, put one candidate at a disadvantage?

liste suivante, tous les critères qui, selon vous, peuvent défavoriser un candidat ?

(SHOW CARD – READ OUT – ROTATE – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

(MONTRER CARTE – LIRE – ROTATION – PLUSIEURS REPONSES POSSIBLES)

The candidate’s name
The candidate’s address
The candidate’s way of speaking, his or her accent
The candidate’s skin colour or ethnic origin
The candidate’s gender
The candidate’s sexual orientation (for example, being gay or lesbian) (M)
The candidate's age
A disability
The expression of a religious belief (for example wearing a visible religious symbol)
Whether the candidate is a smoker or not
The candidate’s look, dress-sense or presentation
The candidate’s general physical appearance (size, weight, face, etc.)
None of those (SPONTANEOUS)
Others (SPONTANEOUS)
DK
1,

Le nom du candidat
L’adresse du candidat
La façon de parler, l’accent du candidat
La couleur de peau ou l’origine ethnique du candidat
Le sexe du candidat
L'orientation sexuelle du candidat (par exemple être homosexuel ou lesbienne) (M)
L’âge du candidat
L’existence d’un handicap
L’expression d’une conviction religieuse (par exemple le port d’un signe religieux visible)
Le fait que le candidat fume ou pas
Le look, la façon de s’habiller ou de se présenter du candidat
L’apparence physique générale du candidat (taille, poids, visage, etc.)
Aucun de ceux-là (SPONTANE)
Autres (SPONTANE)
NSP
1,

2,

2,

3,

3,

4,

4,

5,

5,

6,

6,

7,

7,

8,

8,

9,

9,

10,

10,

11,

11,

12,

12,

13,

13,

14,

14,

15,

15,

EB65.4 QA5 TREND SLIGHTLY MODIFIED

EB65.4 QA5 TREND LEGEREMENT MODIFIE

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 8/55

(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE - ONE ANSWER PER LINE) - (IF NECESSARY, EXPLAIN TO

THE RESPONDENT THAT THIS WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT\ PRIME MINISTER\

CHANCELLOR, ETC. AS RELEVANT IN YOUR NATIONAL CONTEXT)

(READ OUT – 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Indiff DK (LIRE – 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Indiff NSP
ROTATE) Very unco Total ly erent (SP ROTATION ) Très mal Tout à fait érent (SP
mfort able comf ortab ONT ANE à l’aise à l’aise ONT ANE
le OUS )

NEW

) (MONTRER CARTE AVEC ECHELLE - UNE REPONSE PAR LIGNE) - (SI NECESSAIRE, EXPLIQUER AU REPONDANT QU'IL S'AGIRAIT DU PRESIDENT\ PREMIER MINISTRE\

CHANCELIER, ETC., SELON LE CONTEXTE NATIONAL)

1 A woman1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 A homosexual (gay man or lesbian woman) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3 A person from a different ethnic origin than the majority of the population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4 A person aged under 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5 A person from a different religion than the majority of the population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6 A disabled person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 A person aged over 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Une femme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 Un homosexuel (un homme homosexuel ou une femme lesbienne) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3 Une personne d’une origine ethnique différente de la majorité de la population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4 Une personne âgée de moins de 30 ans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5 Une personne d’une religion différente de la majorité de la population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6 Une personne handicapée 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 Une personne âgée de plus de 75 ans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NOUVEAU

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 9/55 (SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)

QA9 Would you be in favour of or opposed to specific measures being adopted to provide equal QA9 Seriez-vous favorable ou opposé(e) à la mise en place de mesures spéciales destinées à
opportunities for everyone in the field of employment? Measures such as, for example special training schemes or adapted selection and recruitement processes, for people depending on donner des chances égales à tous dans le domaine de l’emploi ? Des mesures comme, par exemple, des programmes de formation spéciaux ou processus de sélection et recrutement
their…(M) adaptés à des personnes en fonction … ? (M)
1 Ethnic origin 1 2 3 4 5
2 Gender 1 2 3 4 5
3 Age 1 2 3 4 5
4 Religion or belief (M) 1 2 3 4 5
5 Disability 1 2 3 4 5
6 Sexual orientation 1 2 3 4 5

EB65.4 QA9 TREND MODIFIED (MONTRER CARTE AVEC ECHELLE – UNE SEULE REPONSE PAR LIGNE)

1 De l'origine ethnique 1 2 3 4 5
2 Du sexe 1 2 3 4 5
3 De l'âge 1 2 3 4 5
4 De la religion ou des convictions (M) 1 2 3 4 5
5 D'un handicap 1 2 3 4 5
6 De l'orientation sexuelle 1 2 3 4 5

EB65.4 QA9 TREND MODIFIE

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 10/55

(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE - ONE ANSWER PER LINE)

(MONTRER CARTE AVEC ECHELLE - UNE REPONSE PAR LIGNE)

(READ OUT – ROTATE) Totally support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Totally oppose DK
(LIRE – ROTATION) Vous soutenez tout à fait Vous soutenez plutôt Vous êtes plutôt opposé(e) Vous êtes tout à fait opposé(e) NSP
1 Monitoring the composition of the work-force to evaluate the representation of people from ethnic minorities 1 2 3 4 5
2 Monitoring the recruitment procedures to ensure that candidates from ethnic minorities have the same chance of being selected for interview or hired as other candidates with similar skills and qualifications 1 2 3 4 5
1 Surveillance de la composition de l’ensemble des employés pour évaluer la représentation des personnes issues de minorités ethniques 1 2 3 4 5
2 Surveillance des procédures de recrutement pour s’assurer que les candidats issus de minorités ethniques ont autant de chances d’être invités à des entretiens ou embauchés que d’autres candidats à compétences et qualifications égales 1 2 3 4 5

NEW

NOUVEAU

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 11/55

(UNE REPONSE PAR LIGNE)

(ONE ANSWER PER LINE)

1 People whose ethnic origin is different from yours 1 2 3
2 Roma 1 2 3
3 Homosexual 1 2 3
4 Disabled 1 2 3
5 Of a different religion or have different beliefs than you 1 2 3
1 D’une autre origine ethnique que la vôtre 1 2 3
2 Roms 1 2 3
3 Homosexuel(le)s 1 2 3
4 Atteint(e)s d'un handicap 1 2 3
5 D’une religion ou de convictions différentes des vôtres 1 2 3

EB65.4 D47 TREND EB65.4 D47 TREND

(READ OUT – ROTATE – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

(LIRE – ROTATION – PLUSIEURS REPONSES POSSIBLES)

An ethnic minority
A religious minority
A sexual minority
A minority in terms of disability
None of the above (SPONTANEOUS)
Any other minority group (SPONTANEOUS - SPECIFY)
DK
1,

Une minorité ethnique
Une minorité religieuse
Une minorité sexuelle
Une minorité liée à un handicap
Aucun d’entre eux (SPONTANE)
Un autre groupe minoritaire (SPONTANE - SPECIFIER)
NSP
1,

2,

2,

3,

3,

4,

4,

5,

5,

6,

6,

7,

7,

NEW

NOUVEAU

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 50/55

ASK D51o IF "ANY OTHER MINORITY GROUP", CODE 6 IN D51 - OTHERS GO TO D44

D51o Which other(s)?

D44

(WRITE DOWN - CODE AT THE OFFICE)
5 2

NEW

ASK ALL

Do you consider yourself to be…?

(DO NOT READ - SHOW CARD - PRECODED LIST - ONE ANSWER ONLY)

Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant
Other Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Sikh
Buddhist
Hindu
Atheist
Non believer\Agnostic
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
DK
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

EB66.1 D44 POSER D51o SI "UN AUTRE GROUPE MINORITAIRE", CODE 6 EN D51 - LES AUTRES ALLER EN D44

(NOTER EN CLAIR - CODER AU BUREAU)
5 2

NOUVEAU

A TOUS

(NE PAS LIRE - MONTRER CARTE - LISTE PRE-CODEE - UNE SEULE REPONSE)

Catholique
Orthodoxe
Protestant
Autre chrétien
Juif
Musulman
Sikh
Bouddhiste
Hindouiste
Athéiste
Non croyant \ agnostique
Autre (SPONTANE)
NSP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

EB66.1 D44

BilingualQuestionnaireEB691 51/55

TABLES

QA1.1 For each of the following types of discrimination, could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, it is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)? Discrimination on the basis of…

Ethnic origin QA1.2 For each of the following types of discrimination, could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, it is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)? Discrimination on the basis of…

TOTAL Very widespread Fairly widespread Fairly rare Very rare Non-existent (SPONTANEOUS) DK Widespread Rare
EU27 26746 16% 46% 24% 9% 2% 3% 62% 33%
BE 1012 22% 49% 18% 9% 1% 1% 71% 27%
BG 1000 9% 25% 23% 21% 16% 6% 34% 44%
CZ 1070 11% 41% 37% 9% 1% 1% 52% 46%
DK 1032 22% 53% 20% 4% -1% 75% 24%
DE 1562 11% 45% 30% 11% 1% 2% 56% 41%
EE 1000 8% 33% 29% 18% 9% 3% 41% 47%
EL 1000 24% 52% 18% 5% 1% -76% 23%
ES 1004 13% 53% 21% 8% 1% 4% 66% 29%
FR 1054 25% 51% 17% 3% -4% 76% 20%
IE 1000 13% 39% 26% 13% 2% 7% 52% 39%
IT 1036 24% 52% 17% 5% 1% 1% 76% 22%
CY 506 13% 48% 27% 12% --61% 39%
LV 1004 4% 23% 36% 22% 11% 4% 27% 58%
LT 1009 3% 20% 32% 30% 10% 5% 23% 62%
LU 513 11% 34% 38% 13% 1% 3% 45% 51%
HU 1000 22% 45% 22% 8% 1% 2% 67% 30%
MT 500 23% 46% 15% 8% 1% 7% 69% 23%
NL 1023 21% 58% 17% 4% --79% 21%
AT 1008 15% 45% 25% 9% 2% 4% 60% 34%
PL 1000 5% 23% 41% 18% 8% 5% 28% 59%
PT 1000 16% 44% 26% 10% 2% 2% 60% 36%
RO 1024 9% 31% 21% 20% 12% 7% 40% 41%
SI 1026 8% 35% 36% 16% 3% 2% 43% 52%
SK 1049 10% 40% 31% 15% 2% 2% 50% 46%
FI 1001 10% 55% 31% 3% -1% 65% 34%
SE 1007 12% 64% 18% 3% -3% 76% 21%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 18% 15% 51% 46% 24% 26% 4% 9% -2% 3% 2% 69% 61% 28% 35%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 17% 18% 46% 48% 23% 23% 8% 8% 2% 1% 4% 2% 63% 66% 31% 31%
25-39 6681 17% 47% 24% 8% 2% 2% 64% 32%
40-54 6730 18% 47% 23% 8% 2% 2% 65% 31%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 13% 15% 44% 44% 26% 24% 9% 9% 3% 2% 5% 6% 57% 59% 35% 33%
16-19 11255 16% 44% 25% 9% 3% 3% 60% 34%
20+ 6428 16% 49% 23% 8% 2% 2% 65% 31%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 18% 15% 49% 45% 22% 27% 8% 9% 1% 2% 2% 2% 67% 60% 30% 36%
Managers 2557 17% 52% 22% 6% 2% 1% 69% 28%
Other white collars 3069 17% 49% 24% 7% 1% 2% 66% 31%
Manual workers 5688 17% 46% 23% 9% 3% 2% 63% 32%
House persons 2327 18% 44% 22% 8% 2% 6% 62% 30%
Unemployed 1465 16% 43% 26% 11% 2% 2% 59% 37%
Retired 7006 13% 42% 27% 10% 3% 5% 55% 37%
Students 2590 18% 49% 22% 8% 1% 2% 67% 30%

Gender QA1.3 For each of the following types of discrimination, could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, it is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)? Discrimination on the basis of…

TOTAL Very widespread Fairly widespread Fairly rare Very rare Non-existent (SPONTANEOUS) DK Widespread Rare
EU27 26746 6% 30% 36% 20% 5% 3% 36% 56%
BE 1012 5% 26% 40% 26% 3% -31% 66%
BG 1000 4% 9% 24% 28% 28% 7% 13% 52%
CZ 1070 6% 32% 40% 17% 4% 1% 38% 57%
DK 1032 3% 23% 44% 27% 2% 1% 26% 71%
DE 1562 3% 20% 35% 37% 4% 1% 23% 72%
EE 1000 3% 23% 28% 28% 14% 4% 26% 56%
EL 1000 11% 33% 31% 21% 4% -44% 52%
ES 1004 12% 42% 25% 14% 4% 3% 54% 39%
FR 1054 7% 39% 39% 11% 1% 3% 46% 50%
IE 1000 3% 17% 35% 28% 9% 8% 20% 63%
IT 1036 8% 41% 32% 12% 5% 2% 49% 44%
CY 506 3% 31% 33% 28% 4% 1% 34% 61%
LV 1004 3% 21% 31% 25% 16% 4% 24% 56%
LT 1009 5% 25% 29% 26% 9% 6% 30% 55%
LU 513 7% 20% 40% 26% 3% 4% 27% 66%
HU 1000 10% 33% 33% 18% 5% 1% 43% 51%
MT 500 4% 30% 32% 23% 5% 6% 34% 55%
NL 1023 3% 24% 47% 25% -1% 27% 72%
AT 1008 4% 23% 35% 25% 11% 2% 27% 60%
PL 1000 4% 21% 40% 24% 9% 2% 25% 64%
PT 1000 9% 34% 36% 15% 3% 3% 43% 51%
RO 1024 3% 22% 28% 23% 15% 9% 25% 51%
SI 1026 3% 27% 36% 29% 4% 1% 30% 65%
SK 1049 5% 26% 39% 22% 6% 2% 31% 61%
FI 1001 2% 23% 56% 16% 2% 1% 25% 72%
SE 1007 5% 45% 37% 9% 1% 3% 50% 46%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 6% 5% 32% 28% 43% 38% 13% 22% 1% 5% 5% 2% 38% 33% 56% 60%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 7% 6% 33% 31% 34% 35% 18% 22% 5% 4% 3% 2% 40% 37% 52% 57%
25-39 6681 6% 31% 38% 19% 4% 2% 37% 57%
40-54 6730 6% 33% 36% 19% 4% 2% 39% 55%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 6% 7% 28% 30% 34% 32% 21% 21% 6% 5% 5% 5% 34% 37% 55% 53%
16-19 11255 6% 29% 36% 21% 5% 3% 35% 57%
20+ 6428 5% 33% 39% 19% 3% 1% 38% 58%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 6% 6% 32% 30% 34% 35% 22% 24% 4% 4% 2% 1% 38% 36% 56% 59%
Managers 2557 5% 30% 42% 18% 4% 1% 35% 60%
Other white collars 3069 6% 32% 40% 17% 3% 2% 38% 57%
Manual workers 5688 6% 31% 36% 20% 5% 2% 37% 56%
House persons 2327 9% 35% 31% 17% 4% 4% 44% 48%
Unemployed 1465 6% 32% 33% 21% 5% 3% 38% 54%
Retired 7006 5% 28% 34% 22% 6% 5% 33% 56%
Students 2590 6% 32% 34% 22% 4% 2% 38% 56%

Sexual orientation (for example being gay or lesbian) QA1.4 For each of the following types of discrimination, could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, it is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)? Discrimination on the basis of…

TOTAL Very widespread Fairly widespread Fairly rare Very rare Non-existent (SPONTANEOUS) DK Widespread Rare
EU27 26746 13% 38% 30% 11% 3% 5% 51% 41%
BE 1012 8% 36% 36% 17% 2% 1% 44% 53%
BG 1000 6% 14% 19% 21% 18% 22% 20% 40%
CZ 1070 5% 22% 45% 22% 4% 2% 27% 67%
DK 1032 4% 30% 45% 18% 1% 2% 34% 63%
DE 1562 9% 31% 36% 19% 2% 3% 40% 55%
EE 1000 7% 25% 25% 21% 10% 12% 32% 46%
EL 1000 25% 48% 17% 9% 1% -73% 26%
ES 1004 9% 39% 33% 12% 2% 5% 48% 45%
FR 1054 14% 48% 29% 4% 1% 4% 62% 33%
IE 1000 7% 31% 30% 18% 4% 10% 38% 48%
IT 1036 22% 50% 20% 5% 1% 2% 72% 25%
CY 506 33% 40% 16% 9% -2% 73% 25%
LV 1004 9% 27% 25% 19% 11% 9% 36% 44%
LT 1009 14% 29% 21% 15% 6% 15% 43% 36%
LU 513 10% 24% 38% 19% 2% 7% 34% 57%
HU 1000 13% 32% 29% 17% 3% 6% 45% 46%
MT 500 16% 43% 22% 10% 3% 6% 59% 32%
NL 1023 6% 39% 42% 11% -2% 45% 53%
AT 1008 6% 37% 36% 12% 3% 6% 43% 48%
PL 1000 17% 35% 26% 8% 5% 9% 52% 34%
PT 1000 18% 47% 21% 8% 2% 4% 65% 29%
RO 1024 18% 27% 16% 14% 8% 17% 45% 30%
SI 1026 12% 34% 31% 14% 3% 6% 46% 45%
SK 1049 6% 24% 35% 25% 4% 6% 30% 60%
FI 1001 7% 42% 40% 7% 1% 3% 49% 47%
SE 1007 11% 47% 32% 7% -3% 58% 39%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 10% 12% 40% 37% 36% 32% 7% 12% 1% 2% 6% 5% 50% 49% 43% 44%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 13% 16% 39% 43% 29% 27% 11% 9% 2% 1% 6% 4% 52% 59% 40% 36%
25-39 6681 14% 40% 30% 11% 2% 3% 54% 41%
40-54 6730 12% 40% 30% 12% 2% 4% 52% 42%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 11% 13% 34% 35% 32% 30% 12% 12% 3% 2% 8% 8% 45% 48% 44% 42%
16-19 11255 12% 38% 31% 11% 3% 5% 50% 42%
20+ 6428 12% 40% 32% 11% 2% 3% 52% 43%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 17% 13% 43% 41% 26% 30% 9% 12% 1% 2% 4% 2% 60% 54% 35% 42%
Managers 2557 11% 38% 34% 12% 2% 3% 49% 46%
Other white collars 3069 13% 39% 33% 10% 2% 3% 52% 43%
Manual workers 5688 12% 39% 30% 12% 3% 4% 51% 42%
House persons 2327 13% 40% 29% 10% 1% 7% 53% 39%
Unemployed 1465 15% 41% 25% 11% 2% 6% 56% 36%
Retired 7006 11% 33% 32% 11% 4% 9% 44% 43%
Students 2590 17% 43% 26% 9% 1% 4% 60% 35%

Age QA1.5 For each of the following types of discrimination, could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, it is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)? Discrimination on the basis of…

TOTAL Very widespread Fairly widespread Fairly rare Very rare Non-existent (SPONTANEOUS) DK Widespread Rare
EU27 26746 8% 34% 35% 17% 4% 2% 42% 52%
BE 1012 8% 30% 38% 22% 2% -38% 60%
BG 1000 9% 29% 20% 19% 17% 6% 38% 39%
CZ 1070 17% 41% 30% 9% 3% -58% 39%
DK 1032 4% 24% 43% 27% 1% 1% 28% 70%
DE 1562 8% 26% 36% 27% 2% 1% 34% 63%
EE 1000 6% 30% 29% 22% 10% 3% 36% 51%
EL 1000 12% 35% 30% 17% 6% -47% 47%
ES 1004 7% 32% 34% 18% 6% 3% 39% 52%
FR 1054 8% 38% 39% 11% 1% 3% 46% 50%
IE 1000 4% 20% 32% 28% 9% 7% 24% 60%
IT 1036 7% 39% 32% 16% 4% 2% 46% 48%
CY 506 4% 23% 36% 31% 5% 1% 27% 67%
LV 1004 12% 40% 26% 12% 7% 3% 52% 38%
LT 1009 8% 37% 25% 21% 5% 4% 45% 46%
LU 513 5% 19% 38% 30% 6% 2% 24% 68%
HU 1000 19% 48% 19% 10% 3% 1% 67% 29%
MT 500 5% 26% 34% 24% 6% 5% 31% 58%
NL 1023 8% 36% 37% 17% -2% 44% 54%
AT 1008 6% 29% 37% 18% 8% 2% 35% 55%
PL 1000 6% 28% 38% 20% 5% 3% 34% 58%
PT 1000 12% 39% 30% 15% 3% 1% 51% 45%
RO 1024 4% 26% 27% 23% 11% 9% 30% 50%
SI 1026 7% 30% 37% 21% 4% 1% 37% 58%
SK 1049 13% 36% 30% 16% 4% 1% 49% 46%
FI 1001 5% 38% 45% 10% 1% 1% 43% 55%
SE 1007 6% 35% 42% 15% -2% 41% 57%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 9% 7% 39% 32% 39% 36% 9% 19% 1% 4% 3% 2% 48% 39% 48% 55%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 9% 6% 35% 30% 34% 37% 16% 21% 3% 4% 3% 2% 44% 36% 50% 58%
25-39 6681 7% 32% 38% 18% 3% 2% 39% 56%
40-54 6730 9% 36% 34% 16% 3% 2% 45% 50%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 9% 9% 35% 34% 32% 31% 16% 17% 4% 5% 4% 4% 44% 43% 48% 48%
16-19 11255 9% 34% 35% 17% 3% 2% 43% 52%
20+ 6428 7% 34% 38% 17% 3% 1% 41% 55%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 6% 7% 30% 35% 36% 34% 21% 20% 4% 3% 3% 1% 36% 42% 57% 54%
Managers 2557 6% 34% 41% 15% 3% 1% 40% 56%
Other white collars 3069 7% 34% 36% 18% 3% 2% 41% 54%
Manual workers 5688 7% 33% 37% 17% 4% 2% 40% 54%
House persons 2327 9% 32% 33% 17% 4% 5% 41% 50%
Unemployed 1465 10% 35% 33% 17% 3% 2% 45% 50%
Retired 7006 10% 35% 31% 16% 5% 3% 45% 47%
Students 2590 6% 30% 36% 21% 4% 3% 36% 57%

Religion or belief QA1.6 For each of the following types of discrimination, could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, it is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)? Discrimination on the basis of…

TOTAL Very widespread Fairly widespread Fairly rare Very rare Non-existent (SPONTANEOUS) DK Widespread Rare
EU27 26746 9% 33% 34% 17% 4% 3% 42% 51%
BE 1012 14% 39% 30% 14% 2% 1% 53% 44%
BG 1000 4% 11% 21% 25% 28% 11% 15% 46%
CZ 1070 2% 11% 39% 38% 9% 1% 13% 77%
DK 1032 18% 44% 26% 11% -1% 62% 37%
DE 1562 6% 28% 38% 24% 2% 2% 34% 62%
EE 1000 3% 14% 29% 30% 18% 6% 17% 59%
EL 1000 13% 35% 30% 19% 3% -48% 49%
ES 1004 6% 35% 35% 17% 3% 4% 41% 52%
FR 1054 12% 45% 32% 6% 1% 4% 57% 38%
IE 1000 3% 16% 31% 34% 10% 6% 19% 65%
IT 1036 11% 44% 29% 10% 4% 2% 55% 39%
CY 506 5% 35% 33% 22% 5% -40% 55%
LV 1004 1% 9% 27% 36% 21% 6% 10% 63%
LT 1009 3% 8% 32% 35% 14% 8% 11% 67%
LU 513 8% 23% 34% 28% 4% 3% 31% 62%
HU 1000 4% 13% 33% 34% 14% 2% 17% 67%
MT 500 11% 28% 31% 21% 5% 4% 39% 52%
NL 1023 12% 43% 34% 10% -1% 55% 44%
AT 1008 9% 32% 40% 11% 5% 3% 41% 51%
PL 1000 5% 22% 41% 22% 7% 3% 27% 63%
PT 1000 8% 28% 35% 21% 6% 2% 36% 56%
RO 1024 3% 17% 28% 25% 18% 9% 20% 53%
SI 1026 6% 27% 40% 21% 2% 4% 33% 61%
SK 1049 2% 9% 31% 42% 13% 3% 11% 73%
FI 1001 2% 25% 55% 16% 1% 1% 27% 71%
SE 1007 8% 43% 37% 9% -3% 51% 46%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 14% 8% 42% 32% 34% 35% 5% 18% 1% 4% 4% 3% 56% 40% 39% 53%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 9% 11% 34% 38% 34% 31% 15% 15% 4% 3% 4% 2% 43% 49% 49% 46%
25-39 6681 10% 34% 33% 17% 4% 2% 44% 50%
40-54 6730 8% 33% 36% 16% 4% 3% 41% 52%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 7% 7% 30% 32% 35% 34% 17% 17% 6% 5% 5% 5% 37% 39% 52% 51%
16-19 11255 9% 32% 34% 17% 5% 3% 41% 51%
20+ 6428 8% 35% 36% 16% 3% 2% 43% 52%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 8% 10% 40% 31% 32% 34% 15% 19% 3% 4% 2% 2% 48% 41% 47% 53%
Managers 2557 7% 35% 37% 16% 3% 2% 42% 53%
Other white collars 3069 9% 34% 37% 15% 3% 2% 43% 52%
Manual workers 5688 10% 34% 31% 17% 5% 3% 44% 48%
House persons 2327 10% 31% 35% 16% 3% 5% 41% 51%
Unemployed 1465 11% 33% 30% 19% 4% 3% 44% 49%
Retired 7006 7% 30% 36% 16% 6% 5% 37% 52%
Students 2590 8% 40% 32% 15% 3% 2% 48% 47%

Disability

TOTAL Very widespread Fairly widespread Fairly rare Very rare Non-existent (SPONTANEOUS) DK Widespread Rare
EU27 26746 10% 35% 34% 15% 3% 3% 45% 49%
BE 1012 12% 34% 33% 19% 2% -46% 52%
BG 1000 9% 23% 20% 20% 17% 11% 32% 40%
CZ 1070 10% 33% 39% 14% 3% 1% 43% 53%
DK 1032 5% 26% 43% 24% 1% 1% 31% 67%
DE 1562 8% 29% 37% 23% 2% 1% 37% 60%
EE 1000 7% 33% 30% 17% 8% 5% 40% 47%
EL 1000 13% 36% 29% 18% 4% -49% 47%
ES 1004 8% 33% 37% 16% 3% 3% 41% 53%
FR 1054 14% 47% 31% 5% -3% 61% 36%
IE 1000 5% 20% 29% 32% 8% 6% 25% 61%
IT 1036 13% 43% 29% 12% 2% 1% 56% 41%
CY 506 6% 24% 30% 33% 6% 1% 30% 63%
LV 1004 10% 42% 21% 14% 7% 6% 52% 35%
LT 1009 9% 34% 28% 19% 5% 5% 43% 47%
LU 513 8% 23% 36% 26% 5% 2% 31% 62%
HU 1000 12% 37% 29% 16% 4% 2% 49% 45%
MT 500 5% 16% 33% 32% 11% 3% 21% 65%
NL 1023 8% 39% 37% 14% -2% 47% 51%
AT 1008 7% 31% 37% 18% 5% 2% 38% 55%
PL 1000 7% 31% 36% 19% 4% 3% 38% 55%
PT 1000 14% 41% 28% 13% 3% 1% 55% 41%
RO 1024 6% 24% 25% 21% 13% 11% 30% 46%
SI 1026 8% 33% 33% 22% 2% 2% 41% 55%
SK 1049 6% 28% 31% 26% 5% 4% 34% 57%
FI 1001 4% 41% 42% 11% 1% 1% 45% 53%
SE 1007 8% 38% 37% 14% -3% 46% 51%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 9% 8% 38% 34% 41% 37% 8% 16% -3% 4% 2% 47% 42% 49% 53%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 11% 11% 37% 37% 32% 34% 14% 14% 3% 2% 3% 2% 48% 48% 46% 48%
25-39 6681 10% 37% 34% 14% 3% 2% 47% 48%
40-54 6730 10% 37% 33% 15% 3% 2% 47% 48%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 8% 10% 33% 34% 35% 33% 16% 16% 4% 3% 4% 4% 41% 44% 51% 49%
16-19 11255 9% 35% 35% 16% 3% 2% 44% 51%
20+ 6428 10% 37% 35% 13% 3% 2% 47% 48%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 10% 8% 39% 35% 32% 38% 14% 16% 2% 2% 3% 1% 49% 43% 46% 54%
Managers 2557 9% 38% 37% 12% 3% 1% 47% 49%
Other white collars 3069 9% 37% 36% 14% 2% 2% 46% 50%
Manual workers 5688 10% 35% 35% 15% 3% 2% 45% 50%
House persons 2327 10% 37% 31% 16% 3% 3% 47% 47%
Unemployed 1465 16% 34% 30% 14% 3% 3% 50% 44%
Retired 7006 8% 33% 34% 17% 4% 4% 41% 51%
Students 2590 10% 39% 32% 14% 2% 3% 49% 46%
Ethnic origin
TOTAL Far more widespread Slightly more widespread Slightly less widespread Far less widespread DK More widespread Less widespread
EU27 26746 11% 37% 34% 10% 8% 48% 44%
BE 1012 13% 43% 32% 9% 3% 56% 41%
BG 1000 9% 17% 26% 26% 22% 26% 52%
CZ 1070 6% 31% 46% 14% 3% 37% 60%
DK 1032 23% 46% 25% 3% 3% 69% 28%
DE 1562 8% 42% 31% 12% 7% 50% 43%
EE 1000 8% 24% 37% 14% 17% 32% 51%
EL 1000 12% 31% 44% 13% -43% 57%
ES 1004 8% 40% 39% 8% 5% 48% 47%
FR 1054 13% 40% 31% 3% 13% 53% 34%
IE 1000 22% 31% 24% 9% 14% 53% 33%
IT 1036 18% 40% 31% 7% 4% 58% 38%
CY 506 7% 16% 57% 17% 3% 23% 74%
LV 1004 4% 21% 37% 18% 20% 25% 55%
LT 1009 3% 17% 40% 22% 18% 20% 62%
LU 513 12% 36% 31% 5% 16% 48% 36%
HU 1000 18% 43% 28% 5% 6% 61% 33%
MT 500 15% 30% 28% 14% 13% 45% 42%
NL 1023 19% 52% 24% 3% 2% 71% 27%
AT 1008 13% 36% 34% 8% 9% 49% 42%
PL 1000 4% 13% 47% 20% 16% 17% 67%
PT 1000 6% 31% 47% 10% 6% 37% 57%
RO 1024 7% 23% 27% 28% 15% 30% 55%
SI 1026 7% 34% 42% 9% 8% 41% 51%
SK 1049 10% 41% 31% 13% 5% 51% 44%
FI 1001 5% 33% 54% 5% 3% 38% 59%
SE 1007 8% 40% 44% 2% 6% 48% 46%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 14% 10% 41% 38% 30% 34% 5% 10% 10% 8% 55% 48% 35% 44%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 12% 13% 36% 36% 34% 33% 9% 8% 9% 10% 48% 49% 43% 41%
25-39 6681 12% 37% 34% 10% 7% 49% 44%
40-54 6730 11% 38% 34% 10% 7% 49% 44%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 10% 11% 36% 37% 34% 33% 10% 10% 10% 9% 46% 48% 44% 43%
16-19 11255 11% 38% 33% 10% 8% 49% 43%
20+ 6428 11% 36% 36% 9% 8% 47% 45%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 12% 11% 35% 37% 35% 36% 7% 10% 11% 6% 47% 48% 42% 46%
Managers 2557 9% 40% 36% 9% 6% 49% 45%
Other white collars 3069 10% 41% 34% 9% 6% 51% 43%
Manual workers 5688 13% 37% 33% 10% 7% 50% 43%
House persons 2327 12% 36% 33% 10% 9% 48% 43%
Unemployed 1465 15% 35% 32% 9% 9% 50% 41%
Retired 7006 9% 34% 34% 11% 12% 43% 45%
Students 2590 12% 35% 35% 7% 11% 47% 42%

Gender

TOTAL Far more widespread Slightly more widespread Slightly less widespread Far less widespread DK More widespread Less widespread
EU27 26746 4% 20% 50% 17% 9% 24% 67%
BE 1012 2% 18% 56% 20% 4% 20% 76%
BG 1000 5% 13% 20% 34% 28% 18% 54%
CZ 1070 5% 25% 46% 20% 4% 30% 66%
DK 1032 2% 13% 64% 15% 6% 15% 79%
DE 1562 2% 16% 51% 23% 8% 18% 74%
EE 1000 4% 14% 41% 20% 21% 18% 61%
EL 1000 6% 18% 50% 26% -24% 76%
ES 1004 5% 26% 49% 14% 6% 31% 63%
FR 1054 5% 23% 50% 9% 13% 28% 59%
IE 1000 3% 18% 41% 21% 17% 21% 62%
IT 1036 5% 24% 51% 15% 5% 29% 66%
CY 506 5% 9% 51% 33% 2% 14% 84%
LV 1004 3% 17% 38% 21% 21% 20% 59%
LT 1009 4% 20% 41% 18% 17% 24% 59%
LU 513 5% 25% 42% 8% 20% 30% 50%
HU 1000 10% 37% 35% 11% 7% 47% 46%
MT 500 5% 20% 35% 25% 15% 25% 60%
NL 1023 2% 13% 65% 12% 8% 15% 77%
AT 1008 3% 15% 49% 23% 10% 18% 72%
PL 1000 3% 13% 48% 21% 15% 16% 69%
PT 1000 5% 25% 52% 12% 6% 30% 64%
RO 1024 3% 17% 31% 34% 15% 20% 65%
SI 1026 4% 28% 47% 13% 8% 32% 60%
SK 1049 5% 32% 41% 17% 5% 37% 58%
FI 1001 2% 20% 66% 9% 3% 22% 75%
SE 1007 2% 17% 67% 8% 6% 19% 75%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 3% 3% 18% 19% 56% 51% 10% 18% 13% 9% 21% 22% 66% 69%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 4% 4% 21% 22% 49% 48% 16% 17% 10% 9% 25% 26% 65% 65%
25-39 6681 4% 19% 53% 17% 7% 23% 70%
40-54 6730 4% 21% 51% 16% 8% 25% 67%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 4% 4% 19% 23% 48% 45% 17% 17% 12% 11% 23% 27% 65% 62%
16-19 11255 4% 22% 48% 17% 9% 26% 65%
20+ 6428 2% 15% 58% 16% 9% 17% 74%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 3% 3% 19% 17% 52% 55% 16% 18% 10% 7% 22% 20% 68% 73%
Managers 2557 2% 15% 59% 17% 7% 17% 76%
Other white collars 3069 4% 21% 53% 16% 6% 25% 69%
Manual workers 5688 4% 22% 47% 18% 9% 26% 65%
House persons 2327 5% 24% 45% 17% 9% 29% 62%
Unemployed 1465 5% 27% 45% 14% 9% 32% 59%
Retired 7006 3% 18% 49% 17% 13% 21% 66%
Students 2590 3% 19% 52% 16% 10% 22% 68%
Sexual orientation (for example being gay or lesbian)
Slightly more Slightly less
TOTAL Far more widespread Far less widespread DK More widespread Less widespread
widespread widespread
EU27 26746 7% 22% 47% 14% 10% 29% 61%
BE 1012 5% 18% 55% 19% 3% 23% 74%
BG 1000 6% 11% 20% 26% 37% 17% 46%
CZ 1070 3% 16% 48% 29% 4% 19% 77%
DK 1032 3% 17% 61% 14% 5% 20% 75%
DE 1562 3% 17% 52% 21% 7% 20% 73%
EE 1000 8% 20% 31% 14% 27% 28% 45%
EL 1000 11% 23% 49% 17% -34% 66%
ES 1004 3% 22% 54% 15% 6% 25% 69%
FR 1054 9% 27% 47% 7% 10% 36% 54%
IE 1000 7% 22% 37% 17% 17% 29% 54%
IT 1036 13% 30% 44% 9% 4% 43% 53%
CY 506 8% 18% 57% 14% 3% 26% 71%
LV 1004 7% 24% 29% 15% 25% 31% 44%
LT 1009 7% 25% 31% 14% 23% 32% 45%
LU 513 7% 25% 41% 8% 19% 32% 49%
HU 1000 12% 36% 34% 9% 9% 48% 43%
MT 500 7% 23% 35% 23% 12% 30% 58%
NL 1023 6% 29% 51% 9% 5% 35% 60%
AT 1008 8% 18% 49% 16% 9% 26% 65%
PL 1000 8% 22% 40% 12% 18% 30% 52%
PT 1000 7% 29% 48% 9% 7% 36% 57%
RO 1024 14% 20% 24% 18% 24% 34% 42%
SI 1026 7% 31% 42% 10% 10% 38% 52%
SK 1049 5% 26% 40% 17% 12% 31% 57%
FI 1001 5% 19% 59% 12% 5% 24% 71%
SE 1007 5% 17% 60% 12% 6% 22% 72%
UK 1306 6% 19% 51% 12% 12% 25% 63%
Sex
Male 12797 7% 22% 47% 15% 9% 29% 62%
Female 13949 8% 23% 46% 13% 10% 31% 59%
Age
15-24 4036 9% 27% 42% 13% 9% 36% 55%
25-39 6681 7% 22% 49% 14% 8% 29% 63%
40-54 6730 7% 23% 49% 14% 7% 30% 63%
55 + 9300 7% 21% 45% 14% 13% 28% 59%
Education (End of)
15 5928 7% 25% 43% 14% 11% 32% 57%
16-19 11255 8% 23% 46% 14% 9% 31% 60%
20+ 6428 6% 18% 54% 13% 9% 24% 67%
Still studying 2590 8% 24% 46% 13% 9% 32% 59%
Respondent occupation scale
Self- employed 2043 7% 20% 51% 15% 7% 27% 66%
Managers 2557 6% 18% 54% 14% 8% 24% 68%
Other white collars 3069 7% 23% 49% 14% 7% 30% 63%
Manual workers 5688 8% 23% 46% 14% 9% 31% 60%
House persons 2327 7% 25% 45% 14% 9% 32% 59%
Unemployed 1465 9% 29% 39% 12% 11% 38% 51%
Retired 7006 6% 21% 45% 14% 14% 27% 59%
Students 2590 8% 24% 46% 13% 9% 32% 59%
Age
TOTAL Far more widespread Slightly more widespread Slightly less widespread Far less widespread DK More widespread Less widespread
EU27 26746 6% 27% 43% 14% 10% 33% 57%
BE 1012 4% 26% 49% 16% 5% 30% 65%
BG 1000 12% 22% 21% 21% 24% 34% 42%
CZ 1070 15% 38% 33% 11% 3% 53% 44%
DK 1032 3% 20% 58% 14% 5% 23% 72%
DE 1562 5% 30% 41% 16% 8% 35% 57%
EE 1000 4% 20% 41% 17% 18% 24% 58%
EL 1000 6% 25% 46% 23% -31% 69%
ES 1004 8% 24% 46% 15% 7% 32% 61%
FR 1054 6% 30% 43% 7% 14% 36% 50%
IE 1000 4% 18% 40% 21% 17% 22% 61%
IT 1036 8% 26% 45% 15% 6% 34% 60%
CY 506 4% 7% 54% 33% 2% 11% 87%
LV 1004 9% 28% 33% 12% 18% 37% 45%
LT 1009 6% 22% 41% 17% 14% 28% 58%
LU 513 6% 23% 40% 10% 21% 29% 50%
HU 1000 19% 42% 26% 8% 5% 61% 34%
MT 500 3% 20% 34% 29% 14% 23% 63%
NL 1023 4% 28% 52% 8% 8% 32% 60%
AT 1008 5% 26% 41% 18% 10% 31% 59%
PL 1000 4% 19% 41% 20% 16% 23% 61%
PT 1000 6% 28% 48% 12% 6% 34% 60%
RO 1024 4% 22% 30% 29% 15% 26% 59%
SI 1026 7% 32% 42% 11% 8% 39% 53%
SK 1049 13% 35% 33% 15% 4% 48% 48%
FI 1001 3% 30% 56% 7% 4% 33% 63%
SE 1007 2% 29% 51% 8% 10% 31% 59%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 5% 5% 25% 26% 51% 44% 8% 15% 11% 10% 30% 31% 59% 59%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 7% 5% 28% 25% 42% 43% 13% 14% 10% 13% 35% 30% 55% 57%
25-39 6681 6% 25% 46% 15% 8% 31% 61%
40-54 6730 6% 29% 44% 13% 8% 35% 57%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 7% 8% 27% 28% 41% 41% 14% 14% 11% 9% 34% 36% 55% 55%
16-19 11255 7% 28% 41% 15% 9% 35% 56%
20+ 6428 4% 24% 49% 13% 10% 28% 62%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 4% 5% 25% 27% 45% 48% 12% 13% 14% 7% 29% 32% 57% 61%
Managers 2557 4% 24% 50% 13% 9% 28% 63%
Other white collars 3069 6% 28% 44% 14% 8% 34% 58%
Manual workers 5688 7% 27% 43% 15% 8% 34% 58%
House persons 2327 7% 27% 42% 16% 8% 34% 58%
Unemployed 1465 10% 28% 39% 12% 11% 38% 51%
Retired 7006 7% 28% 40% 14% 11% 35% 54%
Students 2590 4% 25% 45% 12% 14% 29% 57%
Religion or belief
TOTAL Far more widespread Slightly more widespread Slightly less widespread Far less widespread DK More widespread Less widespread
EU27 26746 8% 30% 38% 14% 10% 38% 52%
BE 1012 10% 41% 36% 10% 3% 51% 46%
BG 1000 6% 11% 19% 33% 31% 17% 52%
CZ 1070 2% 11% 44% 37% 6% 13% 81%
DK 1032 19% 47% 27% 4% 3% 66% 31%
DE 1562 5% 36% 36% 15% 8% 41% 51%
EE 1000 3% 14% 34% 22% 27% 17% 56%
EL 1000 7% 21% 49% 23% -28% 72%
ES 1004 5% 27% 46% 13% 9% 32% 59%
FR 1054 12% 39% 33% 4% 12% 51% 37%
IE 1000 4% 18% 38% 25% 15% 22% 63%
IT 1036 11% 33% 40% 11% 5% 44% 51%
CY 506 6% 12% 52% 28% 2% 18% 80%
LV 1004 2% 12% 37% 26% 23% 14% 63%
LT 1009 3% 14% 38% 24% 21% 17% 62%
LU 513 8% 28% 35% 8% 21% 36% 43%
HU 1000 4% 21% 42% 25% 8% 25% 67%
MT 500 6% 21% 35% 28% 10% 27% 63%
NL 1023 20% 46% 27% 4% 3% 66% 31%
AT 1008 10% 31% 39% 11% 9% 41% 50%
PL 1000 4% 13% 45% 22% 16% 17% 67%
PT 1000 6% 23% 49% 15% 7% 29% 64%
RO 1024 3% 16% 29% 37% 15% 19% 66%
SI 1026 6% 35% 41% 10% 8% 41% 51%
SK 1049 3% 13% 37% 39% 8% 16% 76%
FI 1001 3% 26% 58% 8% 5% 29% 66%
SE 1007 7% 37% 44% 4% 8% 44% 48%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 15% 8% 38% 30% 30% 38% 6% 15% 11% 9% 53% 38% 36% 53%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 9% 11% 30% 30% 37% 38% 14% 11% 10% 10% 39% 41% 51% 49%
25-39 6681 9% 30% 39% 14% 8% 39% 53%
40-54 6730 9% 33% 35% 14% 9% 42% 49%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 7% 7% 28% 28% 38% 39% 15% 15% 12% 11% 35% 35% 53% 54%
16-19 11255 9% 31% 36% 15% 9% 40% 51%
20+ 6428 9% 32% 38% 12% 9% 41% 50%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 10% 7% 30% 30% 39% 42% 11% 15% 10% 6% 40% 37% 50% 57%
Managers 2557 8% 35% 37% 12% 8% 43% 49%
Other white collars 3069 9% 32% 40% 13% 6% 41% 53%
Manual workers 5688 9% 32% 35% 15% 9% 41% 50%
House persons 2327 9% 29% 38% 14% 10% 38% 52%
Unemployed 1465 12% 30% 33% 14% 11% 42% 47%
Retired 7006 7% 27% 38% 16% 12% 34% 54%
Students 2590 10% 30% 39% 11% 10% 40% 50%
Disability
TOTAL Far more widespread Slightly more widespread Slightly less widespread Far less widespread DK More widespread Less widespread
EU27 26746 4% 20% 51% 16% 9% 24% 67%
BE 1012 2% 17% 60% 17% 4% 19% 77%
BG 1000 7% 16% 23% 27% 27% 23% 50%
CZ 1070 6% 18% 48% 24% 4% 24% 72%
DK 1032 2% 12% 67% 14% 5% 14% 81%
DE 1562 3% 18% 51% 19% 9% 21% 70%
EE 1000 4% 14% 43% 19% 20% 18% 62%
EL 1000 5% 16% 50% 29% -21% 79%
ES 1004 3% 19% 54% 18% 6% 22% 72%
FR 1054 5% 27% 51% 6% 11% 32% 57%
IE 1000 5% 14% 40% 25% 16% 19% 65%
IT 1036 7% 26% 50% 13% 4% 33% 63%
CY 506 5% 8% 47% 37% 3% 13% 84%
LV 1004 5% 24% 37% 15% 19% 29% 52%
LT 1009 5% 18% 42% 19% 16% 23% 61%
LU 513 6% 23% 38% 10% 23% 29% 48%
HU 1000 9% 30% 43% 11% 7% 39% 54%
MT 500 4% 16% 32% 39% 9% 20% 71%
NL 1023 2% 18% 63% 7% 10% 20% 70%
AT 1008 4% 18% 49% 19% 10% 22% 68%
PL 1000 3% 12% 52% 20% 13% 15% 72%
PT 1000 7% 27% 50% 10% 6% 34% 60%
RO 1024 5% 17% 30% 31% 17% 22% 61%
SI 1026 5% 30% 47% 11% 7% 35% 58%
SK 1049 4% 21% 44% 24% 7% 25% 68%
FI 1001 2% 19% 66% 8% 5% 21% 74%
SE 1007 2% 16% 63% 11% 8% 18% 74%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 5% 4% 17% 19% 58% 52% 10% 16% 10% 9% 22% 23% 68% 68%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 5% 5% 20% 20% 51% 51% 15% 14% 9% 10% 25% 25% 66% 65%
25-39 6681 5% 19% 52% 16% 8% 24% 68%
40-54 6730 5% 20% 52% 15% 8% 25% 67%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 4% 6% 19% 22% 51% 47% 16% 16% 10% 9% 23% 28% 67% 63%
16-19 11255 5% 21% 50% 16% 8% 26% 66%
20+ 6428 3% 15% 58% 14% 10% 18% 72%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 4% 4% 20% 18% 51% 56% 14% 16% 11% 6% 24% 22% 65% 72%
Managers 2557 3% 15% 60% 13% 9% 18% 73%
Other white collars 3069 4% 20% 53% 16% 7% 24% 69%
Manual workers 5688 5% 21% 49% 17% 8% 26% 66%
House persons 2327 6% 22% 47% 16% 9% 28% 63%
Unemployed 1465 7% 24% 46% 13% 10% 31% 59%
Retired 7006 4% 19% 50% 16% 11% 23% 66%
Students 2590 4% 20% 51% 14% 11% 24% 65%

QA3 In the past 12 months have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed on the basis of one or more of of the following grounds? Was it a discrimination on basis of...? Please tell me all that apply. (DO NOT READ OUT – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

ANSWERS POSSIBLE)
TOTAL Ethnic origin Gender Sexual orientation Age Religion or belief Disability No For another reason DK Yes Single ground Multiple grounds
EU27 26746 2% 3% 1% 6% 2% 2% 84% 3% 2% 15% 12% 3%
BE 1012 3% 3% 1% 5% 2% 2% 83% 5% 0% 17% 13% 3%
BG 1000 3% 1% -6% 1% 2% 88% 2% 0% 11% 9% 3%
CZ 1070 2% 5% 1% 12% 1% 2% 79% 1% 1% 19% 15% 4%
DK 1032 3% 4% 1% 6% 1% 2% 84% 3% 0% 16% 13% 3%
DE 1562 2% 2% 1% 4% 2% 2% 87% 3% 0% 13% 11% 2%
EE 1000 6% 3% 1% 7% 1% 2% 82% 1% 3% 16% 11% 4%
EL 1000 1% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1% 93% 1% -7% 7% 1%
ES 1004 2% 3% 2% 5% 2% 1% 86% 2% 1% 13% 9% 4%
FR 1054 2% 2% 0% 7% 1% 2% 81% 5% 4% 16% 12% 3%
IE 1000 2% 1% 0% 3% 1% 1% 90% 3% 1% 10% 8% 1%
IT 1036 3% 6% 5% 6% 2% 2% 78% 2% 2% 19% 16% 3%
CY 506 1% 1% -3% 1% 0% 86% 8% 0% 14% 13% 1%
LV 1004 2% 2% -8% 0% 2% 84% 2% 2% 14% 12% 2%
LT 1009 1% 2% 0% 7% 0% 3% 83% 3% 2% 15% 13% 2%
LU 513 5% 3% 1% 4% 2% 2% 82% 6% 0% 17% 14% 3%
HU 1000 4% 3% 0% 9% 1% 3% 81% 2% 0% 19% 16% 3%
MT 500 0% 1% 0% 3% 1% 1% 89% 6% -11% 10% 1%
NL 1023 1% 3% 0% 6% 2% 2% 85% 3% 1% 13% 11% 2%
AT 1008 3% 6% 3% 11% 4% 3% 73% 3% 1% 25% 20% 5%
PL 1000 1% 2% 1% 4% 1% 2% 86% 3% 4% 10% 8% 2%
PT 1000 2% 3% 2% 2% 0% 1% 88% 1% 0% 11% 10% 1%
RO 1024 2% 2% 1% 5% 2% 1% 88% 3% 2% 10% 7% 3%
SI 1026 1% 3% 0% 5% 2% 3% 84% 4% 1% 15% 12% 3%
SK 1049 4% 4% 1% 8% 1% 3% 81% 3% 1% 17% 13% 5%
FI 1001 1% 5% 0% 6% 1% 1% 85% 4% 0% 15% 13% 2%
SE 1007 2% 7% 1% 8% 1% 2% 81% 3% 0% 18% 14% 4%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 4% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 8% 5% 2% 1% 3% 2% 81% 85% 1% 3% 1% 2% 17% 13% 13% 11% 4% 2%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 2% 3% 5% 4% 1% 2% 7% 6% 2% 2% 2% 1% 82% 81% 3% 3% 1% 2% 16% 17% 12% 14% 4% 3%
25-39 6681 3% 4% 1% 3% 2% 2% 84% 3% 1% 15% 12% 3%
40-54 6730 3% 4% 1% 6% 1% 3% 82% 3% 1% 16% 13% 4%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 7% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3% 85% 85% 2% 2% 2% 1% 13% 14% 11% 11% 3% 2%
16-19 11255 2% 3% 1% 6% 1% 2% 84% 2% 2% 15% 12% 3%
20+ 6428 2% 4% 1% 6% 2% 2% 82% 3% 2% 16% 12% 3%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 3% 3% 5% 3% 2% 1% 5% 5% 3% 1% 1% 1% 81% 85% 2% 2% 2% 1% 16% 14% 13% 12% 3% 2%
Managers 2557 2% 4% 1% 5% 2% 1% 84% 3% 2% 14% 11% 3%
Other white collars 3069 2% 5% 1% 5% 2% 1% 83% 2% 2% 15% 12% 3%
Manual workers 5688 3% 3% 2% 5% 1% 2% 84% 3% 1% 15% 11% 3%
House persons 2327 3% 4% 2% 4% 1% 2% 85% 1% 2% 14% 11% 3%
Unemployed 1465 4% 3% 1% 12% 1% 3% 74% 5% 1% 24% 20% 4%
Retired 7006 1% 1% 1% 7% 2% 3% 85% 2% 2% 14% 11% 3%
Students 2590 3% 5% 2% 5% 3% 1% 81% 2% 2% 16% 13% 3%
Sexual Religion or For another
TOTAL Ethnic origin Gender Age Disability No DK Yes
orientation belief reason
EU27 26746 14% 5% 6% 7% 6% 7% 70% 2% 1% 29%
BE 1012 15% 4% 6% 5% 7% 6% 70% 3% 0% 30%
BG 1000 10% 3% 1% 11% 2% 5% 79% 1% 1% 20%
CZ 1070 8% 8% 3% 16% 2% 5% 69% 1% 2% 30%
DK 1032 25% 7% 8% 8% 15% 7% 64% 2% 0% 35%
DE 1562 16% 5% 6% 10% 8% 9% 67% 3% 0% 33%
EE 1000 12% 5% 4% 10% 2% 8% 70% 1% 4% 27%
EL 1000 17% 3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 75% 1% -25%
ES 1004 17% 8% 6% 5% 4% 5% 72% 2% 1% 26%
FR 1054 16% 3% 5% 4% 7% 6% 69% 3% 2% 29%
IE 1000 17% 3% 5% 4% 3% 4% 74% 3% 1% 26%
IT 1036 11% 6% 8% 7% 3% 6% 69% 1% 2% 29%
CY 506 15% 2% 3% 2% 5% 4% 72% 5% 1% 27%
LV 1004 8% 3% 3% 10% 2% 7% 73% 1% 2% 26%
LT 1009 3% 3% 2% 7% 1% 6% 79% 2% 2% 19%
LU 513 14% 4% 5% 4% 5% 8% 71% 5% 0% 29%
HU 1000 13% 6% 3% 12% 2% 7% 68% 1% 0% 32%
MT 500 5% 1% 2% 1% 3% 3% 86% 2% 1% 14%
NL 1023 22% 5% 8% 8% 11% 6% 63% 4% 1% 36%
AT 1008 17% 9% 10% 12% 11% 11% 56% 2% 2% 42%
PL 1000 4% 3% 3% 7% 4% 6% 78% 2% 3% 19%
PT 1000 10% 3% 6% 4% 1% 4% 80% 1% 1% 19%
RO 1024 9% 4% 3% 7% 4% 5% 79% 2% 2% 18%
SI 1026 11% 4% 3% 7% 5% 6% 75% 3% 1% 24%
SK 1049 13% 7% 3% 14% 1% 7% 67% 3% 1% 32%
FI 1001 12% 5% 4% 8% 4% 7% 70% 4% 0% 30%
SE 1007 24% 17% 13% 15% 14% 11% 54% 4% 0% 46%
UK 1306 16% 5% 6% 7% 9% 10% 67% 1% 1% 32%
Sex
Male 12797 15% 5% 6% 7% 7% 6% 70% 2% 1% 29%
Female 13949 13% 5% 6% 8% 6% 8% 70% 2% 1% 29%
Age
15-24 4036 22% 7% 11% 8% 11% 10% 57% 3% 2% 42%
25-39 6681 18% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 66% 2% 1% 33%
40-54 6730 15% 6% 6% 8% 6% 8% 68% 3% 1% 31%
55 + 9300 7% 2% 3% 7% 3% 4% 79% 1% 2% 19%
Education (End of)
15 5928 9% 3% 3% 6% 3% 5% 78% 2% 1% 21%
16-19 11255 12% 5% 5% 7% 5% 6% 72% 2% 1% 27%
20+ 6428 19% 7% 8% 9% 8% 9% 64% 3% 1% 35%
Still studying 2590 24% 6% 12% 10% 12% 11% 55% 3% 1% 44%
Respondent occupation scale
Self- employed 2043 16% 6% 8% 8% 7% 8% 71% 1% 1% 28%
Managers 2557 20% 8% 8% 9% 11% 9% 61% 2% 2% 38%
Other white collars 3069 15% 7% 6% 8% 6% 7% 67% 1% 1% 32%
Manual workers 5688 16% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 68% 3% 1% 31%
House persons 2327 9% 4% 4% 6% 4% 5% 77% 1% 1% 21%
Unemployed 1465 16% 6% 6% 8% 6% 10% 65% 4% 1% 34%
Retired 7006 7% 2% 2% 7% 3% 5% 80% 2% 1% 18%
Students 2590 24% 6% 12% 10% 12% 11% 55% 3% 1% 44%

QA5 We have just been discussing discrimination based on ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or belief, and\ or disability. Some people may experience discrimination on the basis of more than only one of these characteristics. If they experience discrimination on several grounds, we call this ‘multiple discrimination’. Could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, multiple discrimination is very widespread, fairly widespread, fairly rare or very rare in (OUR COUNTRY)?

TOTAL Very widespread Fairly widespread Fairly rare Very rare Non-existent (SPONTANEOUS) DK Widespread Rare
EU27 26746 4% 33% 32% 16% 5% 10% 37% 48%
BE 1012 6% 34% 35% 20% 3% 2% 40% 55%
BG 1000 4% 16% 20% 19% 18% 23% 20% 39%
CZ 1070 3% 20% 46% 24% 3% 4% 23% 70%
DK 1032 8% 34% 32% 20% 2% 4% 42% 52%
DE 1562 3% 25% 26% 26% 11% 9% 28% 52%
EE 1000 3% 15% 27% 29% 15% 11% 18% 56%
EL 1000 5% 37% 36% 17% 4% 1% 42% 53%
ES 1004 3% 37% 27% 15% 2% 16% 40% 42%
FR 1054 5% 44% 35% 7% 2% 7% 49% 42%
IE 1000 7% 22% 31% 20% 6% 14% 29% 51%
IT 1036 6% 43% 28% 10% 5% 8% 49% 38%
CY 506 3% 35% 36% 17% 1% 8% 38% 53%
LV 1004 2% 25% 33% 21% 12% 7% 27% 54%
LT 1009 2% 15% 29% 26% 11% 17% 17% 55%
LU 513 6% 20% 39% 16% 11% 8% 26% 55%
HU 1000 5% 32% 34% 18% 5% 6% 37% 52%
MT 500 2% 26% 27% 19% 4% 22% 28% 46%
NL 1023 4% 40% 40% 9% 1% 6% 44% 49%
AT 1008 5% 29% 36% 17% 3% 10% 34% 53%
PL 1000 3% 19% 39% 21% 8% 10% 22% 60%
PT 1000 3% 36% 31% 14% 7% 9% 39% 45%
RO 1024 3% 21% 23% 21% 11% 21% 24% 44%
SI 1026 3% 25% 33% 26% 6% 7% 28% 59%
SK 1049 3% 24% 41% 26% 2% 4% 27% 67%
FI 1001 1% 25% 48% 16% 4% 6% 26% 64%
SE 1007 5% 40% 39% 8% 1% 7% 45% 47%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 5% 4% 37% 30% 37% 34% 9% 17% 1% 6% 11% 9% 42% 34% 46% 51%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 4% 5% 36% 39% 30% 31% 14% 14% 5% 3% 11% 8% 40% 44% 44% 45%
25-39 6681 5% 35% 32% 16% 5% 7% 40% 48%
40-54 6730 5% 34% 32% 15% 6% 8% 39% 47%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 3% 4% 28% 31% 32% 30% 17% 15% 6% 6% 14% 14% 31% 35% 49% 45%
16-19 11255 4% 32% 32% 17% 6% 9% 36% 49%
20+ 6428 4% 34% 35% 16% 4% 7% 38% 51%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 5% 4% 38% 31% 33% 35% 13% 18% 3% 5% 8% 7% 43% 35% 46% 53%
Managers 2557 3% 35% 35% 16% 5% 6% 38% 51%
Other white collars 3069 4% 34% 34% 17% 4% 7% 38% 51%
Manual workers 5688 5% 34% 32% 15% 6% 8% 39% 47%
House persons 2327 6% 36% 29% 13% 4% 12% 42% 42%
Unemployed 1465 5% 38% 29% 13% 5% 10% 43% 42%
Retired 7006 3% 27% 31% 18% 7% 14% 30% 49%
Students 2590 5% 38% 33% 13% 3% 8% 43% 46%
Indifferent
1 Very 10 Totally
TOTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (SPONTANE DK Average
uncomfortable comfortable
OUS)
EU27 26746 12% 5% 7% 7% 12% 6% 7% 8% 5% 23% 6% 2% 6.0
BE 1012 6% 4% 6% 7% 13% 6% 12% 14% 8% 23% 1% -6.6
BG 1000 20% 8% 8% 8% 12% 3% 4% 3% 3% 15% 13% 3% 4.8
CZ 1070 29% 7% 11% 10% 15% 6% 5% 4% 1% 3% 8% 1% 3.7
DK 1032 9% 6% 6% 6% 9% 6% 8% 8% 6% 33% 1% 2% 6.7
DE 1562 12% 5% 7% 7% 13% 5% 6% 9% 4% 20% 10% 2% 5.8
EE 1000 16% 4% 9% 6% 13% 4% 5% 7% 5% 25% 4% 2% 5.9
EL 1000 13% 6% 7% 5% 13% 5% 8% 9% 6% 26% 2% -6.2
ES 1004 5% 2% 6% 10% 11% 7% 8% 7% 6% 29% 7% 2% 6.8
FR 1054 6% 4% 5% 6% 13% 6% 8% 10% 6% 32% 2% 2% 6.9
IE 1000 21% 8% 10% 9% 11% 6% 6% 6% 5% 13% 3% 2% 4.8
IT 1036 30% 8% 9% 10% 13% 7% 5% 5% 3% 6% 3% 1% 4.0
CY 506 25% 3% 6% 4% 14% 5% 4% 7% 3% 26% 1% 2% 5.6
LV 1004 15% 5% 8% 6% 14% 5% 5% 8% 5% 11% 16% 2% 5.2
LT 1009 16% 4% 6% 4% 12% 6% 6% 7% 5% 29% 2% 3% 6.2
LU 513 5% 3% 5% 3% 12% 4% 6% 6% 2% 28% 23% 3% 6.9
HU 1000 14% 4% 9% 7% 17% 7% 8% 6% 4% 18% 5% 1% 5.5
MT 500 11% 4% 3% 4% 9% 5% 7% 5% 6% 32% 10% 4% 6.8
NL 1023 4% 3% 6% 6% 13% 12% 13% 13% 5% 22% 1% 2% 6.7
AT 1008 14% 5% 9% 8% 11% 8% 9% 6% 4% 12% 10% 4% 5.3
PL 1000 4% 3% 5% 5% 10% 4% 5% 10% 6% 42% 3% 3% 7.5
PT 1000 6% 6% 7% 6% 11% 7% 7% 9% 7% 8% 25% 1% 5.7
RO 1024 9% 4% 6% 5% 10% 4% 7% 8% 8% 18% 17% 4% 6.2
SI 1026 11% 5% 8% 5% 17% 8% 8% 8% 5% 23% 2% -6.1
SK 1049 19% 9% 10% 9% 17% 9% 6% 7% 5% 5% 3% 1% 4.5
FI 1001 8% 7% 10% 11% 12% 7% 12% 10% 7% 8% 8% -5.5
SE 1007 6% 2% 6% 6% 11% 5% 9% 10% 7% 35% 1% 2% 7.1
UK 1306 12% 5% 5% 5% 14% 5% 9% 6% 4% 30% 1% 4% 6.3
Sex
Male 12797 12% 5% 7% 7% 12% 6% 8% 7% 5% 23% 6% 2% 6.0
Female 13949 12% 5% 7% 7% 12% 6% 7% 8% 5% 24% 5% 2% 6.1
Age
15-24 4036 9% 4% 6% 6% 11% 5% 7% 9% 6% 28% 7% 2% 6.6
25-39 6681 10% 4% 6% 7% 12% 7% 8% 8% 6% 24% 6% 2% 6.3
40-54 6730 12% 5% 7% 7% 13% 6% 8% 8% 5% 22% 5% 2% 6.0
55 + 9300 15% 6% 8% 7% 13% 6% 6% 7% 4% 20% 5% 3% 5.6
Education (End of)
15 5928 16% 6% 8% 8% 13% 5% 6% 7% 3% 21% 5% 2% 5.5
16-19 11255 13% 5% 6% 7% 14% 6% 7% 7% 5% 22% 6% 2% 5.9
20+ 6428 8% 4% 6% 7% 11% 7% 9% 10% 6% 26% 4% 2% 6.5
Still studying 2590 8% 3% 6% 6% 10% 5% 8% 10% 7% 27% 8% 2% 6.7
Respondent occupation scale
Self- employed 2043 15% 5% 6% 6% 13% 6% 7% 8% 5% 22% 5% 2% 5.8
Managers 2557 8% 4% 6% 7% 12% 6% 10% 8% 7% 26% 4% 2% 6.5
Other white collars 3069 14% 6% 7% 8% 13% 7% 8% 9% 4% 17% 5% 2% 5.5
Manual workers 5688 10% 5% 6% 7% 14% 6% 8% 8% 5% 23% 6% 2% 6.1
House persons 2327 12% 5% 8% 8% 12% 5% 6% 8% 5% 24% 5% 2% 6.1
Unemployed 1465 11% 6% 4% 5% 13% 5% 4% 6% 6% 31% 7% 2% 6.5
Retired 7006 15% 5% 8% 7% 13% 6% 6% 7% 4% 22% 5% 2% 5.7
Students 2590 8% 3% 6% 6% 10% 5% 8% 10% 7% 27% 8% 2% 6.7

would be "totally comfortable" with this situation. Having a Roma as a neighbour

TOTAL Uncomfortable Fairly comfortable Comfortable Indifferent (SPONTANEOUS) DK
EU27 26746 24% 32% 36% 6% 2%
BE 1012 16% 38% 45% 1% -
BG 1000 36% 27% 21% 13% 3%
CZ 1070 47% 35% 9% 8% 1%
DK 1032 21% 29% 47% 1% 2%
DE 1562 25% 30% 33% 10% 2%
EE 1000 28% 29% 36% 5% 2%
EL 1000 26% 30% 42% 2% -
ES 1004 13% 36% 42% 7% 2%
FR 1054 15% 33% 48% 2% 2%
IE 1000 40% 31% 24% 3% 2%
IT 1036 47% 35% 14% 3% 1%
CY 506 34% 26% 37% 1% 2%
LV 1004 28% 31% 24% 15% 2%
LT 1009 25% 28% 42% 2% 3%
LU 513 13% 25% 36% 23% 3%
HU 1000 28% 38% 28% 5% 1%
MT 500 18% 25% 43% 10% 4%
NL 1023 13% 44% 40% 1% 2%
AT 1008 28% 36% 22% 10% 4%
PL 1000 12% 24% 58% 3% 3%
PT 1000 19% 32% 24% 24% 1%
RO 1024 20% 26% 34% 17% 3%
SI 1026 24% 37% 36% 2% 1%
SK 1049 38% 40% 17% 4% 1%
FI 1001 25% 42% 25% 8% -
SE 1007 14% 31% 52% 1% 2%
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 22% 24% 33% 33% 40% 35% 1% 6% 4% 2%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 24% 18% 32% 29% 37% 43% 5% 8% 2% 2%
25-39 6681 20% 33% 39% 6% 2%
40-54 6730 24% 34% 35% 5% 2%
55 + Education (End of) 15 9300 5928 29% 30% 32% 32% 32% 30% 5% 6% 2% 2%
16-19 11255 25% 33% 34% 6% 2%
20+ 6428 18% 34% 42% 4% 2%
Still studying Respondent occupation scale Self- employed 2590 2043 18% 26% 29% 32% 44% 35% 8% 5% 1% 2%
Managers 2557 18% 36% 40% 4% 2%
Other white collars 3069 27% 36% 30% 5% 2%
Manual workers 5688 21% 35% 36% 6% 2%
House persons 2327 24% 31% 37% 5% 3%
Unemployed 1465 21% 26% 44% 7% 2%
Retired 7006 28% 32% 33% 5% 2%
Students 2590 18% 29% 44% 8% 1%
Indifferent
1 Very 10 Totally
TOTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (SPONTANE DK Average
uncomfortable comfortable
OUS)
EU27 26746 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 4% 8% 9% 61% 8% -9.1
BE 1012 1% --1% 2% 2% 5% 12% 13% 63% 1% -9.1
BG 1000 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 4% 6% 6% 7% 41% 24% 3% 8.5
CZ 1070 2% 2% 3% 2% 11% 8% 9% 12% 9% 17% 25% -7.2
DK 1032 ----1% -2% 5% 10% 80% 2% -9.6
DE 1562 1% --1% 4% 3% 4% 8% 6% 61% 12% -9.1
EE 1000 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 2% 3% 4% 7% 70% 4% 1% 9.1
EL 1000 1% -1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 8% 9% 72% 2% -9.3
ES 1004 1% --1% 2% 4% 7% 10% 11% 54% 10% -9.0
FR 1054 1% ---2% 2% 2% 8% 9% 73% 3% -9.4
IE 1000 1% ----1% 3% 5% 9% 75% 6% -9.5
IT 1036 1% 2% 3% 4% 6% 6% 8% 10% 10% 44% 6% -8.2
CY 506 ------1% 2% 3% 93% -1% 9.9
LV 1004 ---1% 5% 3% 4% 5% 11% 39% 31% 1% 8.8
LT 1009 1% 1% --4% 1% 3% 5% 8% 75% 2% -9.3
LU 513 1% -1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 4% 66% 21% -9.5
HU 1000 1% -1% 2% 5% 2% 7% 11% 9% 51% 10% 1% 8.7
MT 500 1% ---1% 1% 2% 3% 8% 71% 13% -9.5
NL 1023 ----1% 1% 5% 12% 11% 69% 1% -9.3
AT 1008 -1% 1% 2% 5% 5% 9% 15% 11% 34% 16% 1% 8.3
PL 1000 1% --1% -1% 2% 4% 6% 81% 4% -9.6
PT 1000 1% 1% 2% 2% 7% 6% 7% 13% 9% 17% 35% -7.6
RO 1024 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 2% 6% 10% 14% 33% 25% 2% 8.6
SI 1026 --1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 5% 9% 79% 1% -9.5
SK 1049 1% 1% 1% 3% 6% 4% 6% 13% 17% 38% 9% 1% 8.4
FI 1001 1% --1% 7% 4% 6% 12% 16% 32% 21% -8.4
SE 1007 ----1% 1% 1% 3% 6% 87% 1% -9.7
UK 1306 ----1% -2% 2% 6% 88% -1% 9.8
Sex
Male 12797 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 5% 8% 9% 59% 9% -9.0
Female 13949 1% -1% 1% 3% 3% 4% 7% 9% 64% 7% -9.1
Age
15-24 4036 1% -1% 1% 3% 2% 5% 9% 8% 60% 10% -9.0
25-39 6681 1% -1% 1% 3% 3% 5% 8% 8% 61% 9% -9.1
40-54 6730 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 4% 7% 8% 63% 8% -9.1
55 + 9300 1% -1% 1% 3% 3% 4% 8% 10% 61% 7% 1% 9.0
Education (End of)
15 5928 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 5% 9% 9% 58% 8% -8.9
16-19 11255 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 5% 7% 8% 61% 9% -9.1
20+ 6428 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 7% 9% 67% 6% -9.2
Still studying 2590 1% 1% -1% 3% 3% 5% 8% 9% 59% 9% 1% 9.0
Respondent occupation scale
Self- employed 2043 1% -1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 9% 8% 64% 7% -9.1
Managers 2557 1% -1% 1% 3% 2% 3% 6% 8% 69% 6% -9.2
Other white collars 3069 -1% 1% 1% 5% 3% 6% 9% 9% 55% 9% 1% 8.8
Manual workers 5688 -1% 1% 1% 3% 4% 5% 8% 9% 59% 9% -9.0
House persons 2327 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% 8% 10% 62% 8% -9.1
Unemployed 1465 1% 1% -1% 2% 2% 4% 6% 7% 65% 11% -9.2
Retired 7006 1% -1% 1% 3% 2% 4% 8% 9% 63% 7% 1% 9.1
Students 2590 1% 1% -1% 3% 3% 5% 8% 9% 59% 9% 1% 9.0

would be "totally comfortable" with this situation. Having a disabled person as a neighbour

TOTAL Uncomfortable Fairly comfortable Comfortable Indifferent (SPONTANEOUS) DK
EU27 26746 2% 11% 78% 8% 1%
BE 1012 1% 10% 88% 1% -
BG 1000 4% 15% 54% 24% 3%
CZ 1070 6% 30% 38% 25% 1%
DK 1032 -4% 94% 2% -
DE 1562 2% 11% 75% 12% -
EE 1000 4% 10% 81% 4% 1%
EL 1000 2% 8% 88% 2% -
ES 1004 1% 14% 75% 10% -
FR 1054 2% 6% 89% 3% -
IE 1000 1% 4% 89% 6% -
IT 1036 5% 24% 65% 6% -
CY 506 -1% 98% -1%
LV 1004 1% 13% 55% 30% 1%
LT 1009 2% 7% 88% 2% 1%
LU 513 2% 4% 73% 21% -
HU 1000 3% 15% 71% 10% 1%
MT 500 1% 5% 81% 13% -
NL 1023 1% 7% 92% --
AT 1008 2% 21% 60% 16% 1%
PL 1000 1% 4% 90% 4% 1%
PT 1000 4% 22% 39% 35% -
RO 1024 2% 13% 58% 25% 2%
SI 1026 1% 5% 93% 1% -
SK 1049 2% 20% 68% 9% 1%
FI 1001 1% 18% 60% 21% -
SE 1007 -3% 96% 1% -
UK Sex Male 1306 12797 -2% 3% 12% 96% 76% -9% 1% 1%
Female Age 15-24 13949 4036 2% 2% 11% 11% 80% 77% 7% 10% --
25-39 6681 2% 11% 78% 9% -