What rights should the BNP possess in a free society?
A Sunday Telegraph scoop [27 March 2004] revealed the name and location of the company that prints the British National Party’s newspaper The Voice of Freedom. The reporting raises fundamental issues about the nature of political freedom tentatively addressed at the conclusion of this article.
The company turns out to be Satellite Graphics Ltd in Barking, Essex, a subsidiary of Asharq Al-Aswat Ltd whose parent company is the Saudi Research and Publishing Company.
The article argued that given the BNP’s notorious hostility towards Islam its use of such a company ‘will stun even its own members’ and ‘is evidence of the BNP’s hypocrisy’. This is reflected in the article’s headline: Guess who prints the BNP’s ‘anti-Muslim’ newspaper…a firm owned by Muslims
The article also suggests that Satellite Graphics’ behaviour is strange given that it specialises in printing Arab, Muslim and Asian newspapers. Newspapers seen on display at the company’s plant included The Sikh Times, The Daily Nation, a daily Urdu newspaper and Asharq Al-Awsat, a London based Arabic newspaper.
A company manager told the undercover reporter: “We do print the Voice of Freedom. They run 16 pages. Most of the publications we do are Asian or Arabic, but we can do anything for you.”
The article reported the hostility shown to Islam by the BNP reminding readers of exposés of the BNP on television and the arrests and criminal convictions of some of its key members. It also gave a condensed summary of the oppressive nature of the Saudi regime founded on Wahhabi Islam, pointing out that its followers have been key recruits for Osama bin Laden.
Seeking to maximise the impact of its story it sought comment from the BNP, Asharq Al-Awsat and the Saudi embassy. Only the BNP replied: “If you would like to go and get a wholly owned British firm that would print our newspaper, fair enough. Islam is not compatible with Western Christian values in Britain but it is not their printing works that are dangerous to our way of life, it is the other things they do.”
What will the result of this article be? What if anything was its intended result? Was it just a very good story or was the Sunday Telegraph engaging in campaigning journalism? One may now assume that intense pressure will be put upon the printing company to end its contract with the BNP through the Saudi embassy as well as pressure by the company’s other horrified customers. It would be reasonable to bet that such pressure will quickly be successful. If not it can be expected that there will be demonstrations outside the print company demanding that The Voice of Freedom should not be produced.
In short it looks as if the article will precipitate the BNP having to find another printer soon.
Pressure has already been successful in denying the BNP a bank account in the UK and has ensured that their website can only be hosted in the USA although its substantial content has not brought about any prosecutions under hate crime legislation.
The article was also illustrated by a picture of a demonstration whose centrepiece was a banner that proclaimed “Shut down all Mosques in Britain”. This was a rally by the National Front, now the BNP’s mortal enemy. The strap line immediately beneath the picture, however, read “Members of the British National Party are hostile to Islam yet the party’s newspaper is printed by Satellite Graphics Ltd a company staffed entirely by Muslims”. This gave the clear impression that it was a BNP demo and that their policy was to demand the closure of all mosques. The BNP indignantly deny this on their website and state that they are reporting the paper to the Press Complaints Commission.
The other main picture used to illustrate the article consists of a Voice of Freedom front page with the headline “Why we must beware of Islam”. This appears oddly similar in its approach to that of a series of articles by Will Cummins published by the Sunday Telegraph in 2004 for which its editor Dominic Lawson drew the wrath of Muslims and for which his sacking was demanded [unsuccessfully] by them.
In a pretty desperate piece of perhaps calculated sycophancy, nonetheless expressing government policy, the BNP defends its association with the Saudis, ignoring its espousal of the most extreme form of Islam. “The BNP is mature enough to be able to differentiate between moderate Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. We respect and are prepared to work with moderate Muslims but we are totally opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia is a long established trading partner of the UK government, the European Union and the US. Saudi Arabia is viewed by these countries and institutions as a vital ally in the War Against Terror. We are not against Islam or Muslims but only against the minority of fundamentalist Islamists that terrorise us and moderate Muslims alike.”
The politically important question to be considered is what is the attitude of the Sunday Telegraph to the BNP. Does it believe that the BNP should be denied by public pressure the right to print its material? Does it believe that the BNP has the right to publish on the Internet? Does it believe that the BNP has the right to have a bank account in the UK? Does it believe that BNP members should be sacked from their jobs? Does it believe that the BNP should be banned, full stop?
These are questions that concern us all not just the Sunday Telegraph? What should our attitude be? Where do the main political parties stand? Who would want to take the BNP’s shilling as a printer, bank or web-hosting organisation? Who given the choice would wish to employ a member of the BNP? Who would wish to legally represent them?
Liberty and Law has drawn a line at BNP members being sacked from their jobs for their membership of this party. It explains why it has done so elsewhere on this site. Labour leader reported to Standards Board over bid to sack BNP care worker Sunday, March 20, 2005.
Guess who prints the BNP's 'anti-muslim' newspaper...a firm ownedby Muslims, 27 March 2005
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/27/nbnp27.xml
Surviving in a repressive state, 27 March 2005 http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=246
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Blair and Beckett campaign material lacks respect for Gypsies
In two of its latest election press releases Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett have shown an alleged lack of respect to gypsies by using the lower case “gypsies” to refer to them despite the pleas of the Gypsy Council and the Commission for Racial Equality’s guidance “Listen to the people you are writing about”.
The Gypsy Council states: “The Gypsy people are a recognised ethnic group and when writing about us, please show us the same respect as other ethnic and racial groups by spelling our name with a capital not a small g.”
The CRE states: “The terms Traveller(s), Gypsy or Irish Traveller should be used with initial capital letters.”
Both press releases were put out on Monday 21 March. After being informed of their perceived offensiveness the next day by civil liberties group Liberty and Law the Labour Party website has not corrected the language used.
Labour’s use of the terminology came in two attacks on Conservative party leader Michael Howard for raising the issue of gypsies in his campaign in what they argued was an opportunistic manner.
Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett are not alone in their continued use of the lower case. Hansard ignores the CRE advice in its reports as does the Press Association and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. The Guardian and Observer consistently use the upper case. The Independent uses an upper case for gypsies and a lower case for travellers, as do the Liberal Democrats.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “This is not just a linguistic spat. Language is used to dictate the terms of political debate. The otherwise perfectly reasonable use of upper case bolsters the maintenance of racial divisiveness. The continued use by mainstream politicians and journalists of the lower case helps to limit this development in an already polarised society of fragmenting ‘communities’. Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett may have instinctively understood this but political correctness demands that they fall in line with the language police. How long before everyone is compelled to do so?“
Ends
Gypsy Council http://www.thegypsycouncil.org/ under Respect
Commission for Racial Equality Guidance for Journalists http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/guidetj.html
Tony Blair highlights the Tories' opportunistic campaign 21 March 2005
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?ux_news_id=tbcamp
Beckett attacks "opportunistic Howard" 21 March 2005
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?ux_news_id=opportunistichoward
Note to editors:
The website http://www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com/ is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom. This material can also be found on http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/
In two of its latest election press releases Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett have shown an alleged lack of respect to gypsies by using the lower case “gypsies” to refer to them despite the pleas of the Gypsy Council and the Commission for Racial Equality’s guidance “Listen to the people you are writing about”.
The Gypsy Council states: “The Gypsy people are a recognised ethnic group and when writing about us, please show us the same respect as other ethnic and racial groups by spelling our name with a capital not a small g.”
The CRE states: “The terms Traveller(s), Gypsy or Irish Traveller should be used with initial capital letters.”
Both press releases were put out on Monday 21 March. After being informed of their perceived offensiveness the next day by civil liberties group Liberty and Law the Labour Party website has not corrected the language used.
Labour’s use of the terminology came in two attacks on Conservative party leader Michael Howard for raising the issue of gypsies in his campaign in what they argued was an opportunistic manner.
Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett are not alone in their continued use of the lower case. Hansard ignores the CRE advice in its reports as does the Press Association and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. The Guardian and Observer consistently use the upper case. The Independent uses an upper case for gypsies and a lower case for travellers, as do the Liberal Democrats.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “This is not just a linguistic spat. Language is used to dictate the terms of political debate. The otherwise perfectly reasonable use of upper case bolsters the maintenance of racial divisiveness. The continued use by mainstream politicians and journalists of the lower case helps to limit this development in an already polarised society of fragmenting ‘communities’. Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett may have instinctively understood this but political correctness demands that they fall in line with the language police. How long before everyone is compelled to do so?“
Ends
Gypsy Council http://www.thegypsycouncil.org/ under Respect
Commission for Racial Equality Guidance for Journalists http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/guidetj.html
Tony Blair highlights the Tories' opportunistic campaign 21 March 2005
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?ux_news_id=tbcamp
Beckett attacks "opportunistic Howard" 21 March 2005
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?ux_news_id=opportunistichoward
Note to editors:
The website http://www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com/ is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom. This material can also be found on http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
School exclusions: the real story and the hidden agenda
Gerald Hartup
The Daily Telegraph ran a story, Some schools ‘institutionally racist’ [21 March 2005], reporting yet another government funded account revealing black Caribbean pupils excluded from schools at over three times the rate of white pupils; a hardy misleading perennial from the race relations boys.
The report could have revealed white students are respectively six times, and four times more likely to be excluded than Chinese and Indian youngsters, twice as likely as Bangladeshis, 50% more than Pakistani pupils and equally as likely as Black Africans.
It could have shown that black Caribbean youngsters were six times more likely to be excluded than Bangladeshis, twelve times more likely than Indian pupils and a whopping 18 times more likely than Chinese. But the comparison had to be made with white students and white students only because otherwise grave doubts would inevitably be raised about the very existence of ‘institutional racism’; a notion the report was clearly designed to buttress.
The study Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, despite its title, concentrated entirely on black exclusions ignoring the comparatively favourable experience of other minorities. This let it avoid a fact clearly unpalatable to the government and the race relations industry that all our other main ethnic minorities have a better exclusion record than white pupils and that if institutional racism exists whites are victims too.
The academics involved in the research could not ignore these inconvenient facts entirely but did manage to ward them off until page 35 of their main report and keep them out of the six page summary that busy journalists could be expected to read.
Should white parents be worried about the ‘institutional racism’ that the data reveals? Of course not. It merely reflects the bad behaviour of a tiny minority of white children [12 per thousand] compared to an even tinier minority of ethnic minority children. Black Caribbean parents whose children have an exclusion rate of 37 per thousand should take a similar view. Incidentally, Black African children at 12 per thousand do no worse than white children. Behaviour is the problem.
Black parents should not be conned by the politically correct into making schools a discipline and so learning free area. It is their children who disproportionately suffer the consequences of racially obsessed educational researchers and activists. They should understand that the politicians responsible for enforcing their theories, whether black or white, always get their children into good schools.
All voters however should be concerned with the discriminatory genesis of this research study. According to its authors the Race Relations Amendment Act [2000] places “duties on organisations as from April 2002, to examine their practice and consider adjusting them if they had negative effects on minority ethnic groups.” In fact the Act itself is not racially discriminatory and whites are theoretically protected by it too but the authors’ understanding of the Act describes accurately the approach taken to it by them, by LEAs and by the government. Any ‘negative effects’ on whites can be safely ignored. After all who will dare protest?
If they were genuinely to take the concept of ‘institutional racism’ of schools seriously the authors would be recommending urgent action to allow white pupils to perform as well as, say, Indian youngsters. If they were successful total permanent exclusions of 9,270 in England and Wales of which white children make up 6,880 could be cut to just 4,110. But would that approach win any contracts? Would that approach fit in with the ideology enforced on teachers by our political commissars?
gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Some schools ‘institutionally racist’ Daily Telegraph, 21 March 2005 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/21/nrace21.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/03/21/ixportal.html
Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, February 2005 Brief No: RB616 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB616.pdf
Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, February 2005 Report No: RB616 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR616.pdf
Number of Permanent Exclusions by Ethnic Group 2002/03
By Ethnic Group, Number of exclusions, % of the ethnic group
White 6,880 0.12, White British 6,690 0.12, Irish 30 0.1,
Traveller of Irish heritage 20 , 0.51, Gypsy/Roma 20 0.36, Any other White background 130 0.09, Mixed 380 0.22, White and Black Caribbean 180 0.29, White and Black African 40 0.26, White and Asian 40 0.11, Any other Mixed background 120 0.2, Asian 250 0.06, Indian 50 0.03, Pakistani 130 0.08, Bangladeshi 40 0.06, Any other Asian background 20 0.04, Black 590 0.25,
Black Caribbean 360 0.37, Black African 130 0.12, Any other Black background 90 0.32,
Chinese 0.02, Any other ethnic group 70 0.12, Unclassified 1110, All pupils 9270 0.13
Source: Table 4.1 Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, Report No: RB616
Gerald Hartup
The Daily Telegraph ran a story, Some schools ‘institutionally racist’ [21 March 2005], reporting yet another government funded account revealing black Caribbean pupils excluded from schools at over three times the rate of white pupils; a hardy misleading perennial from the race relations boys.
The report could have revealed white students are respectively six times, and four times more likely to be excluded than Chinese and Indian youngsters, twice as likely as Bangladeshis, 50% more than Pakistani pupils and equally as likely as Black Africans.
It could have shown that black Caribbean youngsters were six times more likely to be excluded than Bangladeshis, twelve times more likely than Indian pupils and a whopping 18 times more likely than Chinese. But the comparison had to be made with white students and white students only because otherwise grave doubts would inevitably be raised about the very existence of ‘institutional racism’; a notion the report was clearly designed to buttress.
The study Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, despite its title, concentrated entirely on black exclusions ignoring the comparatively favourable experience of other minorities. This let it avoid a fact clearly unpalatable to the government and the race relations industry that all our other main ethnic minorities have a better exclusion record than white pupils and that if institutional racism exists whites are victims too.
The academics involved in the research could not ignore these inconvenient facts entirely but did manage to ward them off until page 35 of their main report and keep them out of the six page summary that busy journalists could be expected to read.
Should white parents be worried about the ‘institutional racism’ that the data reveals? Of course not. It merely reflects the bad behaviour of a tiny minority of white children [12 per thousand] compared to an even tinier minority of ethnic minority children. Black Caribbean parents whose children have an exclusion rate of 37 per thousand should take a similar view. Incidentally, Black African children at 12 per thousand do no worse than white children. Behaviour is the problem.
Black parents should not be conned by the politically correct into making schools a discipline and so learning free area. It is their children who disproportionately suffer the consequences of racially obsessed educational researchers and activists. They should understand that the politicians responsible for enforcing their theories, whether black or white, always get their children into good schools.
All voters however should be concerned with the discriminatory genesis of this research study. According to its authors the Race Relations Amendment Act [2000] places “duties on organisations as from April 2002, to examine their practice and consider adjusting them if they had negative effects on minority ethnic groups.” In fact the Act itself is not racially discriminatory and whites are theoretically protected by it too but the authors’ understanding of the Act describes accurately the approach taken to it by them, by LEAs and by the government. Any ‘negative effects’ on whites can be safely ignored. After all who will dare protest?
If they were genuinely to take the concept of ‘institutional racism’ of schools seriously the authors would be recommending urgent action to allow white pupils to perform as well as, say, Indian youngsters. If they were successful total permanent exclusions of 9,270 in England and Wales of which white children make up 6,880 could be cut to just 4,110. But would that approach win any contracts? Would that approach fit in with the ideology enforced on teachers by our political commissars?
gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Some schools ‘institutionally racist’ Daily Telegraph, 21 March 2005 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/21/nrace21.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/03/21/ixportal.html
Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, February 2005 Brief No: RB616 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB616.pdf
Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, February 2005 Report No: RB616 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR616.pdf
Number of Permanent Exclusions by Ethnic Group 2002/03
By Ethnic Group, Number of exclusions, % of the ethnic group
White 6,880 0.12, White British 6,690 0.12, Irish 30 0.1,
Traveller of Irish heritage 20 , 0.51, Gypsy/Roma 20 0.36, Any other White background 130 0.09, Mixed 380 0.22, White and Black Caribbean 180 0.29, White and Black African 40 0.26, White and Asian 40 0.11, Any other Mixed background 120 0.2, Asian 250 0.06, Indian 50 0.03, Pakistani 130 0.08, Bangladeshi 40 0.06, Any other Asian background 20 0.04, Black 590 0.25,
Black Caribbean 360 0.37, Black African 130 0.12, Any other Black background 90 0.32,
Chinese 0.02, Any other ethnic group 70 0.12, Unclassified 1110, All pupils 9270 0.13
Source: Table 4.1 Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, Report No: RB616
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Labour leader reported to Standards Board over bid to sack BNP care worker
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported a senior Leeds councillor to the Standards Board for England over a campaign to dismiss a BNP care worker from her job because of her party affiliation.
Liberty and Law has asked the Board to investigate whether the Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour group has failed in his duty to:
(a) promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person;(b) treat others with respect; and(c) not do anything which compromises or which is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the authority.
as required by the Board’s code of practice.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained :“The BNP is an extremely unpleasant political party whose views are rejected by the vast majority of British people. It is however a lawful political party which people are entitled to join, stand for in elections and to vote for under our system of democracy. It is appropriate to condemn their policies and their actions and to challenge these as forcefully as necessary to ensure they remain marginal to British political life.
“BNP supporters however have the same rights to protection from harassment as the most upstanding and meritorious citizens amongst us. Among these rights are the same rights to employment as everyone else in the absence of any evidence that they present a threat to the people they work with or work for. To attempt remove those rights in the absence of a clear and present danger is an affront to freedom both theirs and ours.”
The case involves care worker, Mrs Julie Day who works for a company providing community care to Leeds City Council. Mrs Day is a BNP activist who is standing for election in the Leeds West constituency.
As a result of complaints about her employment with Allied Healthcare, the parent company of Yorkshire Careline, which provides services for Leeds City Council, a special audit of her work was carried out. Leeds Council's executive board member for social services Cllr Peter Harrand told the Yorkshire Post Today: ”As we requested, Allied Healthcare sent out questionnaires to all the service users and they are content with the service they are receiving. There have been no complaints - everybody is satisfied with the service they have received from this lady. Until there is anything to the contrary, things will continue as they are. On that basis, we will not be taking any further action."
There appears to have been no justification whatsoever for the extraordinary audit of Mrs Day’s work other than her association with the British National Party. Mrs Day claims to have been doing this work and similar work for sixteen years.
However, even after the audit found a positive response to the work of this woman Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour Party opposition group is quoted in Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version 18 March] stating, "I am very disappointed, indeed angry that the ruling administration does not appear to have taken this issue very seriously. As I have said before, I have grave concerns that someone with such extreme political views is working with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Surely, if the individual concerned is not in the direct employment of the council, discussions could have been held with the agency to find her a less frontline role. I will be raising this matter with the leader of the council as a matter of urgency."
Liberty and Law believes that Cllr Wakefield’s intervention could possibly allow Mrs Day’s employer to sack her on grounds similar to that used to sack Bradford BNP councillor Arthur Redfearn who was legally sacked by West Yorkshire Transport Services on health and safety grounds. The company argued successfully that it feared there might be attacks on its buses or on Cllr Redfearn himself once the association with the far-right party was known.
In an earlier report 10 May Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version] Cllr Wakefield is reported as “shocked that Mrs Day was working on a Leeds City Council contract and demanded every pressure was put on the company to end her employment.” He is quoted in the article as saying, "I have very strong reservations about this. If she's working in the care area with her political views I would want council officers to look at the contract to see if there is something we can do to make sure people like this are not employed. I find it staggering she's working in care with her political views. I want every pressure to be put on this company as it is totally inappropriate that someone responsible for care in the community should employ someone who has those kind of views towards different races and ethnic groups."
Liberty and Law believes Cllr Wakefield’s continued intervention in her employment with the publicity that has resulted puts Mrs Day’s continued employment and her personal safety at risk and that his action may constitute unlawful harassment of this woman.
Ends
· Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup prevented the use of a colour bar in the appointment of a curator at Bristol art gallery Arnolfini in 2004, advising the Commission for Racial Equality on the correct application of the law. The Arnolfini experience helped the CRE revise its advice to companies contained in the current edition of its magazine Connexions.
· He initiated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith in 1990 over his harassment of black parliamentary candidate John [subsequently Lord] Taylor.
· The website www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom. This material can also be found on www.libertyandlaw.co.uk
Yorkshire Post Today links
http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=967084
http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=974980
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported a senior Leeds councillor to the Standards Board for England over a campaign to dismiss a BNP care worker from her job because of her party affiliation.
Liberty and Law has asked the Board to investigate whether the Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour group has failed in his duty to:
(a) promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person;(b) treat others with respect; and(c) not do anything which compromises or which is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the authority.
as required by the Board’s code of practice.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained :“The BNP is an extremely unpleasant political party whose views are rejected by the vast majority of British people. It is however a lawful political party which people are entitled to join, stand for in elections and to vote for under our system of democracy. It is appropriate to condemn their policies and their actions and to challenge these as forcefully as necessary to ensure they remain marginal to British political life.
“BNP supporters however have the same rights to protection from harassment as the most upstanding and meritorious citizens amongst us. Among these rights are the same rights to employment as everyone else in the absence of any evidence that they present a threat to the people they work with or work for. To attempt remove those rights in the absence of a clear and present danger is an affront to freedom both theirs and ours.”
The case involves care worker, Mrs Julie Day who works for a company providing community care to Leeds City Council. Mrs Day is a BNP activist who is standing for election in the Leeds West constituency.
As a result of complaints about her employment with Allied Healthcare, the parent company of Yorkshire Careline, which provides services for Leeds City Council, a special audit of her work was carried out. Leeds Council's executive board member for social services Cllr Peter Harrand told the Yorkshire Post Today: ”As we requested, Allied Healthcare sent out questionnaires to all the service users and they are content with the service they are receiving. There have been no complaints - everybody is satisfied with the service they have received from this lady. Until there is anything to the contrary, things will continue as they are. On that basis, we will not be taking any further action."
There appears to have been no justification whatsoever for the extraordinary audit of Mrs Day’s work other than her association with the British National Party. Mrs Day claims to have been doing this work and similar work for sixteen years.
However, even after the audit found a positive response to the work of this woman Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour Party opposition group is quoted in Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version 18 March] stating, "I am very disappointed, indeed angry that the ruling administration does not appear to have taken this issue very seriously. As I have said before, I have grave concerns that someone with such extreme political views is working with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Surely, if the individual concerned is not in the direct employment of the council, discussions could have been held with the agency to find her a less frontline role. I will be raising this matter with the leader of the council as a matter of urgency."
Liberty and Law believes that Cllr Wakefield’s intervention could possibly allow Mrs Day’s employer to sack her on grounds similar to that used to sack Bradford BNP councillor Arthur Redfearn who was legally sacked by West Yorkshire Transport Services on health and safety grounds. The company argued successfully that it feared there might be attacks on its buses or on Cllr Redfearn himself once the association with the far-right party was known.
In an earlier report 10 May Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version] Cllr Wakefield is reported as “shocked that Mrs Day was working on a Leeds City Council contract and demanded every pressure was put on the company to end her employment.” He is quoted in the article as saying, "I have very strong reservations about this. If she's working in the care area with her political views I would want council officers to look at the contract to see if there is something we can do to make sure people like this are not employed. I find it staggering she's working in care with her political views. I want every pressure to be put on this company as it is totally inappropriate that someone responsible for care in the community should employ someone who has those kind of views towards different races and ethnic groups."
Liberty and Law believes Cllr Wakefield’s continued intervention in her employment with the publicity that has resulted puts Mrs Day’s continued employment and her personal safety at risk and that his action may constitute unlawful harassment of this woman.
Ends
· Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup prevented the use of a colour bar in the appointment of a curator at Bristol art gallery Arnolfini in 2004, advising the Commission for Racial Equality on the correct application of the law. The Arnolfini experience helped the CRE revise its advice to companies contained in the current edition of its magazine Connexions.
· He initiated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith in 1990 over his harassment of black parliamentary candidate John [subsequently Lord] Taylor.
· The website www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom. This material can also be found on www.libertyandlaw.co.uk
Yorkshire Post Today links
http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=967084
http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=974980
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Operation Black Vote’s colour bar demand for Brent South condemned by civil liberties group
Operation Black Vote’s [OBV] call for the Labour Party to introduce a hybrid Black and Minority Ethnic [BME] and women shortlist at the forthcoming election in Brent South has been roundly condemned by civil liberties group Liberty and Law as a disgraceful attempt to introduce the colour bar into British politics.
OBV’s demand comes with the announcement of Brent South MP and cabinet minister Paul Boateng’s proposed move to South Africa after the general election as Britain’s ambassador.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “When Paul Boateng was first elected in 1987 he memorably declared:’Today Brent South. Tomorrow Soweto.’ If OBV have their way history will be reversed with a colour bar introduced to Brent after its dismantling in Soweto.”
Liberty and Law has also criticised Commission for Racial Equality chair Trevor Phillips for his interference in the recent selection process of the Labour candidate for West Ham during which he gave his support for the creation of all black shortlists.
Liberty and Law argues that the action of groups like OBV and the CRE give aid and comfort to the British National Party and is absolutely counter productive to the real interests of Britain’s ethnic minorities.
Liberty and Law condemns the encouragement of communitarianism by self-interested unrepresentative groups which politicians appear frightened to confront but ready to appease.
Liberty and Law will seek the support of Paul Boateng to reject racial selection of his parliamentary successor and ensure that all citizens continue to have the right to compete for every parliamentary seat in the country whatever their colour.
Liberty and Law is also contacting Mayor Livingstone’s office to ask him to make clear his opposition to this latest demand by OBV and for him to explain to them that Londoners will not stand for the imposition of a colour bar.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup
Liberty and Law, Unit 384, 78 Marylebone High Street,
London W1U 5AP Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/ http://www.libertyandlawjounal.blogspot.com/
Operation Black Vote’s [OBV] call for the Labour Party to introduce a hybrid Black and Minority Ethnic [BME] and women shortlist at the forthcoming election in Brent South has been roundly condemned by civil liberties group Liberty and Law as a disgraceful attempt to introduce the colour bar into British politics.
OBV’s demand comes with the announcement of Brent South MP and cabinet minister Paul Boateng’s proposed move to South Africa after the general election as Britain’s ambassador.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “When Paul Boateng was first elected in 1987 he memorably declared:’Today Brent South. Tomorrow Soweto.’ If OBV have their way history will be reversed with a colour bar introduced to Brent after its dismantling in Soweto.”
Liberty and Law has also criticised Commission for Racial Equality chair Trevor Phillips for his interference in the recent selection process of the Labour candidate for West Ham during which he gave his support for the creation of all black shortlists.
Liberty and Law argues that the action of groups like OBV and the CRE give aid and comfort to the British National Party and is absolutely counter productive to the real interests of Britain’s ethnic minorities.
Liberty and Law condemns the encouragement of communitarianism by self-interested unrepresentative groups which politicians appear frightened to confront but ready to appease.
Liberty and Law will seek the support of Paul Boateng to reject racial selection of his parliamentary successor and ensure that all citizens continue to have the right to compete for every parliamentary seat in the country whatever their colour.
Liberty and Law is also contacting Mayor Livingstone’s office to ask him to make clear his opposition to this latest demand by OBV and for him to explain to them that Londoners will not stand for the imposition of a colour bar.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup
Liberty and Law, Unit 384, 78 Marylebone High Street,
London W1U 5AP Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/ http://www.libertyandlawjounal.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
CRE still confused and confusing over colour bar
In the current issue of its magazine Connexions the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] uses the case of an attempted colour bar at Bristol’s Arnolfini Gallery to illustrate the problems of engaging in positive discrimination. [Winter 2004/2005 Take care when being positive]
The CRE’s head of legal policy explains: “In Spring 2004, the Arnolfini Gallery in Bristol advertised a fellowship for a Senior Curator. The post was open only to Black, Asian and Caribbean applicants, and this triggered hostile coverage in some media. It also resulted in complaints to the CRE, even though the advertisement made it clear that the Gallery was taking positive action to tackle the under-representation of these groups among senior curators. On the CRE’s advice, the Gallery withdrew the advertisement and reconsidered the post.”
The CRE told Liberty and Law on 20 July that Arnolfini “has given a signed undertaking to comply with the advertising provisions of the Race Relations Act and have also indicated their intention to review the programme for trainee curators.”
Initially the CRE gave a mistaken interpretation of the law to the media. A spokesman said the advertisement did not appear to breach guidelines set out in the Race Relations Act and that “There are exceptions in the Act for the training and apprenticeship opportunities and I believe that is what the post is offering.”
Fortunately Arnolfini agreed to freeze the position after Liberty and Law contacted them pending a resolution of its complaint to the CRE. This gave the CRE time to correct their original misunderstanding of the law.
The Arnolfini case illustrates two main problems relating to the CRE’s policing of the Race Relations Act
- the CRE fails to recommend that the advertising media always ask for the necessary evidence that the racially discriminatory advertisements are within the law. At a stroke this would force what the CRE calls “well meaning employers and training providers” to provide objective justification for any colour bars they wish to operate. The CRE continues to fail to inform the advertising media of their responsibilities.
- the CRE is responsible for appalling delays between the receipt of complaints and their disposal. In the case of Arnolfini what should have taken 48 hours to resolve was spun out to take over three months. This results in too many cases where the CRE’s delay allows colour bar appointments to be made that are retrospectively determined to be contrary to the Race Relations Act but are not then reversed.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Livingstone backs Tories on freedom of speech
Ken Livingstone has a good sense of irony. To bolster support for his battle with the Standards Board over his concentration camp jibe directed at an Evening Standard Jewish journalist he prayed in aid Daily Mail columnist Andrew Alexander, quoting him in his statement of 22 February.
With considerable chutzpah he selectively quoted from the part that suited him. Here is what he said. To quote Andrew Alexander writing in the Daily Mail last week “Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right to irritate, annoy, dismay and shock anyone who listens. The only sensible limitations should be on speech which leads to violence, affray or disorder.”
What he left out was the first sentence in Alexander’s paragraph. This stated: "The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks which may stir up religious hatred."
Mr Livingstone is of course a prominent supporter of the new law on the incitement of religious hatred having published an open letter to the Home Secretary supporting this restriction of free speech using as justification: “Freedom of speech must be upheld. But not a freedom to urge people to kill Jews or Sikhs or Muslims.” Mr Livingstone knows that this is already against the law but interpretation of the legislation can be expected to impact upon his political enemies.
The mayor had earlier in his statement condemned the Daily mail group. This is what he said: “After a decade of pandering to racism against our citizens of Black and Irish origin they have moved on and now describe asylum seekers and Muslims in similar terms. For the Mail group the victims may change but the intolerance, hatred and fear pervade every issue of the papers.”
Mr Livingstone is now threatened by his own politically correct revolution but his conversion to even partial freedom of speech is gratifying. He went as far as to enthusiastically endorse the Conservative Party’s commitment to abolish the Standards Board. Mr Livingstone’s mayoralty may yet become a force for freedom.
Ken Livingstone has a good sense of irony. To bolster support for his battle with the Standards Board over his concentration camp jibe directed at an Evening Standard Jewish journalist he prayed in aid Daily Mail columnist Andrew Alexander, quoting him in his statement of 22 February.
With considerable chutzpah he selectively quoted from the part that suited him. Here is what he said. To quote Andrew Alexander writing in the Daily Mail last week “Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right to irritate, annoy, dismay and shock anyone who listens. The only sensible limitations should be on speech which leads to violence, affray or disorder.”
What he left out was the first sentence in Alexander’s paragraph. This stated: "The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks which may stir up religious hatred."
Mr Livingstone is of course a prominent supporter of the new law on the incitement of religious hatred having published an open letter to the Home Secretary supporting this restriction of free speech using as justification: “Freedom of speech must be upheld. But not a freedom to urge people to kill Jews or Sikhs or Muslims.” Mr Livingstone knows that this is already against the law but interpretation of the legislation can be expected to impact upon his political enemies.
The mayor had earlier in his statement condemned the Daily mail group. This is what he said: “After a decade of pandering to racism against our citizens of Black and Irish origin they have moved on and now describe asylum seekers and Muslims in similar terms. For the Mail group the victims may change but the intolerance, hatred and fear pervade every issue of the papers.”
Mr Livingstone is now threatened by his own politically correct revolution but his conversion to even partial freedom of speech is gratifying. He went as far as to enthusiastically endorse the Conservative Party’s commitment to abolish the Standards Board. Mr Livingstone’s mayoralty may yet become a force for freedom.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Now Trevor Phillips backs a colour bar
Trevor Phillips the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE], now playing a central role in the debate about the UK’s immigration and asylum policy, said of a respected journalist who disagreed with him on this subject “Nice people do racism too.” He is at it again. This time Conservative leader Michael Howard meets with his patronising disapproval.
But he is right even if he hits the wrong targets. One of the most extreme examples of ‘nice people doing racism’ is his own campaign to impose a de facto colour bar on a constituency where white people now constitute an ethnic minority, in this case London’s West Ham.
This safe Labour seat that sitting Labour MP Tony Banks has grown tired of representing is currently selecting his replacement. It is in this racially hypersensitive community, that Mr Phillips, himself a failed Labour London mayoral candidate, has seen fit to intervene. Speaking to the BBC he said: "It would be terribly disappointing and pretty destructive, I think, for ethnic minorities' faith in politics if, in the least white constituency in Europe, we did not see an ethnic minority candidate.”
Mr Phillips wants to impose change. He now advocates colour bar legislation to let parliamentary parties exclude white candidates from consideration for selection to serve their community in the office of MP that in a free society should be open to all.
In the meantime his irresponsible employment of the ‘numbers game’ in West Ham goes a long way to delegitimise anyone selected should they have the ‘wrong’ colour skin and gives an appalling weapon to the BNP who specialise in racial grudge communitarian politics.
There is now a real danger that the CRE led by Mr Phillips and the BNP under Mr Griffin may be seen as just two sides of the same racist coin, both educated at our best universities and wearing smart suits but both with totalitarian inclinations
Trevor Phillips the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE], now playing a central role in the debate about the UK’s immigration and asylum policy, said of a respected journalist who disagreed with him on this subject “Nice people do racism too.” He is at it again. This time Conservative leader Michael Howard meets with his patronising disapproval.
But he is right even if he hits the wrong targets. One of the most extreme examples of ‘nice people doing racism’ is his own campaign to impose a de facto colour bar on a constituency where white people now constitute an ethnic minority, in this case London’s West Ham.
This safe Labour seat that sitting Labour MP Tony Banks has grown tired of representing is currently selecting his replacement. It is in this racially hypersensitive community, that Mr Phillips, himself a failed Labour London mayoral candidate, has seen fit to intervene. Speaking to the BBC he said: "It would be terribly disappointing and pretty destructive, I think, for ethnic minorities' faith in politics if, in the least white constituency in Europe, we did not see an ethnic minority candidate.”
Mr Phillips wants to impose change. He now advocates colour bar legislation to let parliamentary parties exclude white candidates from consideration for selection to serve their community in the office of MP that in a free society should be open to all.
In the meantime his irresponsible employment of the ‘numbers game’ in West Ham goes a long way to delegitimise anyone selected should they have the ‘wrong’ colour skin and gives an appalling weapon to the BNP who specialise in racial grudge communitarian politics.
There is now a real danger that the CRE led by Mr Phillips and the BNP under Mr Griffin may be seen as just two sides of the same racist coin, both educated at our best universities and wearing smart suits but both with totalitarian inclinations
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Press Release 2 March 2004 [lost from site]
MPs reported to police
Following Labour Party chairman Ian McCartney’s speech to the Scottish Labour Party Conference referring to shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin as a 21st century Fagin and his failure to apologise for so doing he has been reported to Scotland’s Northern Constabulary by Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup.
Mr Hartup commented: “To use the term Fagin, Charles Dickens's archetypal evil Jew, is reminiscent of the style of politicians like Jorg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen or our domestic BNP whose own 'subtle' racism is shown in describing Michael Howard as Mr Hecht. It drags political debate into the gutter. Mr Blair should take McCartney’s speech off the Party website immediately, demand an apology and give him a severe dressing down.”
Broxtowe MP Nick Palmer has been reported to Nottinghamshire Police following reports that he posted on his website and e-mailed 1400 constituents racially and religiously offensive ‘jokes’.
Mr Hartup commented: “Were Mr Palmer to be a prospective police officer he would surely be weeded out and were he a serving office no doubt sacked. Does Parliament have lower standards and should his constituents be made morally complicit in his anti-Arab and anti-Islamic ‘jokes’. It is time for the Prime Minister to demand from him a public apology and remove the whip from him should it not be forthcoming.”
Ends
Notes :
Gerald Hartup instigated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith in 1992 for his behaviour during and after the selection of Conservative Party candidate John [now Lord] Taylor for the then Tory marginal seat of Cheltenham won and now held by the Liberal Democrats.
In 2002 he reported Ann Winterton MP to Cheshire police for her ‘joke’.
MPs reported to police
Following Labour Party chairman Ian McCartney’s speech to the Scottish Labour Party Conference referring to shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin as a 21st century Fagin and his failure to apologise for so doing he has been reported to Scotland’s Northern Constabulary by Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup.
Mr Hartup commented: “To use the term Fagin, Charles Dickens's archetypal evil Jew, is reminiscent of the style of politicians like Jorg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen or our domestic BNP whose own 'subtle' racism is shown in describing Michael Howard as Mr Hecht. It drags political debate into the gutter. Mr Blair should take McCartney’s speech off the Party website immediately, demand an apology and give him a severe dressing down.”
Broxtowe MP Nick Palmer has been reported to Nottinghamshire Police following reports that he posted on his website and e-mailed 1400 constituents racially and religiously offensive ‘jokes’.
Mr Hartup commented: “Were Mr Palmer to be a prospective police officer he would surely be weeded out and were he a serving office no doubt sacked. Does Parliament have lower standards and should his constituents be made morally complicit in his anti-Arab and anti-Islamic ‘jokes’. It is time for the Prime Minister to demand from him a public apology and remove the whip from him should it not be forthcoming.”
Ends
Notes :
Gerald Hartup instigated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith in 1992 for his behaviour during and after the selection of Conservative Party candidate John [now Lord] Taylor for the then Tory marginal seat of Cheltenham won and now held by the Liberal Democrats.
In 2002 he reported Ann Winterton MP to Cheshire police for her ‘joke’.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Why no Chinese comedy shows or funerals on British TV?
Victor Lewis-Smith writes a regular review column for London’s Evening Standard. And very funny he is too often making shrewd observations of the world. On 23 November in An Asian house of horrors he reviewed The Kumars at No 42. He doesn’t like the programme and gives some good reasons for his opinion.
However, he then strayed into the subject of racial statistics. Speaking of his boredom watching the Kumars he says: “Long before the end, I’d lost concentration and mind wandering, had begun wondering why it is that there are more than a million people of Chinese descent in this country yet I’ve never ever seen a Chinese comedy show (or a Chinese funeral, come to that – well have you?)”
I can’t be bothered to answer his question except to say that according to the latest census there are actually some 400,000 people who class themselves as Chinese in the UK split into comedically diverse backgrounds that make them a situation comedy problem area for programmers.
According to Min Quan, The Monitoring Group in China Town:
http://www.monitoring-group.co.uk/TMG%20services/minquan/community_history.html
“The Chinese population in UK is now estimated at around 400,000 people. It is a diverse community and a recent survey reported 26% of the Chinese population as UK born, 26% from New Territories or Hong Kong, 10% from Malaysia, 12% from Vietnam, 4% from Singapore, 12% from Mainland China, and 12% from other parts of the world. This illustrates the richness and diverse background of the Chinese community in Britain.”
Quite.
Victor Lewis-Smith writes a regular review column for London’s Evening Standard. And very funny he is too often making shrewd observations of the world. On 23 November in An Asian house of horrors he reviewed The Kumars at No 42. He doesn’t like the programme and gives some good reasons for his opinion.
However, he then strayed into the subject of racial statistics. Speaking of his boredom watching the Kumars he says: “Long before the end, I’d lost concentration and mind wandering, had begun wondering why it is that there are more than a million people of Chinese descent in this country yet I’ve never ever seen a Chinese comedy show (or a Chinese funeral, come to that – well have you?)”
I can’t be bothered to answer his question except to say that according to the latest census there are actually some 400,000 people who class themselves as Chinese in the UK split into comedically diverse backgrounds that make them a situation comedy problem area for programmers.
According to Min Quan, The Monitoring Group in China Town:
http://www.monitoring-group.co.uk/TMG%20services/minquan/community_history.html
“The Chinese population in UK is now estimated at around 400,000 people. It is a diverse community and a recent survey reported 26% of the Chinese population as UK born, 26% from New Territories or Hong Kong, 10% from Malaysia, 12% from Vietnam, 4% from Singapore, 12% from Mainland China, and 12% from other parts of the world. This illustrates the richness and diverse background of the Chinese community in Britain.”
Quite.
Experienced barmaid required
for Monday Tuesday and Friday nights
The possibilities of extra sessions available
Must be smartly dressed Tel 020 72** 0***
Political correctness has not entirely got through to publicans or local newspapers. Here is an example reported to the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC].
What did they do? Nothing.What do you expect? At last count less than 20% of the EOC's staff were men. Do they have targets to end male underrepresentation? You must be joking? Will they get away with it? Who is going to stop them?
for Monday Tuesday and Friday nights
The possibilities of extra sessions available
Must be smartly dressed Tel 020 72** 0***
Political correctness has not entirely got through to publicans or local newspapers. Here is an example reported to the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC].
What did they do? Nothing.What do you expect? At last count less than 20% of the EOC's staff were men. Do they have targets to end male underrepresentation? You must be joking? Will they get away with it? Who is going to stop them?
Saturday, October 16, 2004
You really want know how our fish stocks are being destroyed?
This is what you need to read. It is in today's EU Referendum. Here is a taster.
It was about 5.30 in the morning, perhaps ten miles off Barrow-in-Furness in the eastern part of the Irish Sea, still dark, when the haul broke the surface.
In the glare of the floodlights on the stern of our vessel, the Fleetwood trawler Kiroan, the first net was hooked onto the power block – a huge hydraulic lifting arm – and skipper Philip Dell expertly pulled the bulging cod end from the water and swung it over the fish room hatch.
Philip held the bag there, suspended, so we could see thousands of tiny fish packed into the bag. Most of what we could see was small plaice, with scores of them protruding though the narrow mesh, gasping and flapping in their death throes.
An unseen hand below pulled the quick release on the end of the bag. The contents cascaded down a stainless steel chute onto the conveyor belt in the fish room, awaiting our further inspection.
We stayed on deck long enough to see the second bag plucked from the sea, its contents likewise dumped down the chute. Then I, Conservative shadow fisheries minister Owen Paterson, and the PPC for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Gavin Williams, squeezed our way along the top deck, stepping over the still taut warp cables, and made our way down the vertical ladder to watch the crew sorting the fish.
As the first batch was sorted, we watched in mounting horror as Mate, Francois Bruneel with Steve McDaid and Gary Hugman, the enormously impressive crew, threw marketable fish into red plastic bins – not unlike laundry baskets – sweeping the rest, undersize and unmarketable fish along the belt.
Lubricated by a constant flow of sea water, they were flushed through a small opening in the hull, back into the sea, dead and dying, from whence they had so recently been plucked.That was the horror. From that first, bulging net, the harvest of the sea, we estimated that at least ninety percent of the catch was dumped – or "discarded" in the clinical jargon of the trade.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
BNP website brought down very quietly by Hackarmy
Scotland’s Daily Record had a political scoop in its Friday 9 October edition Hackers blitz BNP website. A group called Hackarmy issued a statement to the paper claiming responsibility for shutting down the British National Party’s [BNP] website. It said: “The British National Party is a disgrace. It has been decided that their online existence will now be put to an end. We have started a distributed denial of service attack on their main website.”
The story was picked up by Google and distributed by them on 9 October at 3.22am. Subsequent searches of the web, however, finds just one other reference to this story as at 11.54 am 10 October.
The BNP has been the recipient of substantial media coverage and the lack of follow up to this story seems unusual.
Could it be that media outlets have taken the decision not to give the oxygen of publicity to either the BNP or to Hackarmy? Could it be that Hackarmy has succeeded in freezing comment about its activities by a media frightened at the prospect of interference with their own computer systems?
Ends
1. Hackers blitz BNP website [Daily Record 9 October 2004]
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14735903&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=hackers-blitz-bnp-website-name_page.html
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Call for police investigation of Cardiff Labour Party election leaflet
Civil liberties pressure group Liberty and Law has reported to South Wales Police Chief Constable Barbara Wilding the distribution of a Labour Party election leaflet distributed during June’s local election campaign in Cardiff on the grounds that the action may have been in breach of the Race Relations Act.
The action follows an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] and a subsequent apology announced today by Welsh Labour stating that the leaflet pandered to prejudice and was likely to cause offence to the Travelling community and to residents in Llanedeym and Pentwyn [the Cardiff Ward in which the distribution took place].
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “It is unacceptable that it took over three months for Welsh Labour to make an apology for the leaflet that appeared in its name.
The so far anonymous perpetrators have apparently been simply censured and rebuked. If in fact the leaflet is as offensive as stated by Welsh Labour and the CRE the perpetrators should surely be named and shamed. No cover up can be tolerated.
A police investigation is also essential to determine whether the production and or distribution of the leaflet actually broke the law or was simply unacceptable to the CRE and to Welsh Labour (retrospectively). Only in this way will the limits of free speech be determined.”
CRE Welsh Labour apologise for offensive leaflet http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/nr_arch/2004/nr040929.html
PA News: 'Disgraceful' labour leaflet reported to police
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3563146
Civil liberties pressure group Liberty and Law has reported to South Wales Police Chief Constable Barbara Wilding the distribution of a Labour Party election leaflet distributed during June’s local election campaign in Cardiff on the grounds that the action may have been in breach of the Race Relations Act.
The action follows an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] and a subsequent apology announced today by Welsh Labour stating that the leaflet pandered to prejudice and was likely to cause offence to the Travelling community and to residents in Llanedeym and Pentwyn [the Cardiff Ward in which the distribution took place].
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “It is unacceptable that it took over three months for Welsh Labour to make an apology for the leaflet that appeared in its name.
The so far anonymous perpetrators have apparently been simply censured and rebuked. If in fact the leaflet is as offensive as stated by Welsh Labour and the CRE the perpetrators should surely be named and shamed. No cover up can be tolerated.
A police investigation is also essential to determine whether the production and or distribution of the leaflet actually broke the law or was simply unacceptable to the CRE and to Welsh Labour (retrospectively). Only in this way will the limits of free speech be determined.”
CRE Welsh Labour apologise for offensive leaflet http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/nr_arch/2004/nr040929.html
PA News: 'Disgraceful' labour leaflet reported to police
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3563146
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
CRE evasive about BNP members right to work as Lib Dems adopt principled stand
Liberal Democrat shadow home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten, who has an impressive record of combating BNP’s racist propaganda, has committed the Liberal Democrats to fight government plans to ban civil servants from membership of this national socialist party should they adopt this policy.
Speaking at The Guardian’s fringe Liberty or Equality debate at Bournemouth on Monday 20 September, he said: "I am not prepared to have legislation banning BNP membership in place. If an individual starts expressing racist or offensive views, then there are laws already in place to deal with that."
In doing so the Liberal Democrats become the first mainstream political party to draw a line in the sand in defence of Britain’s traditional political liberty against the forces of oppressive political correctness. Conference delegates applauded when he denounced the Labour Party’s plans “a step down a very, very dangerous path".
As if to justify his principled and practical stance, the next day West Yorkshire Police announced the arrest of a seventh man following their investigation of the BBC programme Secret Agent exposing racism within the police service.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law welcomed the initiative of Mr Oaten. Director Gerald Hartup called upon the Labour and Conservative Parties to follow his lead and challenge any implementation of what it calls “an offensive Berufsverbot”.
He said: “It’s not much fun when defending human rights means defending the human rights of BNP members. But our society is strong enough both to defend the BNP and to marginalise it. Lib Dems have broken the mould of political cowardice and deserve our thanks. It is not just the government’s totalitarian inclinations, however, that must be challenged but those of its creature the Commission for Racial Equality. Its chair Trevor Phillips began the witch hunt last year when speaking to the TUC [Congress, 9 September], arguing that that ‘the workplace is no place for racists’ and challenging employers to follow the Prison Service policy of sacking BNP members. The CRE must be made to come clean about its policy and intentions since it has set the agenda for oppression.” [See Questions put to CRE and responses 21 September 2004]
A major example of this witch-hunt is the continuing attempt by officers of the Fire Brigades Union in Hampshire to have a 30 year retained firefighter dismissed from the local service because of his membership of the BNP. The CRE states that it is unable to comment on this “because of its role as a statutory body”.
Background
Trevor Phillips speech to TUC Conference, 9 September 2003 http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/docs/TUC%202003%20Remarks.doc
Call to sack BNP fireman rejected, 16 June 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3806643.stm
Anger over firefighter’s BNP ties, 15 September 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/3660576.stm
FBU letter to Hampshire Fire and rescue Service, 10 June 2004
http://www.hantsfbu.org.uk/news/bnp%20candidate%20letter%20to%20eastwood.pdf
Questions put to CRE and responses 21 September 2004
Q1a. Does Mr Phillips and/or the CRE call for the dismissal of BNP members or
supporters from all work places?
Q1b. Does Mr Phillips and/or the CRE call for the dismissal of BNP members or
supporters from just some workplaces? If so can the CRE specify those
workplaces?
Background provided to CRE:
Trevor Phillips speaking at the Trades Union Congress on 9 September 2003 said:
"The workplace is no place for racists. Making this a reality shouldn't just fall to trades unionists. Employers have a responsibility too.
For many years the far right targeted one particular public service - the Prison Service. Three years ago, the then Director General, Martin Narey said this: "..membership of racist groups like the BNP, the National Front, Combat 18, on its own would be punishable by dismissal. And everyone who joins the Prison Service now has to sign an agreement that they never have been and never will become a member of one of those organisations".
These were not empty words. In May 2001 a prison officer who wore Nazi
insignia to work was sacked for that and for that reason alone. That
Congress is what I call leadership.
But as far as we know no other major employer has yet followed that lead. Let me issue a challenge to employers today: can you pass the Prison Service
test? "
These words seem to indicate that Mr Phillips backs companies that dismiss members of racist groups that presumably include the BNP, what he calls in the same speech " just another bunch of knuckle-dragging apes."
A. The CRE is concerned about BNP membership and how compatible this is with the delivery of public services to all communities under the Race Relations (amendment) Act. We have not called for any individuals to be dismissed from their jobs as a result of membership of this party.
Q2. Does Mr Phillips and /or the CRE support or oppose the union call for the dismissal of the Hampshire retained fire fighter?
Background provided to CRE:
I am presently looking at the case of a BNP member who stood in an election in Hampshire. The Fire Brigades Union Southern Region Executive Council
Member Dean Mills has written to Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service with the clear implication that this man should not be employed by them.
The story has been reported on BBC website, most recently on 15 September [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/3660576.stm]
The Fire service maintains their position expressed in June that it would not sack the man and that he was not breaking its regulations. The case is extensively argued on the BBC website of 16 June
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3806643.stm].
A. I'm afraid we can't comment on the specific case you refer to because of our role as a statutory body.
Q3. Is Mr Phillips and or the CRE contributing to the government's discussions about banning BNP members from civil service employment? Does it support or oppose the ban in principle?
A. As we understand it the Home Office have not made any formal decision to ban BNP members from Civil Service employment. You should contact the Home Office press office if you have any further questions about this.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Police to fast-track recruits with minority ethnic languages
According to a scoop in The Independent by crime correspondent Jason Bennetto [Police to fast-track recruits with ethnic minority languages, 20 September 2004] applicants to join the police service “who speak languages such as Turkish, Bangladeshi and Hindu will be fast-tracked … under a positive discrimination scheme being considered by the Home Office.” The minister in charge of policing, Hazel Blears, has apparently revealed that the scheme “would involve adopting a system where applicants with a foreign language such as Indian, Pakistani, Turkish or Bangladeshi would be recruited first, providing they passed entry requirements”.
Whether the minister actually thinks that Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Hindu are languages as opposed to nationalities and a major religion is not known. Whether the minister was excluding from her consideration Patois and European and African languages was also not revealed.
However, the gist of the scheme is clear and it could well ‘solve’ the problem of racial under-representation within the Metropolitan Police Service. 7,500 minority ethnic officers are needed to meet the government’s 2009 target of 25.9%. According to the Met’s Human Resources director Martin Tiplady this would need 80% of all new recruits being from ethnic minorities over the next five years.
With 300 languages being spoken in London the police service, using language as a genuine occupational qualification, would only need to recruit 25 officers of each of the required languages. Providing the numbers of each language group are not specified and kept flexible, creating an ethnically balanced service is practicable. With this scheme there is no reason why any monolingual English speakers at all should be appointed in the next five years since the Home Office and the Met believe there are already too many of them in the service.
If to Mrs Blear’s initiative Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] chair Trevor Phillips’ suggestion of paying minority ethnic teacher recruits more than white recruits should be adopted for the police service the target of a racially representative police service looks even more achievable. Should this still not serve the police services could even extend their recruitment all over the world for recruits considered suitable.
The only two problems militating against the success of the initiative at the moment is that there is a freeze on police recruitment and the Home Office do not know whether it would be in breach of the Race Relations Act. The law may need to be changed. As Mrs Blears puts it: “I think we should examine what the legal position is at the moment and see are there ways we can make the existing law work better in terms of drawing people in.”
The Independent’s view that “the idea is likely to be criticised by some as a backdoor quota system that discriminates against white Britons” hits the nail on the head.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained: “We are pleased that from April to June 2004 the Met attracted 23% of recruits from ethnic minorities without positive discrimination. They must keep up the good work, explain that the Home office targets are ludicrous and drop any attempt to gerrymander recruitment. Mrs Blears’ scheme, of course, does not just discriminate against the Independent’s ‘white Britons’ but against monolingual Britons of all shades. What is clear is that we can’t afford to leave progress to the Metropolitan Police Service, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the CRE, the Home Office or the race entrepreneurs. It is just too important. Ordinary people with some common sense need to get stuck in. They might or might not include politicians.”
Ends
According to a scoop in The Independent by crime correspondent Jason Bennetto [Police to fast-track recruits with ethnic minority languages, 20 September 2004] applicants to join the police service “who speak languages such as Turkish, Bangladeshi and Hindu will be fast-tracked … under a positive discrimination scheme being considered by the Home Office.” The minister in charge of policing, Hazel Blears, has apparently revealed that the scheme “would involve adopting a system where applicants with a foreign language such as Indian, Pakistani, Turkish or Bangladeshi would be recruited first, providing they passed entry requirements”.
Whether the minister actually thinks that Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Hindu are languages as opposed to nationalities and a major religion is not known. Whether the minister was excluding from her consideration Patois and European and African languages was also not revealed.
However, the gist of the scheme is clear and it could well ‘solve’ the problem of racial under-representation within the Metropolitan Police Service. 7,500 minority ethnic officers are needed to meet the government’s 2009 target of 25.9%. According to the Met’s Human Resources director Martin Tiplady this would need 80% of all new recruits being from ethnic minorities over the next five years.
With 300 languages being spoken in London the police service, using language as a genuine occupational qualification, would only need to recruit 25 officers of each of the required languages. Providing the numbers of each language group are not specified and kept flexible, creating an ethnically balanced service is practicable. With this scheme there is no reason why any monolingual English speakers at all should be appointed in the next five years since the Home Office and the Met believe there are already too many of them in the service.
If to Mrs Blear’s initiative Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] chair Trevor Phillips’ suggestion of paying minority ethnic teacher recruits more than white recruits should be adopted for the police service the target of a racially representative police service looks even more achievable. Should this still not serve the police services could even extend their recruitment all over the world for recruits considered suitable.
The only two problems militating against the success of the initiative at the moment is that there is a freeze on police recruitment and the Home Office do not know whether it would be in breach of the Race Relations Act. The law may need to be changed. As Mrs Blears puts it: “I think we should examine what the legal position is at the moment and see are there ways we can make the existing law work better in terms of drawing people in.”
The Independent’s view that “the idea is likely to be criticised by some as a backdoor quota system that discriminates against white Britons” hits the nail on the head.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained: “We are pleased that from April to June 2004 the Met attracted 23% of recruits from ethnic minorities without positive discrimination. They must keep up the good work, explain that the Home office targets are ludicrous and drop any attempt to gerrymander recruitment. Mrs Blears’ scheme, of course, does not just discriminate against the Independent’s ‘white Britons’ but against monolingual Britons of all shades. What is clear is that we can’t afford to leave progress to the Metropolitan Police Service, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the CRE, the Home Office or the race entrepreneurs. It is just too important. Ordinary people with some common sense need to get stuck in. They might or might not include politicians.”
Ends
Friday, September 17, 2004
Wednesday 4 August 2004 [original publication]
Bristol Gallery drops colour bar recruitment scheme
Leading Bristol art institution Arnolfini’s controversial plan to exclude white candidates from a post of Curatorial Fellow has been successfully challenged by civil liberties pressure group Liberty and Law [L&L] following an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE].
L&L director Gerald Hartup had written to CRE chair Trevor Phillips on 8 April requesting him to ask Arnolfini to freeze its recruitment process while his legal department investigated the legality of the gallery’s action and its impact on good race relations. Mr Hartup also made a direct request to Arnolfini to freeze the appointment process to allow it to think again about its duty to be an equal opportunities employer and to take into consideration the opinions of the community.
Mr Hartup stated: “ Arnolfini acted very responsibly in agreeing to my request to freeze the recruitment process. Their prompt action gave the CRE time to correct their initial view expressed to the media that the colour bar post was a legitimate use of the Race Relations Act. Arnolfini have since given a signed assurance to the CRE undertaking to comply with the advertising provisions of the Race Relations Act and have also indicated their intention to the CRE to review the programme for trainee curators. This I hope will allow them and their funding partner the Arts Council to consider again the use of race as a job qualification.”
The gallery’s recruitment policy had tried to make use of the provisions of the 1976 Race Relations Act that allows the use of a colour bar to address under-representation of racial minorities in any particular employment area by allowing employers to make special training facilities available to them to compete for such employment.
Liberty and Law argued that restricting the post to African, Asian and Caribbean curators was not justified under Section 37 of the Race Relations Act because the job, to curate an exhibition on Blaxploitation, the African-American film genre of the 1960s and 1970s, was clearly not a training post but a substantive one as its job description and salary grade [Grade 5 £18,889 - £21,408] made clear. Liberty and Law argued that far from being a training position it was the sort of job which ambitious curators would be delighted to undertake.
Mr Hartup added: “Arnolfini’s good faith in this matter is self evident. There is, however, confusion about the use of Section 37 shared even by equal opportunities professionals. I am asking the CRE to put up on its website details of the Arnolfini case and other Section 37 cases that it has ruled against, unfortunately without publicity, to help reduce the unknown extent of the abuse. Had more information been available local Councillors, MPs and the Bristol Racial Equality Council would have had the information to enable them to challenge the use of the colour bar in this case.”
“In the meantime Liberty and Law will seek cross party parliamentary support to end the Section 37 exemption. “
Working with the CRE in 1994 Mr Hartup then with the Freedom Association successfully prevented the BBC from implementing a similar Section 37 scheme to recruit a Senior Radio Producer and a Television Producer that the Corporation had claimed were traineeships.
Ends
Note to editors
[1] The colour bar exclusion
Arnolfini is working towards Equal Opportunities. Arnolfini is taking positive action to address under representation of Black and Asian artists in accordance with Sections 35 and 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The post is only open to African, *Asian and Caribbean curators based in England. However, Arnolfini welcomes applications from all sections of society. We would appreciate it if you could complete and return the enclosed monitoring form with your application. If you require any part of this information in large print or other format, please do not hesitate to contact us.
[2] CRE initial media response
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3601855.stm
No whites policy for arts job, 5 April 2004-08-03
A Commission for Racial Equality spokeswoman said the advertisement did not appear to breach guidelines set out in the Race Relations Act.
She said: "There are exceptions in the Act for training and apprenticeship opportunities and I believe that is what this post is offering."
[3] Other Liberty and Law race relations initiatives
See index www.libertyandlaw.co.uk
Bristol Gallery drops colour bar recruitment scheme
Leading Bristol art institution Arnolfini’s controversial plan to exclude white candidates from a post of Curatorial Fellow has been successfully challenged by civil liberties pressure group Liberty and Law [L&L] following an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE].
L&L director Gerald Hartup had written to CRE chair Trevor Phillips on 8 April requesting him to ask Arnolfini to freeze its recruitment process while his legal department investigated the legality of the gallery’s action and its impact on good race relations. Mr Hartup also made a direct request to Arnolfini to freeze the appointment process to allow it to think again about its duty to be an equal opportunities employer and to take into consideration the opinions of the community.
Mr Hartup stated: “ Arnolfini acted very responsibly in agreeing to my request to freeze the recruitment process. Their prompt action gave the CRE time to correct their initial view expressed to the media that the colour bar post was a legitimate use of the Race Relations Act. Arnolfini have since given a signed assurance to the CRE undertaking to comply with the advertising provisions of the Race Relations Act and have also indicated their intention to the CRE to review the programme for trainee curators. This I hope will allow them and their funding partner the Arts Council to consider again the use of race as a job qualification.”
The gallery’s recruitment policy had tried to make use of the provisions of the 1976 Race Relations Act that allows the use of a colour bar to address under-representation of racial minorities in any particular employment area by allowing employers to make special training facilities available to them to compete for such employment.
Liberty and Law argued that restricting the post to African, Asian and Caribbean curators was not justified under Section 37 of the Race Relations Act because the job, to curate an exhibition on Blaxploitation, the African-American film genre of the 1960s and 1970s, was clearly not a training post but a substantive one as its job description and salary grade [Grade 5 £18,889 - £21,408] made clear. Liberty and Law argued that far from being a training position it was the sort of job which ambitious curators would be delighted to undertake.
Mr Hartup added: “Arnolfini’s good faith in this matter is self evident. There is, however, confusion about the use of Section 37 shared even by equal opportunities professionals. I am asking the CRE to put up on its website details of the Arnolfini case and other Section 37 cases that it has ruled against, unfortunately without publicity, to help reduce the unknown extent of the abuse. Had more information been available local Councillors, MPs and the Bristol Racial Equality Council would have had the information to enable them to challenge the use of the colour bar in this case.”
“In the meantime Liberty and Law will seek cross party parliamentary support to end the Section 37 exemption. “
Working with the CRE in 1994 Mr Hartup then with the Freedom Association successfully prevented the BBC from implementing a similar Section 37 scheme to recruit a Senior Radio Producer and a Television Producer that the Corporation had claimed were traineeships.
Ends
Note to editors
[1] The colour bar exclusion
Arnolfini is working towards Equal Opportunities. Arnolfini is taking positive action to address under representation of Black and Asian artists in accordance with Sections 35 and 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The post is only open to African, *Asian and Caribbean curators based in England. However, Arnolfini welcomes applications from all sections of society. We would appreciate it if you could complete and return the enclosed monitoring form with your application. If you require any part of this information in large print or other format, please do not hesitate to contact us.
[2] CRE initial media response
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3601855.stm
No whites policy for arts job, 5 April 2004-08-03
A Commission for Racial Equality spokeswoman said the advertisement did not appear to breach guidelines set out in the Race Relations Act.
She said: "There are exceptions in the Act for training and apprenticeship opportunities and I believe that is what this post is offering."
[3] Other Liberty and Law race relations initiatives
See index www.libertyandlaw.co.uk
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
BBC comedy show reported to police for alleged breach of Public Order Act
Civil liberties pressure group Liberty and Law has reported to the Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens the Radio 4 programme Jeremy Hardy speaks to the nation broadcast on 9 September and which was still accessible on the BBC’s website today in which Mr Hardy states: “If you just took everyone in the BNP and everyone who votes for them and shot them in the back of the head there would be a brighter future for us all.”
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained: “Jeremy Hardy is a funny and accomplished comedian who is also a left-wing polemicist. It would be fair to say that he hates the BNP and everything it stands for. It would also be wrong to suggest that he was advocating this solution to the political problem the BNP represent. However, he knows perfectly well that a section of the anti-racist movement advocates beating up “the Nazi BNP” wherever it appears but gives sustenance, legitimacy and support to such people who believe that street violence is a legitimate political tactic by the statement in the programme and its context.
“I believe that in the circumstances the statement is in breach of the Public Order Act. I think it is particularly dangerous because it has been made under the production guidelines of the BBC. I have contacted the BBC’s chairman and director general to request that they take the programme off the website pending police investigation of the matter.”
Gerald Hartup reported Ann Winterton MP to Cheshire police for her train ‘joke’ in May 2002. In 1992 he instigated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith for his behaviour during and after the selection of Conservative Party candidate John [now Lord] Taylor for the then Tory marginal seat of Cheltenham won and now held by the Liberal Democrats.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Civil liberties pressure group Liberty and Law has reported to the Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens the Radio 4 programme Jeremy Hardy speaks to the nation broadcast on 9 September and which was still accessible on the BBC’s website today in which Mr Hardy states: “If you just took everyone in the BNP and everyone who votes for them and shot them in the back of the head there would be a brighter future for us all.”
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained: “Jeremy Hardy is a funny and accomplished comedian who is also a left-wing polemicist. It would be fair to say that he hates the BNP and everything it stands for. It would also be wrong to suggest that he was advocating this solution to the political problem the BNP represent. However, he knows perfectly well that a section of the anti-racist movement advocates beating up “the Nazi BNP” wherever it appears but gives sustenance, legitimacy and support to such people who believe that street violence is a legitimate political tactic by the statement in the programme and its context.
“I believe that in the circumstances the statement is in breach of the Public Order Act. I think it is particularly dangerous because it has been made under the production guidelines of the BBC. I have contacted the BBC’s chairman and director general to request that they take the programme off the website pending police investigation of the matter.”
Gerald Hartup reported Ann Winterton MP to Cheshire police for her train ‘joke’ in May 2002. In 1992 he instigated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith for his behaviour during and after the selection of Conservative Party candidate John [now Lord] Taylor for the then Tory marginal seat of Cheltenham won and now held by the Liberal Democrats.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Metropolitan police colour bar recruitment chaos
“Are the Metropolitan Police Service, the Home Office and the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] simply incompetent?” asks human rights group Liberty and Law.
The question arises because of their acceptance of the ludicrous ‘vision’ of former Home Secretary Jack Straw under whose dozy watch in 1999 the Met were committed to increase the proportion of visible ethnic minorities in the force to 25.9% by 2009.
What was quite clear at the time was that this was quite impossible to achieve given anticipated recruitment and retirement rates. The question that must be asked and answered was how and why this impossible target was agreed and adopted. Was it a fraudulent target set up to fail? What is the evidence?
Human Resources director at the Met, Martin Tiplady’s [appointed after the targets were adopted] latest observation [2 September, People Management] is that to achieve the government’s target and to move from current ethnic minority representation of 6.5% to the required 25.9% would require up to 80% of new recruits to be from ethnic minorities.
He had earlier told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority [MPA] that to achieve the Home Office target over the next five years the Met’s recruitment intake would have to be 68%. [MPA press release 22 July]
68%, 80% why not 120%? They are all equally unattainable and equally offensive.
So what is the game that is being played? By April of this year the Met publicly stated that the government imposed target was impossible to achieve. The Guardian’s Vikram Dodd ran a story [Met plan to fast track black recruits, 17 April] in which Tiplady floated a desperate plan to seek exemption from the Race Relations Act to enable it to fast-track ethnic minorities into the force. The scheme involves dropping the existing first come first served race neutral queue for successful applicants to start training in favour of holding back white candidates to allow ethnic minority candidates to leapfrog them.
He announced that the Met was to discuss this with the CRE in the next fortnight and if their backing was obtained seek the support of the Home Secretary for a change in the law to allow the Met to racially discriminate in its recruitment. The Metropolitan Black Police Association’s [MBPA] chair Leroy Logan confirmed that his organisation had put forward the idea to the Morris inquiry.
Although the CRE did not put out a press release it has apparently rejected the request by the Met to lobby the government to grant it an exemption from race discrimination law. People Management [ No race exemption for Met, 2 September] quotes a CRE spokesman: “ We would not support any exemption from the Act for the Metropolitan Police. We are against all discrimination, including positive discrimination. It is illegal.”
The MBPA bounced back in BBC News Online [Quotas call by black police group, 4 September]. This was followed up by an interview on the Today Programme a few hours later with Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei, the National Black Police Association’s legal adviser and Chief Inspector Jan Berry the chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales.
Frequently using the term ‘frankly’ Dizaei assured interviewer John Humphrys that his scheme to favour black and Asian candidates over whites of equal merit would not put the latter at a disadvantage. He used as evidence the fact that quotas had been used in the United States for 30 years and that 80% of the electorate supported this. Humphreys was in no position to question the accuracy of this statement.
Karen Chauhan, director of the unfortunately influential 1990 Trust has argued [Fast tracking black cops the only hope for Met diversity, 18 April, Black Information Link] that "the fast-track scheme will inevitably be opposed by reactionary elements both within the police force and right-wing commentators".
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said; “Chauhan is quite right. What she doesn’t perhaps appreciate is that it will also be opposed by progressive anti-racists opposed to racially divisive schemes dreamed up by self-seeking activists who for a generation have done their best to stop ethnic minorities joining the police service. Fortunately they will also be joined by the CRE. We now expect our elected representatives both national and local to make it quite clear that we shall continue to treat people as unique individuals. This requires that Ali Dizaei and the National Black Police Association be informed that they are part of the problem not the solution. Frankly we have grown bored with their whingeing. At the same time we must make it clear that we expect the Met to be a genuine equal opportunities employer. We must stay on their case. We are pleased that from April to June 2004 the Met attracted 23% of recruits from ethnic minorities without positive discrimination. They must keep up the good work, explain that the targets are ludicrous and drop any attempt to gerrymander recruitment by brutally racist and counter-productive gimmicks. We clearly can’t afford to leave progress to the MPS, the MPA, the CRE, the Home Office or the race entrepreneurs. It is too important to be left to amateurs. Ordinary folk with some common sense need to get stuck in”
“Are the Metropolitan Police Service, the Home Office and the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] simply incompetent?” asks human rights group Liberty and Law.
The question arises because of their acceptance of the ludicrous ‘vision’ of former Home Secretary Jack Straw under whose dozy watch in 1999 the Met were committed to increase the proportion of visible ethnic minorities in the force to 25.9% by 2009.
What was quite clear at the time was that this was quite impossible to achieve given anticipated recruitment and retirement rates. The question that must be asked and answered was how and why this impossible target was agreed and adopted. Was it a fraudulent target set up to fail? What is the evidence?
Human Resources director at the Met, Martin Tiplady’s [appointed after the targets were adopted] latest observation [2 September, People Management] is that to achieve the government’s target and to move from current ethnic minority representation of 6.5% to the required 25.9% would require up to 80% of new recruits to be from ethnic minorities.
He had earlier told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority [MPA] that to achieve the Home Office target over the next five years the Met’s recruitment intake would have to be 68%. [MPA press release 22 July]
68%, 80% why not 120%? They are all equally unattainable and equally offensive.
So what is the game that is being played? By April of this year the Met publicly stated that the government imposed target was impossible to achieve. The Guardian’s Vikram Dodd ran a story [Met plan to fast track black recruits, 17 April] in which Tiplady floated a desperate plan to seek exemption from the Race Relations Act to enable it to fast-track ethnic minorities into the force. The scheme involves dropping the existing first come first served race neutral queue for successful applicants to start training in favour of holding back white candidates to allow ethnic minority candidates to leapfrog them.
He announced that the Met was to discuss this with the CRE in the next fortnight and if their backing was obtained seek the support of the Home Secretary for a change in the law to allow the Met to racially discriminate in its recruitment. The Metropolitan Black Police Association’s [MBPA] chair Leroy Logan confirmed that his organisation had put forward the idea to the Morris inquiry.
Although the CRE did not put out a press release it has apparently rejected the request by the Met to lobby the government to grant it an exemption from race discrimination law. People Management [ No race exemption for Met, 2 September] quotes a CRE spokesman: “ We would not support any exemption from the Act for the Metropolitan Police. We are against all discrimination, including positive discrimination. It is illegal.”
The MBPA bounced back in BBC News Online [Quotas call by black police group, 4 September]. This was followed up by an interview on the Today Programme a few hours later with Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei, the National Black Police Association’s legal adviser and Chief Inspector Jan Berry the chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales.
Frequently using the term ‘frankly’ Dizaei assured interviewer John Humphrys that his scheme to favour black and Asian candidates over whites of equal merit would not put the latter at a disadvantage. He used as evidence the fact that quotas had been used in the United States for 30 years and that 80% of the electorate supported this. Humphreys was in no position to question the accuracy of this statement.
Karen Chauhan, director of the unfortunately influential 1990 Trust has argued [Fast tracking black cops the only hope for Met diversity, 18 April, Black Information Link] that "the fast-track scheme will inevitably be opposed by reactionary elements both within the police force and right-wing commentators".
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said; “Chauhan is quite right. What she doesn’t perhaps appreciate is that it will also be opposed by progressive anti-racists opposed to racially divisive schemes dreamed up by self-seeking activists who for a generation have done their best to stop ethnic minorities joining the police service. Fortunately they will also be joined by the CRE. We now expect our elected representatives both national and local to make it quite clear that we shall continue to treat people as unique individuals. This requires that Ali Dizaei and the National Black Police Association be informed that they are part of the problem not the solution. Frankly we have grown bored with their whingeing. At the same time we must make it clear that we expect the Met to be a genuine equal opportunities employer. We must stay on their case. We are pleased that from April to June 2004 the Met attracted 23% of recruits from ethnic minorities without positive discrimination. They must keep up the good work, explain that the targets are ludicrous and drop any attempt to gerrymander recruitment by brutally racist and counter-productive gimmicks. We clearly can’t afford to leave progress to the MPS, the MPA, the CRE, the Home Office or the race entrepreneurs. It is too important to be left to amateurs. Ordinary folk with some common sense need to get stuck in”
Friday, August 13, 2004
Poem reported to Scottish police after CRE condemnation
Human rights group Liberty and Law has reported a satirical poem in the form of a rap by James Michie published in the current issue of The Spectator [14 August 2004, page 20] entitled Friendly Fire to the Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police following its publication in The Herald and the reaction to it of the Commission for Racial Equality {CRE].
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has asked the Chief Constable to determine whether the poem’s publication breaches the race relations provisions of the Public Order Act.
Maureen Fraser, the director of the CRE in Scotland told The Herald : "We find this poem very offensive and the language is deeply inflammatory. It does nothing to promote race relations and undermines relations between Scotland and the rest of Britain, and our relationship with other countries."
"Some of the language, such as 'comprehensive extermination' and 'polluting our stock', is completely and utterly unacceptable. It cannot be tolerated."
Mr Hartup said; “ James Michie is a distinguished writer and to be condemned in this way by such a senior figure in the Commission for Racial Equality is a matter of the gravest public concern. I am fairly confident that after consideration the poem will be given a clean bill of health and that the CRE will then apologise to Mr Michie. In the meantime, however, the only way to prevent a witch-hunt is an authoritative investigation by the appropriate authority.
It is perhaps time to re-evaluate the public role of the Commission for Racial Equality and to ensure that its senior personnel are able to contribute positively and sensitively to race relations issues.”
Ends
Article in Herald
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/21958.html
FRIENDLY FIRE
The Scotch – what a verminous race!
Canny, pushy, chippy, they're all over the place,
Battening off us with false bonhomie,
Polluting our stock,
undermining our economy.
Down with sandy hair and knobbly knees!
Suppress the tartan dwarves and the Wee Frees!
Ban the kilt, the skean-dhu and the sporran
As provocatively, offensively foreign!
It's time Hadrian's Wall was refortified
To pen them in a ghetto on the other side.
I would go further. The nation
Deserves not merely
isolation
But comprehensive
extermination.
We must not flinch from a solution.
(I await legal prosecution.)
James Mitchie
The Spectator 14 August
Human rights group Liberty and Law has reported a satirical poem in the form of a rap by James Michie published in the current issue of The Spectator [14 August 2004, page 20] entitled Friendly Fire to the Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police following its publication in The Herald and the reaction to it of the Commission for Racial Equality {CRE].
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has asked the Chief Constable to determine whether the poem’s publication breaches the race relations provisions of the Public Order Act.
Maureen Fraser, the director of the CRE in Scotland told The Herald : "We find this poem very offensive and the language is deeply inflammatory. It does nothing to promote race relations and undermines relations between Scotland and the rest of Britain, and our relationship with other countries."
"Some of the language, such as 'comprehensive extermination' and 'polluting our stock', is completely and utterly unacceptable. It cannot be tolerated."
Mr Hartup said; “ James Michie is a distinguished writer and to be condemned in this way by such a senior figure in the Commission for Racial Equality is a matter of the gravest public concern. I am fairly confident that after consideration the poem will be given a clean bill of health and that the CRE will then apologise to Mr Michie. In the meantime, however, the only way to prevent a witch-hunt is an authoritative investigation by the appropriate authority.
It is perhaps time to re-evaluate the public role of the Commission for Racial Equality and to ensure that its senior personnel are able to contribute positively and sensitively to race relations issues.”
Ends
Article in Herald
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/21958.html
FRIENDLY FIRE
The Scotch – what a verminous race!
Canny, pushy, chippy, they're all over the place,
Battening off us with false bonhomie,
Polluting our stock,
undermining our economy.
Down with sandy hair and knobbly knees!
Suppress the tartan dwarves and the Wee Frees!
Ban the kilt, the skean-dhu and the sporran
As provocatively, offensively foreign!
It's time Hadrian's Wall was refortified
To pen them in a ghetto on the other side.
I would go further. The nation
Deserves not merely
isolation
But comprehensive
extermination.
We must not flinch from a solution.
(I await legal prosecution.)
James Mitchie
The Spectator 14 August
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
No jobs for the boys at Equal Opportunities Commission
Male representation at the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] has fallen to crisis level as revealed in its latest annual report. Men number just 25 and make up a derisory 16.4% of its total staff of 152.
The EOC has not issued a press release on the occasion of the report’s release. Its website however contains a campaigning slogan ‘Jobs for the boys?’ in support of developing female representation in activities where they are under represented, apparently totally unaware of the hypocrisy of its stance.
The EOC claims still to be “the leading agency set up to tackle sex discrimination” and that “it is committed to challenging discrimination in all its forms and at all levels of society”.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has called upon the EOC to commit itself to a target closer to home to overcome the institutional sexism that has characterised it since its inception.
Mr Hartup said: “ I have now asked Secretary of State Patricia Hewitt to intervene and will be reporting the EOC to the women’s rights committee of the European Parliament. How can business and human relations professionals take seriously a self-righteous quango whose own arrangements put it at the bottom of the equal opportunities league? The EOC unfortunately illustrates perfectly the problem it purports to solve.”
Ends
Note to editors
EOC Annual Report 2003-2004 pp20-21
http://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/abouteoc/annualreport2004.pdf
Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325, Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Male representation at the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] has fallen to crisis level as revealed in its latest annual report. Men number just 25 and make up a derisory 16.4% of its total staff of 152.
The EOC has not issued a press release on the occasion of the report’s release. Its website however contains a campaigning slogan ‘Jobs for the boys?’ in support of developing female representation in activities where they are under represented, apparently totally unaware of the hypocrisy of its stance.
The EOC claims still to be “the leading agency set up to tackle sex discrimination” and that “it is committed to challenging discrimination in all its forms and at all levels of society”.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has called upon the EOC to commit itself to a target closer to home to overcome the institutional sexism that has characterised it since its inception.
Mr Hartup said: “ I have now asked Secretary of State Patricia Hewitt to intervene and will be reporting the EOC to the women’s rights committee of the European Parliament. How can business and human relations professionals take seriously a self-righteous quango whose own arrangements put it at the bottom of the equal opportunities league? The EOC unfortunately illustrates perfectly the problem it purports to solve.”
Ends
Note to editors
EOC Annual Report 2003-2004 pp20-21
http://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/abouteoc/annualreport2004.pdf
Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325, Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Commission for Racial Equality stays institutionally racist and sexist
Men remain grossly under-represented at the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] as do its white staff. This is revealed in the £20 million organisation’s annual report for 2003.
Just 35.1% of its 191 staff is male and 38.2% white. This maintains a long tradition of massive under-representation of both groups that can be traced back to the organisation’s creation.
Although the CRE has pressed companies to correct racial imbalances with targets it has resolutely and stubbornly refused to operate these itself.
Liberty and Law director, Gerald Hartup, who has monitored CRE employment for 28 years is writing to the Home Secretary seeking independent supervision of the organisation’s employment policy. He said: “The CRE has had far too long to establish itself as an equal opportunities ‘champion’. Successive chairmen and commissioners have failed to prioritise reform making it a laughing stock. How can its recommendations and investigations be taken seriously until it gets its own house in order?”
Ends
Note to editors
www.cre.gov.uk/pdfs/AR03_Main.pdf
Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Liberty and Law
Unit 384, 78 Marylebone High Street, London W1U 5AP
Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com
ideas and action to change society
Men remain grossly under-represented at the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] as do its white staff. This is revealed in the £20 million organisation’s annual report for 2003.
Just 35.1% of its 191 staff is male and 38.2% white. This maintains a long tradition of massive under-representation of both groups that can be traced back to the organisation’s creation.
Although the CRE has pressed companies to correct racial imbalances with targets it has resolutely and stubbornly refused to operate these itself.
Liberty and Law director, Gerald Hartup, who has monitored CRE employment for 28 years is writing to the Home Secretary seeking independent supervision of the organisation’s employment policy. He said: “The CRE has had far too long to establish itself as an equal opportunities ‘champion’. Successive chairmen and commissioners have failed to prioritise reform making it a laughing stock. How can its recommendations and investigations be taken seriously until it gets its own house in order?”
Ends
Note to editors
www.cre.gov.uk/pdfs/AR03_Main.pdf
Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Liberty and Law
Unit 384, 78 Marylebone High Street, London W1U 5AP
Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com
ideas and action to change society
Bugger Peter Tatchell!
The protest outside London’s City Hall over Mayor Ken Livingstone’s association with controversial Muslim cleric Dr Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi on Monday 12 July was pretty low key. Despite earlier substantial press coverage just a dozen or so protestors from Outrage and the Green Party carried placards opposing Dr Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s attendance at the conference Hijab: A Woman’s right to choose called by the Muslim Council of Britain. They were watched by five relaxed police officers two of whom were Asian giving [no doubt accidentally] the impression that 40% of London’s police officers were from ethnic minorities.
Qaradawi and Livingstone did not make an appearance at the main entrance but the media were treated to a passionate embrace between the two men at the conference itself suggesting a Private Eye cover “Bugger Peter Tatchell!”
Qaradawi had been widely condemned by government and the media for his views on suicide bombers and had been reported to the police [without success] by Jewish representatives. His views on homosexuality and the position of women came in for particular criticism.
Protestors were slightly outnumbered by photographers. Outrage organiser Peter Tatchell gave a television interview and Green Assembly members Darren Johnson and Jenny Jones spoke to the media condemning Qaradawi and Livingstone.
There were no representatives from the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives or Labour to register a protest but they are expected to support a motion of condemnation of the Mayor later this week
Placards announced: Qaradawi blames rape victims who are ‘immodest’; Dr Qaradawi wants Muslim women forced to wear hijab; Qaradawi endorses stoning of gays; Stop death penalty for love, and, No to gay execution [also in Arabic].
Light relief was occasioned by two elderly American tourists- ignoring the political event - who got a policeman to pose with them outside the entrance.
It was a strangely subdued demonstration as if both demonstrators and the objects of their demonstration were dipping their toes gently into political confrontation. Muslims attending the event walked past the placards ignoring the protestors who made no attempt to engage them in discussion or distribute leaflets. The best picture the media could get was a middle aged Muslim lady giving them a cheerful wave before entering the building.
The protest outside London’s City Hall over Mayor Ken Livingstone’s association with controversial Muslim cleric Dr Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi on Monday 12 July was pretty low key. Despite earlier substantial press coverage just a dozen or so protestors from Outrage and the Green Party carried placards opposing Dr Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s attendance at the conference Hijab: A Woman’s right to choose called by the Muslim Council of Britain. They were watched by five relaxed police officers two of whom were Asian giving [no doubt accidentally] the impression that 40% of London’s police officers were from ethnic minorities.
Qaradawi and Livingstone did not make an appearance at the main entrance but the media were treated to a passionate embrace between the two men at the conference itself suggesting a Private Eye cover “Bugger Peter Tatchell!”
Qaradawi had been widely condemned by government and the media for his views on suicide bombers and had been reported to the police [without success] by Jewish representatives. His views on homosexuality and the position of women came in for particular criticism.
Protestors were slightly outnumbered by photographers. Outrage organiser Peter Tatchell gave a television interview and Green Assembly members Darren Johnson and Jenny Jones spoke to the media condemning Qaradawi and Livingstone.
There were no representatives from the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives or Labour to register a protest but they are expected to support a motion of condemnation of the Mayor later this week
Placards announced: Qaradawi blames rape victims who are ‘immodest’; Dr Qaradawi wants Muslim women forced to wear hijab; Qaradawi endorses stoning of gays; Stop death penalty for love, and, No to gay execution [also in Arabic].
Light relief was occasioned by two elderly American tourists- ignoring the political event - who got a policeman to pose with them outside the entrance.
It was a strangely subdued demonstration as if both demonstrators and the objects of their demonstration were dipping their toes gently into political confrontation. Muslims attending the event walked past the placards ignoring the protestors who made no attempt to engage them in discussion or distribute leaflets. The best picture the media could get was a middle aged Muslim lady giving them a cheerful wave before entering the building.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Mayor Livingstone still backing homophobic Islamic cleric - but for how long?
London’s Mayor Ken Livingstone continues to back Muslim homophobe Dr Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi by appearing at his press conference yesterday and opening next Monday’s Hijab Conference at London’s City Hall where the controversial religious leader is Special Guest of Honour of the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB].
Qaradawi has expressed himself forcefully on gay rights. Interviewed by Islam on Line he provided the following fatwa.
“All divine messages spoke of the People of Lut and denounced their ill-doings. The West, however, wishes to turn homosexuality into something acceptable by society. Not only that, but laws and regulations are being construed to legalize this sin and many of the issues surrounding it.
Personally, I consider a homosexual to be as a drug abuser, one who requires treatment. Does anyone in their right mind consider drug abuse something one is born with? This is not a genetic anomaly, it is something one acquires. It is a disease that needs a cure.”
It has been assumed until now that Livingstone backs the rights of gays and lesbians as full citizens. He would have been expected to veto the use of City Hall for an event that could even result in civil commotion as gay and lesbian Londoners protest at this provocative demonstration of Islamaphobic bigotry.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “It is amazing that the Muslim Council of Britain should have invited this man to their conference whose views on homosexuality and arguments for the grossly subordinate role of women must be repugnant to British Muslims. The Council claims 350 affiliates and to express the views of moderate Muslims. It is time for affiliates to engage in a spring clean of its officers. How can society combat Islamophobia without rejecting Islamaphobia? It is an outrage that London’s Mayor should give Qaradawi and what he stands for a veneer of respectability by sharing a platform with him at London’s seat of government. “
MCB claims that Qaradawi is a ‘voice of reason and understanding’ and that ‘the smear campaign against Dr Al-Qaradawi is being orchestrated by the Zionist lobby who are evidently angered by Dr Al- Qaradawi's staunch opposition to Israeli State brutality against the Palestinian people.’
Ends
Note to editors
Islamaphobia - manifestations of hatred and hostility by Muslims
Islamophobia - manifestions of hatred and hostility towards Muslims
London’s Mayor Ken Livingstone continues to back Muslim homophobe Dr Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi by appearing at his press conference yesterday and opening next Monday’s Hijab Conference at London’s City Hall where the controversial religious leader is Special Guest of Honour of the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB].
Qaradawi has expressed himself forcefully on gay rights. Interviewed by Islam on Line he provided the following fatwa.
“All divine messages spoke of the People of Lut and denounced their ill-doings. The West, however, wishes to turn homosexuality into something acceptable by society. Not only that, but laws and regulations are being construed to legalize this sin and many of the issues surrounding it.
Personally, I consider a homosexual to be as a drug abuser, one who requires treatment. Does anyone in their right mind consider drug abuse something one is born with? This is not a genetic anomaly, it is something one acquires. It is a disease that needs a cure.”
It has been assumed until now that Livingstone backs the rights of gays and lesbians as full citizens. He would have been expected to veto the use of City Hall for an event that could even result in civil commotion as gay and lesbian Londoners protest at this provocative demonstration of Islamaphobic bigotry.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “It is amazing that the Muslim Council of Britain should have invited this man to their conference whose views on homosexuality and arguments for the grossly subordinate role of women must be repugnant to British Muslims. The Council claims 350 affiliates and to express the views of moderate Muslims. It is time for affiliates to engage in a spring clean of its officers. How can society combat Islamophobia without rejecting Islamaphobia? It is an outrage that London’s Mayor should give Qaradawi and what he stands for a veneer of respectability by sharing a platform with him at London’s seat of government. “
MCB claims that Qaradawi is a ‘voice of reason and understanding’ and that ‘the smear campaign against Dr Al-Qaradawi is being orchestrated by the Zionist lobby who are evidently angered by Dr Al- Qaradawi's staunch opposition to Israeli State brutality against the Palestinian people.’
Ends
Note to editors
Islamaphobia - manifestations of hatred and hostility by Muslims
Islamophobia - manifestions of hatred and hostility towards Muslims
Will Blunkett be first victim of his religious hatred law?
Home Secretary David Blunkett could well be the first defendant together with BNP leader Nick Griffin to test his proposed law to criminalize the incitement of religious hatred. The Islamic Human Rights Commission [IHRC] has declared him [26 June] second only to Mr Griffin as Most Islamophobic Politician of the year. The Commission for Racial Equality backed these awards according to Aljazeera and Reuters. They reported its chair Trevor Phillips welcoming them as an important step to ‘fight bigotry and prejudice against Muslims’.
Ironically the IHRC opposes his proposal on the grounds that ethnic minorities whom the Home Office claims the legislation is designed to protect would be the first to be criminalized.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “The Home Office under Mr Blunkett has lost the plot. It now represents a clear threat to racial harmony. The Prime Minister must dismiss his loyal but dangerously misguided Minister.”
Endshttp://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1AC37DBC-5EF7-4873-A2C9-6B5049A094DB.htm
http://in.news.yahoo.com/040626/137/2emrx.html
http://server792.dnslive.net/~ihrc/show.php?id=1124
Home Secretary David Blunkett could well be the first defendant together with BNP leader Nick Griffin to test his proposed law to criminalize the incitement of religious hatred. The Islamic Human Rights Commission [IHRC] has declared him [26 June] second only to Mr Griffin as Most Islamophobic Politician of the year. The Commission for Racial Equality backed these awards according to Aljazeera and Reuters. They reported its chair Trevor Phillips welcoming them as an important step to ‘fight bigotry and prejudice against Muslims’.
Ironically the IHRC opposes his proposal on the grounds that ethnic minorities whom the Home Office claims the legislation is designed to protect would be the first to be criminalized.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “The Home Office under Mr Blunkett has lost the plot. It now represents a clear threat to racial harmony. The Prime Minister must dismiss his loyal but dangerously misguided Minister.”
Endshttp://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1AC37DBC-5EF7-4873-A2C9-6B5049A094DB.htm
http://in.news.yahoo.com/040626/137/2emrx.html
http://server792.dnslive.net/~ihrc/show.php?id=1124
Friday, July 02, 2004
BNP’s Nick Griffin and Guardian’s Polly Toynbee win Islamophobia awards backed by CRE – Home Secretary a runner-up
The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee has won the title of Most Islamophobic Media Personality awarded by the UK’s Islamic Human Rights Commission [IHRC] on 26 June. She joins BNP leader Nick Griffin winner of Most Islamophobic British Politician who beat Home Secretary David Blunkett. Neither attended to accept their awards.
According to Aljazeera and Reuters the chair of Britain’s government funded Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, welcomed the awards as an important step to ‘fight bigotry and prejudice against Muslims’.
The CRE gave its backing to the event stating for ISHR’s publicity brochure that it was ‘pleased to support the second annual 'Islamophobia Awards' ceremony, that ‘it is vital to highlight the continuing discrimination against Islam as a religion, and Muslims as believers’ and ‘ important that we celebrate the work of people and organisations that fight against this bigotry and prejudice.’
The Daily Telegraph beat the Sun and the Spectator for the title Most Islamophobic Media.
Liberty and Law director, Gerald Hartup, said: “It was disappointing to see Mr Phillips give inappropriate support to a partisan political attack on David Blunkett when his own conditions of employment involve actively supporting the government in its policies. He may be attempting to gain credibility with former allies * who now criticize him for not challenging the government’s move to merge its sex, race and disability commissions with inevitable job losses for key players in the race relations industry.”
Other IHRC award winners were President George W Bush who beat off a challenge from former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey and Daily Mail columnist and author Melanie Phillips for Islamophobe of the year.
Most Islamophobic International Politicians were joint winners Jacques Chirac and Ariel Sharon.
Note for editors*Trevor Phillips under pressure to oppose single equalities body Exclusive by Lester Holloway ,
TEXT
Ends
Contact: Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee has won the title of Most Islamophobic Media Personality awarded by the UK’s Islamic Human Rights Commission [IHRC] on 26 June. She joins BNP leader Nick Griffin winner of Most Islamophobic British Politician who beat Home Secretary David Blunkett. Neither attended to accept their awards.
According to Aljazeera and Reuters the chair of Britain’s government funded Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, welcomed the awards as an important step to ‘fight bigotry and prejudice against Muslims’.
The CRE gave its backing to the event stating for ISHR’s publicity brochure that it was ‘pleased to support the second annual 'Islamophobia Awards' ceremony, that ‘it is vital to highlight the continuing discrimination against Islam as a religion, and Muslims as believers’ and ‘ important that we celebrate the work of people and organisations that fight against this bigotry and prejudice.’
The Daily Telegraph beat the Sun and the Spectator for the title Most Islamophobic Media.
Liberty and Law director, Gerald Hartup, said: “It was disappointing to see Mr Phillips give inappropriate support to a partisan political attack on David Blunkett when his own conditions of employment involve actively supporting the government in its policies. He may be attempting to gain credibility with former allies * who now criticize him for not challenging the government’s move to merge its sex, race and disability commissions with inevitable job losses for key players in the race relations industry.”
Other IHRC award winners were President George W Bush who beat off a challenge from former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey and Daily Mail columnist and author Melanie Phillips for Islamophobe of the year.
Most Islamophobic International Politicians were joint winners Jacques Chirac and Ariel Sharon.
Note for editors*Trevor Phillips under pressure to oppose single equalities body Exclusive by Lester Holloway ,
TEXT
Ends
Contact: Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Should an anti EU party stand in European elections?
This was Liberty and Law's response to the Daily Telegraph's editorial argument that an anti EU party should not stand in Europen elections.
Re: What independence means
Date: 4 June 2004
Sir - Much of your leading article on the United Kingdom Independence Party (June 2) made good sense, but when you ask why the UKIP should stand for European Parliament elections when it wants to leave the European Union and when the European Parliament would have no influence in achieving that aim, you fail to convince.
Reasons for standing are obvious. Nobody takes seriously a political party that cannot win representation in an assembly and our first-past-the-post system ensures no domestic parliamentary representation for the views of a very large, frustrated segment of the electorate in all the major political parties. Participation in the European elections makes that electoral success possible without which political extinction is inevitable.
Failure to stand for them would be interpreted as a lack of belief in the UKIP's electoral appeal. Success demonstrates support for the principle of leaving the European Union and renders ridiculous the claim by other political parties and newspapers that there is no serious support for its position. Success gives some credibility to and a platform for its campaign.
No European representation means no Newsnight interviews, no Question Time appearances, no media coverage and no influence.
For the UKIP, not standing has to be a non-starter.
From:
Gerald Hartup, Director, Liberty and Law, London W1
This was Liberty and Law's response to the Daily Telegraph's editorial argument that an anti EU party should not stand in Europen elections.
Re: What independence means
Date: 4 June 2004
Sir - Much of your leading article on the United Kingdom Independence Party (June 2) made good sense, but when you ask why the UKIP should stand for European Parliament elections when it wants to leave the European Union and when the European Parliament would have no influence in achieving that aim, you fail to convince.
Reasons for standing are obvious. Nobody takes seriously a political party that cannot win representation in an assembly and our first-past-the-post system ensures no domestic parliamentary representation for the views of a very large, frustrated segment of the electorate in all the major political parties. Participation in the European elections makes that electoral success possible without which political extinction is inevitable.
Failure to stand for them would be interpreted as a lack of belief in the UKIP's electoral appeal. Success demonstrates support for the principle of leaving the European Union and renders ridiculous the claim by other political parties and newspapers that there is no serious support for its position. Success gives some credibility to and a platform for its campaign.
No European representation means no Newsnight interviews, no Question Time appearances, no media coverage and no influence.
For the UKIP, not standing has to be a non-starter.
From:
Gerald Hartup, Director, Liberty and Law, London W1
Friday, May 28, 2004
Taking on the food fascists
Now read this! This is the way to defend freedom. No messing about. I'm going to quote the last paragraph for my pleasure and then you can read the press release. OK?
"The Libertarian Alliance opposes all and any moves to limit the right of food companies to market their products in any way they please. We oppose any assumption of control over the bodies of children by the authorities. We oppose advertising controls. We oppose compulsory warnings on food packaging. We oppose taxes on supposedly unhealthy foods. We oppose public health information campaigns. We deny the truth of the often fabricated statistics about the human and financial costs of overeating. We denounce these politicians and doctors and 'scientists' as self-righteous bigots. If they want to do something useful, they should look to taking their own bodies in hand, and leave the rest of us alone."
"ATTACK ON OBESITY A CLASSIC CASE STUDY IN HEALTH FASCISM", SAYS FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES THINK TANK 27 May 2004
The Report on Obesity of the House of Commons Health Committee is a classic case study in health fascism, and a further ominous step toward a police state says the Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties think tank and pressure group.
Libertarian Alliance Director of Communications, Dr Sean Gabb commented:
"This is a brilliantly-choreographed mix of junk statistics,unsubstantiated claims, generalisations from single instances,tear-jerking pleas to 'save the kiddies', raids on our pockets and personal freedoms, and demands for jobs and status for the usual class
of politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, educators, and politically correct clients in corporate big business. Nothing like this has been seen since the anti-gun hysteria that followed the shootings at Dunblane in 1996.
"Fat is a personal issue. It is up to people themselves to take action. If they do not and thereby make themselves il, that is their choice and their problem. As for children, they are the responsibility of their parents. Obesity should not be an excuse for a further power grab by a bunch of politically correct nannies. That is what this House of Commons
Report is about. Like a cat playing with a dead mouse, the health fascists are turning their main efforts away from smoking towards fat. Advertising controls - aka limitations on free speech - compulsory exercise and weigh-ins at school: these are hall marks of tyranny.
"The Spartan state used to measure the body mass of its people by pinching their stomachs with iron callipers. The German national socialists used to denounce the 'heresy' that health was a personal issue. Now the British state is joining in. These are all sins of the
principle that the state owns individual bodies and has the right to shape those bodies like a farmer shapes the bodies of his cattle.
"The Libertarian Alliance opposes all and any moves to limit the right of food companies to market their products in any way they please. We oppose any assumption of control over the bodies of children by the authorities. We oppose advertising controls. We oppose compulsory warnings on food packaging. We oppose taxes on supposedly unhealthy foods. We oppose public health information campaigns. We deny the truth of the often fabricated statistics about the human and financial costs of overeating. We denounce these politicians and doctors and 'scientists' as self-righteous bigots. If they want to do something useful, they should look to taking their own bodies in hand, and leave
the rest of us alone."
Ends
Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of Communications for the Libertarian Alliance and edits its journal 'Free Life'. His latest CD, War and the National Interest: Arguments for a British Foreign Policy, Read by Sean Gabb is available at http://www.seangabb.co.uk/buy.htm. His books are available from Hampden Press at www.hampdenpress.co.uk.
His main published writing on diet and health is 'Out of the Closet - Confessions of a Dieter', available at http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc109.htm
He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at
sean@libertarian.co.uk
Extended Contact Details:
The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil liberties policy institute. It has published over 700 articles,pamphlets and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms. These are freely available at http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Their postal address is
The Libertarian Alliance
25 Chapter Chambers
Esterbrooke Street
London SW1W 4NN
Tel: 020 7 821 5502
Fax: 020 7 834 2031
Associated Organisations
The Libertarian International - http://www.libertarian.to - is a sister
organisation to the Libertarian Alliance. Its mission is to coordinate
various initiatives in the defence of individual liberty throughout the
world.
Sean Gabb's personal website - http://www.seangabb.co.uk - contains
about a milion words of writings on themes interesting to libertarians
and conservatives
Liberalia - http://www.liberalia.com - maintained by by LA Executive
member Christian Michel, Liberalia publishes in-depth papers in French
and English on libertarianism and free enterprise. It is a prime source
of documentation on these issues for students and scholars.
Libertarian Samizdata - http://www.samizdata.net - works in association
with the Libertarian Alliance and has an ever larger following. Check it
out.
Contact Details: Sean Gabb, 07956 472 199, sean@libertarian.co.uk
And Chris R. Tame, 07957 644 519, chris@libertarian.co.uk
For other contact and link details, www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr016.htm
Now read this! This is the way to defend freedom. No messing about. I'm going to quote the last paragraph for my pleasure and then you can read the press release. OK?
"The Libertarian Alliance opposes all and any moves to limit the right of food companies to market their products in any way they please. We oppose any assumption of control over the bodies of children by the authorities. We oppose advertising controls. We oppose compulsory warnings on food packaging. We oppose taxes on supposedly unhealthy foods. We oppose public health information campaigns. We deny the truth of the often fabricated statistics about the human and financial costs of overeating. We denounce these politicians and doctors and 'scientists' as self-righteous bigots. If they want to do something useful, they should look to taking their own bodies in hand, and leave the rest of us alone."
"ATTACK ON OBESITY A CLASSIC CASE STUDY IN HEALTH FASCISM", SAYS FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES THINK TANK 27 May 2004
The Report on Obesity of the House of Commons Health Committee is a classic case study in health fascism, and a further ominous step toward a police state says the Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties think tank and pressure group.
Libertarian Alliance Director of Communications, Dr Sean Gabb commented:
"This is a brilliantly-choreographed mix of junk statistics,unsubstantiated claims, generalisations from single instances,tear-jerking pleas to 'save the kiddies', raids on our pockets and personal freedoms, and demands for jobs and status for the usual class
of politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, educators, and politically correct clients in corporate big business. Nothing like this has been seen since the anti-gun hysteria that followed the shootings at Dunblane in 1996.
"Fat is a personal issue. It is up to people themselves to take action. If they do not and thereby make themselves il, that is their choice and their problem. As for children, they are the responsibility of their parents. Obesity should not be an excuse for a further power grab by a bunch of politically correct nannies. That is what this House of Commons
Report is about. Like a cat playing with a dead mouse, the health fascists are turning their main efforts away from smoking towards fat. Advertising controls - aka limitations on free speech - compulsory exercise and weigh-ins at school: these are hall marks of tyranny.
"The Spartan state used to measure the body mass of its people by pinching their stomachs with iron callipers. The German national socialists used to denounce the 'heresy' that health was a personal issue. Now the British state is joining in. These are all sins of the
principle that the state owns individual bodies and has the right to shape those bodies like a farmer shapes the bodies of his cattle.
"The Libertarian Alliance opposes all and any moves to limit the right of food companies to market their products in any way they please. We oppose any assumption of control over the bodies of children by the authorities. We oppose advertising controls. We oppose compulsory warnings on food packaging. We oppose taxes on supposedly unhealthy foods. We oppose public health information campaigns. We deny the truth of the often fabricated statistics about the human and financial costs of overeating. We denounce these politicians and doctors and 'scientists' as self-righteous bigots. If they want to do something useful, they should look to taking their own bodies in hand, and leave
the rest of us alone."
Ends
Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of Communications for the Libertarian Alliance and edits its journal 'Free Life'. His latest CD, War and the National Interest: Arguments for a British Foreign Policy, Read by Sean Gabb is available at http://www.seangabb.co.uk/buy.htm. His books are available from Hampden Press at www.hampdenpress.co.uk.
His main published writing on diet and health is 'Out of the Closet - Confessions of a Dieter', available at http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc109.htm
He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at
sean@libertarian.co.uk
Extended Contact Details:
The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil liberties policy institute. It has published over 700 articles,pamphlets and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms. These are freely available at http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Their postal address is
The Libertarian Alliance
25 Chapter Chambers
Esterbrooke Street
London SW1W 4NN
Tel: 020 7 821 5502
Fax: 020 7 834 2031
Associated Organisations
The Libertarian International - http://www.libertarian.to - is a sister
organisation to the Libertarian Alliance. Its mission is to coordinate
various initiatives in the defence of individual liberty throughout the
world.
Sean Gabb's personal website - http://www.seangabb.co.uk - contains
about a milion words of writings on themes interesting to libertarians
and conservatives
Liberalia - http://www.liberalia.com - maintained by by LA Executive
member Christian Michel, Liberalia publishes in-depth papers in French
and English on libertarianism and free enterprise. It is a prime source
of documentation on these issues for students and scholars.
Libertarian Samizdata - http://www.samizdata.net - works in association
with the Libertarian Alliance and has an ever larger following. Check it
out.
Contact Details: Sean Gabb, 07956 472 199, sean@libertarian.co.uk
And Chris R. Tame, 07957 644 519, chris@libertarian.co.uk
For other contact and link details, www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr016.htm
Monday, May 17, 2004
Let’s celebrate a day that changed history
“May 17, 1954 was a momentous day in the history of the United States, and perhaps of the world. Something happened that afternoon that was all too rare in human history. A great nation voluntarily repudiated its own oppression of part of its own people. The Supreme court decision that day was announced in an atmosphere of high drama and some observers said that one of black-robed justices sat on the great bench with tears in his eyes.” Thomas Sowell was describing here, in Civil Rights Rhetoric or Reality, the case of Brown v Board of Education, an action in which a group of black Americans won the legal right to an equal and non-segregated education.
He continued: “In how many places and in how many eras could an ordinary person from a despised race challenge the duly constituted authorities, force them to publicly defend their decisions, retreat and finally capitulate.”
Politicians would try with considerable success to make the judgment meaningless but it set in train the heroic struggle to end the outrageous Jim Crow laws passed by state legislatures to keep in thrall and to humiliate their black citizens.
May 17 is a fiftieth anniversary that’s really worth remembering and thinking about the brave people who used it as a spring board to create a better world.
“May 17, 1954 was a momentous day in the history of the United States, and perhaps of the world. Something happened that afternoon that was all too rare in human history. A great nation voluntarily repudiated its own oppression of part of its own people. The Supreme court decision that day was announced in an atmosphere of high drama and some observers said that one of black-robed justices sat on the great bench with tears in his eyes.” Thomas Sowell was describing here, in Civil Rights Rhetoric or Reality, the case of Brown v Board of Education, an action in which a group of black Americans won the legal right to an equal and non-segregated education.
He continued: “In how many places and in how many eras could an ordinary person from a despised race challenge the duly constituted authorities, force them to publicly defend their decisions, retreat and finally capitulate.”
Politicians would try with considerable success to make the judgment meaningless but it set in train the heroic struggle to end the outrageous Jim Crow laws passed by state legislatures to keep in thrall and to humiliate their black citizens.
May 17 is a fiftieth anniversary that’s really worth remembering and thinking about the brave people who used it as a spring board to create a better world.
Friday, May 14, 2004
Equal Opportunities Commission leads the way in fair pay- over 12 times better than national average
Figures released by the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] exclusively to Liberty and Law Journal show the average salaries for men and women at the commission to be £26,076 and £25,532 respectively. This gap of £544 a year or £45 a month is an astonishing twelve times better than the national average of £599 a month revealed by the EOC in its tough talking ‘It’s time to get even’ campaign launched in January.
Nationally, the EOC reveals, women working full time earn almost £6,708 a year less than men, £20,592 and £27,300 respectively. The EOC’s success demonstrates what can be achieved by the determined efforts of a motivated Human Resources team.
What accounts for the EOC’s success within its own organisation and how can other much less successful employers learn from it? The EOC has not yet explained how it has reached its present pre-eminence but clues can be discovered in its annual report.
A breakdown of its staff by grade and gender shows how in general men do not dominate its higher grades either numerically or in proportion to their numbers in the workforce. There is one male in a grade above director and five females. There are four men out of 22 director/principal legal officer grade and four out of 17 senior executive officer and equivalent. Only at the level of Personal Assistant are men not represented more or less proportionately to their numbers. There are none out of a pool of 12.
This success is good news to the EOC whose critics have argued for 20 years that it is an ‘institutionally sexist’ body having contrived over this period to ‘marginalize’ men, effectively keeping their ‘quota’ to less than 20% of its workforce. They will point out that according to its latest annual report men make up an outrageously low 18% of its workforce accounting for its ‘anti male’ bias most notoriously illustrated by its advice and encouragement to the Labour Party before the 1997 election that all women shortlists were legal, subsequently but pointlessly proved unlawful at an industrial tribunal before the law was changed.
The EOC has successfully shrugged off these criticisms and receives the full support of Britain’s major parties, responsible media and NGOs and looks set to be able to sustain its position of being probably Britain’s best equal pay employer until its incorporation in the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in 2006 where its values may be expected to inform the work of the new body.
Further information: Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Director: Gerald Hartup
Figures released by the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] exclusively to Liberty and Law Journal show the average salaries for men and women at the commission to be £26,076 and £25,532 respectively. This gap of £544 a year or £45 a month is an astonishing twelve times better than the national average of £599 a month revealed by the EOC in its tough talking ‘It’s time to get even’ campaign launched in January.
Nationally, the EOC reveals, women working full time earn almost £6,708 a year less than men, £20,592 and £27,300 respectively. The EOC’s success demonstrates what can be achieved by the determined efforts of a motivated Human Resources team.
What accounts for the EOC’s success within its own organisation and how can other much less successful employers learn from it? The EOC has not yet explained how it has reached its present pre-eminence but clues can be discovered in its annual report.
A breakdown of its staff by grade and gender shows how in general men do not dominate its higher grades either numerically or in proportion to their numbers in the workforce. There is one male in a grade above director and five females. There are four men out of 22 director/principal legal officer grade and four out of 17 senior executive officer and equivalent. Only at the level of Personal Assistant are men not represented more or less proportionately to their numbers. There are none out of a pool of 12.
This success is good news to the EOC whose critics have argued for 20 years that it is an ‘institutionally sexist’ body having contrived over this period to ‘marginalize’ men, effectively keeping their ‘quota’ to less than 20% of its workforce. They will point out that according to its latest annual report men make up an outrageously low 18% of its workforce accounting for its ‘anti male’ bias most notoriously illustrated by its advice and encouragement to the Labour Party before the 1997 election that all women shortlists were legal, subsequently but pointlessly proved unlawful at an industrial tribunal before the law was changed.
The EOC has successfully shrugged off these criticisms and receives the full support of Britain’s major parties, responsible media and NGOs and looks set to be able to sustain its position of being probably Britain’s best equal pay employer until its incorporation in the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in 2006 where its values may be expected to inform the work of the new body.
Further information: Gerald Hartup Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Director: Gerald Hartup
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Appointments of Commission for Racial Equality commissioners will not be racially based says Home Office
The Guardian [Police ‘should favour black recruits’, 17 March 2004]] reports Commission for Racial Equality chair Trevor Phillips declaring that ‘in the interests of fairness’ he was planning to increase the number of white CRE commissioners from 2 out of 15 to 5 later in March. He told The Guardian: "If I can put it crudely - we are not just the commission advocating for black and brown people.”
The Home Office confirmed that such appointments are not made by him but are carried out under Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) guidelines. Posts for Commissioners are advertised widely in both the national and ethnic minority press and all are filled through a fair, open and transparent process and in accordance with the Nolan rules. Independent assessors are fully involved in both the sifting of application forms and the interview panel to ensure impartiality. An applicant’s ethnic background does not form any part of the assessment process
The CRE chair, the Home Office explained , is not involved in either the sifting process or the interview panel.
An announcement of the latest batch of commissioners is expected soon. There is a requirement for a minimum of eight and a maximum of 15 commissioners at all times.
The Guardian [Police ‘should favour black recruits’, 17 March 2004]] reports Commission for Racial Equality chair Trevor Phillips declaring that ‘in the interests of fairness’ he was planning to increase the number of white CRE commissioners from 2 out of 15 to 5 later in March. He told The Guardian: "If I can put it crudely - we are not just the commission advocating for black and brown people.”
The Home Office confirmed that such appointments are not made by him but are carried out under Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) guidelines. Posts for Commissioners are advertised widely in both the national and ethnic minority press and all are filled through a fair, open and transparent process and in accordance with the Nolan rules. Independent assessors are fully involved in both the sifting of application forms and the interview panel to ensure impartiality. An applicant’s ethnic background does not form any part of the assessment process
The CRE chair, the Home Office explained , is not involved in either the sifting process or the interview panel.
An announcement of the latest batch of commissioners is expected soon. There is a requirement for a minimum of eight and a maximum of 15 commissioners at all times.
Friday, May 07, 2004
Race watchdog strategy discriminates against New Travellers and occupational Travellers
The Commission for Racial Equality’s new strategy for Gypsies and Travellers announced last month leaves out in the cold all Travellers who are not Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers, Scottish Travellers or others defined by their ethnic or national origins. All the strategy can offer the several thousand Travellers excluded from their protection is the assurance 'that our work does not, intentionally or otherwise, harm Traveller groups that are not formally defined as racial groups'.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “The CRE now seems to have adopted the 'trickle down' theory of race relations . Its press release headline claims that ‘Discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers is the last 'respectable' form of racism.’ whereas it is their own failure to champion the wrong sort of Travellers that appears to fit that description. It would be interesting to see how the CRE would respond to a deputation of New Age children. Would they really tell them that their strategy could not include them? Perhaps they will advise these 'untouchables' to organise along racial lines so that they could then protect them.”
The CRE justifies their strategy because their remit under the Race Relations Act only extends to racial groups and that New Travellers and occupational Travellers are 'social groups'. The CRE nevertheless claim that these people will be helped by their work on behalf of the racial groups actually qualifying for their help.
The Commission for Racial Equality’s new strategy for Gypsies and Travellers announced last month leaves out in the cold all Travellers who are not Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers, Scottish Travellers or others defined by their ethnic or national origins. All the strategy can offer the several thousand Travellers excluded from their protection is the assurance 'that our work does not, intentionally or otherwise, harm Traveller groups that are not formally defined as racial groups'.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “The CRE now seems to have adopted the 'trickle down' theory of race relations . Its press release headline claims that ‘Discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers is the last 'respectable' form of racism.’ whereas it is their own failure to champion the wrong sort of Travellers that appears to fit that description. It would be interesting to see how the CRE would respond to a deputation of New Age children. Would they really tell them that their strategy could not include them? Perhaps they will advise these 'untouchables' to organise along racial lines so that they could then protect them.”
The CRE justifies their strategy because their remit under the Race Relations Act only extends to racial groups and that New Travellers and occupational Travellers are 'social groups'. The CRE nevertheless claim that these people will be helped by their work on behalf of the racial groups actually qualifying for their help.
European Patent Office translator ad challenged
An advertisement for a translator by the European Patent Office in The Guardian of 5 April stating as part of the person specification “English is your mother tongue…” is being challenged by Liberty and Law who have forwarded it to the Commission for Racial Equality seeking action by them.
The advertisement discriminates against native Britons whose mother tongue may not be English because of their parents’ national origins but who speak it absolutely fluently.
L&L director Gerald Hartup said: “It is notorious that some of our best translators in the UK do not have English as their native language although they speak it much better than the rest of us.”
The Commission for Racial Equality’s guidelines state as an example of how language skills should be dealt with: An advertisement invites applicants who speak English as their mother tongue. This requirement, too, discriminates indirectly against people who speak English fluently, but not as their mother tongue. This kind of requirement will rarely be justifiable. If an especially high standard of English is needed for a particular job, it would be better to ask for just that: ‘a very high standard of written and spoken English’, or, alternatively, ‘fluent English’.
An advertisement for a translator by the European Patent Office in The Guardian of 5 April stating as part of the person specification “English is your mother tongue…” is being challenged by Liberty and Law who have forwarded it to the Commission for Racial Equality seeking action by them.
The advertisement discriminates against native Britons whose mother tongue may not be English because of their parents’ national origins but who speak it absolutely fluently.
L&L director Gerald Hartup said: “It is notorious that some of our best translators in the UK do not have English as their native language although they speak it much better than the rest of us.”
The Commission for Racial Equality’s guidelines state as an example of how language skills should be dealt with: An advertisement invites applicants who speak English as their mother tongue. This requirement, too, discriminates indirectly against people who speak English fluently, but not as their mother tongue. This kind of requirement will rarely be justifiable. If an especially high standard of English is needed for a particular job, it would be better to ask for just that: ‘a very high standard of written and spoken English’, or, alternatively, ‘fluent English’.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Press Release
6 May 2004
CRE Emperor has no clothes
The Commission for Racial Equality’s [CRE] new extended 99 page draft Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Employment lays them open to tribunal action for not complying with one of the key principles contained within it – the setting of racial targets, claims civil liberties group Liberty and Law. [L&L]
An analysis of CRE annual reports by L&L shows that it has always had a racially skewed staff profile in which white employees have been substantially underrepresented that must be explained by chronic ‘institutional racism’.
The CRE’s latest annual report shows that white staff make up 43% of its workforce, [up from 39% in 1986 and 36% in 2000] a figure that its human resources staff and lawyers do not attempt to defend as racially representative of its travel to work catchment area. The recently increased white representation is not the result of planned targeting but of an increase in the proportion of white groups applying to the Commission for work over the last three years. The CRE continues to fail to set targets or to publicly define its desired racial staffing profile. Its indifference to equal opportunities recruitment was illustrated in its 2001 annual report. The table recording the race and sex of its staff showed, without explanation or apology, that it did not know the race or sex of 18% [39 out of 213] of its own staff. These individuals were recorded in the category ‘not known’. Its own Race Equality Scheme 2002-2005 was developed using this inadequate record.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “ “Do as we say not as we do,” has been the motto of the CRE since its inception. Their attitude is that targets are for little people. Since the Home Office and parliament have let them get away with this for so long without criticism or penalty they appear to be right. Ten years ago I persuaded their former chairman Herman [now Lord] Ouseley to publish targets for their workforce and for one year, 1993, they did so. They were, however, dropped the next year without comment and no report was ever made on their effectiveness or on the difficulty of achieving them. Since then they have made no return.
As a result the CRE is vulnerable to challenge for its failure to adopt the targets it claims are vital for other public bodies whose actions it oversees and sometimes criticises.”
Mr Hartup, however, praised the technical quality of the draft code. He said: “Criticism of the draft Code for its alleged jargon and length is unfair. CRE staff have done a professional job. The document is an easy to read horror story written with clarity and style revealing the costly bureaucratic and totalitarian nightmare that our race relations legislation has produced. The document can and must be used as the basis for root and branch reform of the whole rotten system.”
Ends
Notes for editors
The CRE 1992 Annual Report stated: “The Commission is working towards a target of 50% representation of women at each level, and 50% representation of ethnic minorities. These targets have been broadly met at most grades. It had not been possible to achieve 50% representation of women or ethnic minority staff at principal Officer and Senior Executive officer levels by 31 December 1992.”
Note that the target is not for white representation but for ethnic minority representation. Indeed these targets had been broadly met. In 1993 white representation was just 32.2%. The CRE was clearly indifferent to white under representation.
Further information: Gerald Hartup tel: 020 7928 7325 tel/fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
6 May 2004
CRE Emperor has no clothes
The Commission for Racial Equality’s [CRE] new extended 99 page draft Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Employment lays them open to tribunal action for not complying with one of the key principles contained within it – the setting of racial targets, claims civil liberties group Liberty and Law. [L&L]
An analysis of CRE annual reports by L&L shows that it has always had a racially skewed staff profile in which white employees have been substantially underrepresented that must be explained by chronic ‘institutional racism’.
The CRE’s latest annual report shows that white staff make up 43% of its workforce, [up from 39% in 1986 and 36% in 2000] a figure that its human resources staff and lawyers do not attempt to defend as racially representative of its travel to work catchment area. The recently increased white representation is not the result of planned targeting but of an increase in the proportion of white groups applying to the Commission for work over the last three years. The CRE continues to fail to set targets or to publicly define its desired racial staffing profile. Its indifference to equal opportunities recruitment was illustrated in its 2001 annual report. The table recording the race and sex of its staff showed, without explanation or apology, that it did not know the race or sex of 18% [39 out of 213] of its own staff. These individuals were recorded in the category ‘not known’. Its own Race Equality Scheme 2002-2005 was developed using this inadequate record.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “ “Do as we say not as we do,” has been the motto of the CRE since its inception. Their attitude is that targets are for little people. Since the Home Office and parliament have let them get away with this for so long without criticism or penalty they appear to be right. Ten years ago I persuaded their former chairman Herman [now Lord] Ouseley to publish targets for their workforce and for one year, 1993, they did so. They were, however, dropped the next year without comment and no report was ever made on their effectiveness or on the difficulty of achieving them. Since then they have made no return.
As a result the CRE is vulnerable to challenge for its failure to adopt the targets it claims are vital for other public bodies whose actions it oversees and sometimes criticises.”
Mr Hartup, however, praised the technical quality of the draft code. He said: “Criticism of the draft Code for its alleged jargon and length is unfair. CRE staff have done a professional job. The document is an easy to read horror story written with clarity and style revealing the costly bureaucratic and totalitarian nightmare that our race relations legislation has produced. The document can and must be used as the basis for root and branch reform of the whole rotten system.”
Ends
Notes for editors
The CRE 1992 Annual Report stated: “The Commission is working towards a target of 50% representation of women at each level, and 50% representation of ethnic minorities. These targets have been broadly met at most grades. It had not been possible to achieve 50% representation of women or ethnic minority staff at principal Officer and Senior Executive officer levels by 31 December 1992.”
Note that the target is not for white representation but for ethnic minority representation. Indeed these targets had been broadly met. In 1993 white representation was just 32.2%. The CRE was clearly indifferent to white under representation.
Further information: Gerald Hartup tel: 020 7928 7325 tel/fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)