|
 |
Wednesday 26 February 2007
How many Al Gore’s could the earth sustain?
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
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
// posted by gerald @ 1:18 AM
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
// posted by gerald @ 1:42 PM
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”
// posted by gerald @ 7:22 PM
Press release
5 September 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 [MPBA] 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 MPBA 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 Desai 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”
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup
Friday 13 August 2004
Press Release
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.
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 Commission for Racial Equality 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 4 August 2004
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
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
Tuesday 13 July 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
Tuesday 13 July 2004
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.
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
Thursday, July 08, 2004
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
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
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.
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
http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Robocops come to Lisbon for Euro 2004
The Sun on 24 May published two pictures that made my 59 year old blood run cold. What looked like a Hollywood publicity still showed Portuguese police in full body armour with grenade launchers and flash-ball guns that fire rubber bullets preparing for a football competition. An adjacent picture showed cavalry officers for all the world like medieval samurai warriors. The message delivered by an officer was: “Do not try to fight us, just run.”
Is this the brave new Europe utilizing the fictional Detroit model of social control?
EU ends UK summer railway timetables
I’m one of those people who have never really been able to understand railway timetables. By the time I have worked out where the route is in the booklet and laboriously worked out when to travel I realise that I’m looking at the weekend timetable or vice versa, whatever gives me the wrong times.
Now, thanks to a European Union directive my task becomes even more difficult. Britain’s rail network must drop its twice a year summer and winter timetables that come out in May and November in favour of a single timetable coming out in December to ensure closer alignment of rail services across Europe.
This may be quite useful for Europe but we of course are not in Europe. This is another example of subsidiarity. We do what we are told.
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.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Atlas still shrugging
"We're after power and we mean it. there's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. one declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Now that's the system Mr Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it you'll be much easier to deal with." So said Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein to Hank Rearden the inventor and developer of the fabulous Reardon metal in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas shrugged.
Panned by the critics [and by many of those who love the book] it has remained in continuous print since its publication in 1957 and continues to have an enormous impact upon the political convictions of anti socialists.
When I first read its thousand pages or so I believed that Ms Rand had gone over the top in the description of her imagined America but with every year that passes her passionate message of individual freedom under threat becomes more relevant.
I'm moved to record this because of an article by Paul Craig Roberts entitled Bill Gates meets Hank Rearden.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, May 07, 2004
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’.
Thursday, May 06, 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
|
 |
|
