Reports in both the Independent (Thursday) and The Times yesterday suggest that Rajinder Singh from Wellingborough may be the first "non-white" member of the BNP. In both reports Rajinder, a self described "Sikh", appears to be wearing a turban (but without a beard) - all rather surprising since over the past 25 years that I have known him he has never worn a turban!
In addition, he is described as a "schoolteacher" but, as far as I am aware, he has never taught in a school but was an English as a Second Language tutor at Wellingborough College - teaching adults who had recently arrived in the UK - just the sort of people BNP members love to hate.
But even more important than these deceptions (or misreporting by the press?) is Rajinder Singh's views about Muslims.
About six years ago I had cause to engage Mr. Singh in discussion about Muslims and, following a question to him about the 100 million plus Muslims living in India, he said that he would (whilst spitting venom) "eliminate them all" - and he was being deadly serious! At this point I immediately and firmly, but peacefully, escorted him from the multi-racial/faith Victoria Centre in Wellingborough where the discussion had taken place. He was not pleased!
My understanding is that Mr. Singh's hatred of Muslims comes out of the tragedy that was the partition of India in 1947 - where Muslims killed Sikhs and Hindus and Sikhs and Hindus killed Muslims - a tragedy for India and the world that saw over two million dead when the carnage ceased. Mr. Singh's family were caught up in this madness - with tragic consequences - and since this time he has carried a deep hatred for those who killed his family. But he has gone further - much further - now blaming all Muslims, and the Islamic faith itself, for his personal loss and now turns this into a personal crusade to warn us all of the "Muslim threat".
Such hated clearly goes deep and has affected his whole life. So the tragedy and the madness continue - this time for Mr. Singh as well, but now in the context of the UK and potentially within the fold of a racist and hate-filled political party.
If Rajinder Singh is prepared to advocate the murder and genocide of all Muslims in India, surely he would have little hesitation in recommending such a course of action against the much smaller British Muslim community? His hatred of Muslims in palpable.
Although it seems rather bizarre for Rajinder Singh to become a member of the racist BNP (who no doubt would have originally kept him and his family out of the UK - let alone their Party - or would now deport him and other like him if given half a chance) there is nevertheless a certain logic. He will, after all, be joining with like-minded people in the BNP - who have, or still do, support genocide and deny the holocaust. At one time it was "the Jews" they hated and wanted to eliminate, now it is "the Muslims". Who will be next on the list... I am sure people like Mr. Singh will be there somewhere?
Supping with the devil can be a dangerous game.
*****
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Monday, 19 October 2009
Part 2: Is it discrimination? Are ethnic minority groups “racist”?
My apologies for not producing the second part of my blog speedily. During early September I was abroad and have subsequently had to catch up on a number of personal and professional matters. Time always seems to be running out….
At the end of Part 1 (see August post - below) I summarised the position as follows:
...it is not “discrimination” to fund certain groups to provide certain and specific services that meet certain needs in certain ways (such as BME/Women’s or LGBT groups). Indeed the reverse applies. If services are provided “to all” in the same way this is likely to result in unequal, unfair and inappropriate services. This is particular so if there is a history of unequal and unfair treatment that continues and it is right for this to be addressed in this way.
The legal situation in the UK also backs this up. The law (Race Relations Act; Sex Discrimination Act and subsequent regulations in respect of sexual orientation and religion/belief) defines unlawful “discrimination” in two ways:
direct discrimination (less favourable treatment based on a protected characteristic (e.g. colour or gender …) and
indirect discrimination - “a provision, criterion or practice” that, on the surface, treats everyone the same, but has the effect of treating some groups disproportionately less favourably or unfairly. This definition of discrimination reflects the reality that I have described in Part 1, that “treating people the same” in the provision of services can in certain circumstances result in unfairness and discrimination and, when it does, such treatment may be illegal!
Whilst not a legal concept, the definition of “institutional discrimination (racism)” that came to prominence following the Macpherson Report into the death of Stephen Lawrence, closely mirrors the legal concept of “indirect discrimination”. Institutional discrimination (racism) is defined as:
"The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people (because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin) which can be seen or detected in processes; attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and (racist) stereotyping which disadvantages (minority ethnic people)".
The idea that by not “treating everyone the same” public bodies are acting illegal has gained prominent in recent years, but it is often conveniently forgotten that the more prevalent, “institutional”, pervasive and extensive forms of unfairness, discrimination and disadvantage are caused by treating everyone the same (indirect discrimination/institutional discrimination)!
This perceived conflict between these two definitions of unlawful discrimination has recently been considered by the courts in the case of Southall Black Sisters– v – London Borough of Ealing.
Lord Justice Moses, in his judgement stated:
“Throughout the process (of making decision in respect of funding community groups) it is plain that Ealing (Council) believed that cohesion could only be achieved through making a grant to an organisation which would provide services equally to all within the borough. It is also clear that one of the main reasons for reaching that conclusion is that it was necessary in order to achieve community cohesion. (My emphasis)”
He went on to quote the Race Relations Act 1976 (Section 35) which states:
"Nothing in Parts II to IV will render unlawful any act done in according to a person of a particular racial group access to facilities or services to meet the special needs of persons of that group in regard to their education, training or welfare or any ancillary benefits."
He then makes a profound point which reflects my arguments to date:
"The importance of Section 35 is that it recognises that the elimination of discrimination and the promotion of equality requires indirect discrimination to be eliminated and equality for those who are the victims of indirect discrimination may require their special needs to be met. That those twin objectives may require positive action is acknowledged in Section 37 and Section 38 of the 1976 Act. Section 35 is not an exception to the 1976 Act. It does not derogate from it in any way. It is a manifestation of the important principle of anti‑discrimination and equality measures that not only must like cases be treated alike but that unlike cases but must be treated differently.”
Ramming home the message he continues:
"Ealing (Council) now acknowledges that …There is no dichotomy between the promotion of equality and cohesion and the provision of specialist services to an ethnic minority. Barriers cannot be broken down unless the victims themselves recognise that the source of help is coming from the same community and background as they do.Ealing's mistake was to believe that cohesion and equality precluded the provision of services from such a source. It seemed to believe that such services could only lawfully be provided by a single provider or consortium to victims of domestic violence throughout the borough. It appreciates that it was in error and that in certain circumstances the purposes of Section 71 and the relevant statutory code may only be met by specialist services from a specialist source…." (My emphasis)
Finally he says:
"As I have endeavoured to explain, specialist services for a racial minority from a specialist source is anti‑discriminatory and furthers the objectives of equality and cohesion. I can do no better than to conclude this judgment ‑ before giving the agreed order ‑ by quoting the chairman of the Equalities Review in the final report Fairness and Freedom, published in 2007:
"An equal society protects and promotes equality, real freedom and substantive opportunity to live in the ways people value and would choose so that everyone can flourish. An equal society recognises people's different needs, situations and goals and removes the barriers that limit what people can do and can be."”
So, in the view of Lord Justice Moses, the legal situation is clear:
- Treating people the same (in the way public or other services are delivered to the community) may be illegal.
- In certain circumstances, services can only be provided effectively and equitably by specialist services that meet the needs of certain communities who have been historically discriminated against or are marginalised or excluded
- This is a core principle that underpins an equal and fair society.
*******
Friday, 21 August 2009
Is it discrimination? Are ethnic minority groups “racist”?
This blog is divided into two parts – not least because I will not be able to write it all in one go. I also feel that you, the reader, may benefit from a short break of a few days before moving on to part 2!!
Part 1
Normally I ignore rants from the BNP, but on this occasion this particular rant (see: Northamptonshire County Council Funds Racist Organisation is worthy of challenge – not least because some or all of the arguments presented are often recited by others, albeit in slightly different ways. I have, for example, heard Tory Councillors on Wellingborough Council advance such arguments and also some officers in public organisations are tempted by the superficiality and simplicity of the propositions (Google: "Southall Black Sisters" and "Ealing Council). You will also hear similar refrains from the populist media (such as the Mail, Express and Sun). It is also of concern that the Government’s “community cohesion” agenda has, in part at least, added official credibility to some of these arguments.
Essentially the arguments can be summarised as follows:
In fact the same arguments apply in exactly the same way to BME groups. The difference is that some white people don’t actually believe or recognise that BME groups have rights, or special or particular needs, or believe that public services might best, in certain demonstrable circumstances, be best delivered by such groups to members of their community.
A parallel discourse is based on the notion of “assimilation”. Since 9/11 there has been a significant shift in the discourse away from focusing on questions of eliminating inequality and justice, to one of a shared “citizenship”, shared values and a feeling at least that funding separate groups will undermine “community cohesion” and our shared "citizenship".
But there is no contradiction between being part of a diverse society, which respects and values diversity and shares a common legal citizenship (with the same rights and obligations) and common values (if we can identify what they may be). Diversity, and diverse ways of delivering services to diverse sections of our community, is not in opposition to having a unified sense of our common humanity or shared citizenship. Only those who want to see everyone become like “us” (White British, Anglo-Saxon or whatever) see a problem. The concepts of “Unity and Diversity”, or “One Citizenship; Many Peoples”, seems too complex for many to grasp. Is it that hard?
The (first) assumption, therefore, underlying the above arguments is that BME groups have no place, or a second class place, in British society. They are not allowed to be themselves. They are not allowed to receive services that might be more appropriate to their needs and requirements. “They” should simply be like “us”. If that’s not acceptable to “them” then they have no legitimacy in “our” society.
The second assumption is essentially that there has been no history: we start from here and now (2009) and everything is OK and everyone is now treated fairly and equally. Any history (if it is acknowledge) is “water under the bridge”.
Only the BNP take this much further by suggesting that the "tables have been turned" and now 90% of the population are now being discriminated against by the rest - or at least is being "sold down the river" by a "liberal elite" that is "bending over backwards" to accomodate "all these minorities". History and evidence is conveniently discarded on the back of a fascist political project to hoodwink the British people - the lunatics are trying to take over the asylum!
It is not accepted or acknowledged that there is a continuing, real and living history, stretching back 100s of years, of discrimination, racism, xenophobia against those we now describe as “BME groups”. This discrimination continues today (albeit in more “hidden” ways) and all objective evidence of racial disadvantage and inequality continues to show that such groups are disadvantaged when comparing like with like (e.g. BME working class with the white working class). This applies as much to the provision of goods, facilities’ and services as it does in employment. Where there is a public “good” (e.g. the provision of advice services; housing, the best health care) BME groups will generally be under-represented. When it is a public “bad” BME groups will generally be over-represented (e.g. the worse schools, stop and search, living in the poorest and most deprived neighbourhoods).
Sometimes the only way to ensure that BME communities (or sub-groups within BME communities - such as BME women or BME LGBT members) are receiving their fair share of resources and receiving services that meet their needs is to fund and support BME groups that can deliver them on the ground. This is not discrimination against white people or denying white people anything (mainstream services have overwhelmingly been designed based on the historic assumption(s) of a “white” society, albeit subconsciously), but is one way of trying to ensure that BME communities are not discriminate against by inappropriate services that do not meet their needs, and which have not been designed with them in mind.
It should be noted that inequality/injustice based on social class is also an extremely important phenomena and you don’t have to be a Marxist to see this with your own eyes. However, there is much more widespread acceptance, at one level, that to tackle class-based inequalities we have to at least target resources at working class/poor communities and involve working class people in these initiatives if they are to be successful. The fact that the resources often don’t get there (either to working class/poor or BME communities!), or are badly delivered, or its just all rhetoric anyway, does not undermine that fact that most people recognise that this sort of class-based targeted support is at least desirable.
Even David Cameron is, I believe, now signed up to this on behalf of the Conservative Party (there is something called “society”!), if you believe his rhetoric. So why is it so difficult to see that resources sometimes have to be targeted at BME communities as well - who suffer from other forms of inequality based on racism and xenophobia? Could it be racism perhaps?
The third assumption is that unless services are provided to everyone in the same way (“equally”) then there will inevitably be discrimination. In fact it is the other way round – if you try to deliver services to everyone in the same way you will, most definitely, end up discriminating – not just against BME groups but everyone else who doesn’t “fit” the “box” either – which is likely to be most of us at one time or another.
There is an Aesop’s fable (the Stork and the Fox) which illustrates this:
The moral of the story (from the point of view of looking at discrimination at least – there are other morals as well) is that whilst, on both occasions, food was presented in the same way and there was no denial of food, the means of delivery nevertheless prevented the stork and fox eating each others food - because they were different from each other (in the above fable the effective discrimination was deliberate; in another contexts it could be unintentional, “unwitting” or “thoughtless”).It is also the case that all human beings are differenty in a variety of different ways as well as sharing a commonality in being human.
Unless we recognise and value the diversity of all our communities – with all its shapes, sizes, ages, ethnicities, religions, sexualities, etc., - and are prepared to offer choices to people in the way that services are delivered, we will inevitably provide services that only meet the needs of some and not all despite possibly our best intentions. To feed both the stork and the fox on an equitable and fair basis we have to provide the food in different ways (and possible different food as well). Anything else will discriminate against one or the other whilst superficially treating them “equally”.
To summarise at this point: it is not “discrimination” to fund certain groups to provide certain and specific services that meet certain needs in certain ways (such as BME/Women’s or LGBT groups). Indeed the reverse applies. If services are provided “to all” in the same way this is likely to result in unequal, unfair and inappropriate services. This is particular so if there is a history of unequal and unfair treatment that continues and it is right for this to be addressed in this way.
Part 2 will look at:
What is the legal position in respect of discrimination and providing fair and equitable services. What does the law have to say about having separate ethnic (or gender-based or LGBT) groups.
****
Part 1
Normally I ignore rants from the BNP, but on this occasion this particular rant (see: Northamptonshire County Council Funds Racist Organisation is worthy of challenge – not least because some or all of the arguments presented are often recited by others, albeit in slightly different ways. I have, for example, heard Tory Councillors on Wellingborough Council advance such arguments and also some officers in public organisations are tempted by the superficiality and simplicity of the propositions (Google: "Southall Black Sisters" and "Ealing Council). You will also hear similar refrains from the populist media (such as the Mail, Express and Sun). It is also of concern that the Government’s “community cohesion” agenda has, in part at least, added official credibility to some of these arguments.
Essentially the arguments can be summarised as follows:
- If funding, or grant aid (from public funds), is given to Black and ethnic minority (BME) groups - or Women’s or Lesbian/Gay groups for that matter - then this must amount to discrimination against white people (or men or heterosexuals)
- The only way to ensure there is no discrimination in the provision of public services is to provide “generic”, overarching, services that are “available for all”. There should be no funding to groups that serve “narrow” interest groups
- If funding does continue to go to such narrow self-interested groups this is automatically and de facto bad and creates divisions in society
- If ethnic minority organisations exist and provide services to their ethnic group this mean they are “racist”
- Because of all this funding going to “those” groups, the new “victims “ of discrimination/injustice in today’s society are therefore white, male, heterosexual and (probably) Christian
In fact the same arguments apply in exactly the same way to BME groups. The difference is that some white people don’t actually believe or recognise that BME groups have rights, or special or particular needs, or believe that public services might best, in certain demonstrable circumstances, be best delivered by such groups to members of their community.
A parallel discourse is based on the notion of “assimilation”. Since 9/11 there has been a significant shift in the discourse away from focusing on questions of eliminating inequality and justice, to one of a shared “citizenship”, shared values and a feeling at least that funding separate groups will undermine “community cohesion” and our shared "citizenship".
But there is no contradiction between being part of a diverse society, which respects and values diversity and shares a common legal citizenship (with the same rights and obligations) and common values (if we can identify what they may be). Diversity, and diverse ways of delivering services to diverse sections of our community, is not in opposition to having a unified sense of our common humanity or shared citizenship. Only those who want to see everyone become like “us” (White British, Anglo-Saxon or whatever) see a problem. The concepts of “Unity and Diversity”, or “One Citizenship; Many Peoples”, seems too complex for many to grasp. Is it that hard?
The (first) assumption, therefore, underlying the above arguments is that BME groups have no place, or a second class place, in British society. They are not allowed to be themselves. They are not allowed to receive services that might be more appropriate to their needs and requirements. “They” should simply be like “us”. If that’s not acceptable to “them” then they have no legitimacy in “our” society.
The second assumption is essentially that there has been no history: we start from here and now (2009) and everything is OK and everyone is now treated fairly and equally. Any history (if it is acknowledge) is “water under the bridge”.
Only the BNP take this much further by suggesting that the "tables have been turned" and now 90% of the population are now being discriminated against by the rest - or at least is being "sold down the river" by a "liberal elite" that is "bending over backwards" to accomodate "all these minorities". History and evidence is conveniently discarded on the back of a fascist political project to hoodwink the British people - the lunatics are trying to take over the asylum!
It is not accepted or acknowledged that there is a continuing, real and living history, stretching back 100s of years, of discrimination, racism, xenophobia against those we now describe as “BME groups”. This discrimination continues today (albeit in more “hidden” ways) and all objective evidence of racial disadvantage and inequality continues to show that such groups are disadvantaged when comparing like with like (e.g. BME working class with the white working class). This applies as much to the provision of goods, facilities’ and services as it does in employment. Where there is a public “good” (e.g. the provision of advice services; housing, the best health care) BME groups will generally be under-represented. When it is a public “bad” BME groups will generally be over-represented (e.g. the worse schools, stop and search, living in the poorest and most deprived neighbourhoods).
Sometimes the only way to ensure that BME communities (or sub-groups within BME communities - such as BME women or BME LGBT members) are receiving their fair share of resources and receiving services that meet their needs is to fund and support BME groups that can deliver them on the ground. This is not discrimination against white people or denying white people anything (mainstream services have overwhelmingly been designed based on the historic assumption(s) of a “white” society, albeit subconsciously), but is one way of trying to ensure that BME communities are not discriminate against by inappropriate services that do not meet their needs, and which have not been designed with them in mind.
It should be noted that inequality/injustice based on social class is also an extremely important phenomena and you don’t have to be a Marxist to see this with your own eyes. However, there is much more widespread acceptance, at one level, that to tackle class-based inequalities we have to at least target resources at working class/poor communities and involve working class people in these initiatives if they are to be successful. The fact that the resources often don’t get there (either to working class/poor or BME communities!), or are badly delivered, or its just all rhetoric anyway, does not undermine that fact that most people recognise that this sort of class-based targeted support is at least desirable.
Even David Cameron is, I believe, now signed up to this on behalf of the Conservative Party (there is something called “society”!), if you believe his rhetoric. So why is it so difficult to see that resources sometimes have to be targeted at BME communities as well - who suffer from other forms of inequality based on racism and xenophobia? Could it be racism perhaps?
The third assumption is that unless services are provided to everyone in the same way (“equally”) then there will inevitably be discrimination. In fact it is the other way round – if you try to deliver services to everyone in the same way you will, most definitely, end up discriminating – not just against BME groups but everyone else who doesn’t “fit” the “box” either – which is likely to be most of us at one time or another.
There is an Aesop’s fable (the Stork and the Fox) which illustrates this:
At one time the Fox and the Stork were on visiting terms and seemed very good friends. So the Fox invited the Stork to dinner, and for a joke put nothing before her but some soup in a very shallow dish. This the Fox could easily lap up, but the Stork could only wet the end of her long bill in it, and left the meal as hungry as when she began. "I am sorry," said the Fox, "the soup is not to your liking?”
"Pray do not apologise," said the Stork. "I hope you will return this visit, and come and dine with me soon." So a day was appointed when the Fox should visit the Stork; but when they were seated at table all that was for their dinner was contained in a very long-necked jar with a narrow mouth, in which the Fox could not insert his snout, so all he could manage to do was to lick the outside of the jar. "I will not apologise for the dinner," said the Stork: "One bad turn deserves another."
"Pray do not apologise," said the Stork. "I hope you will return this visit, and come and dine with me soon." So a day was appointed when the Fox should visit the Stork; but when they were seated at table all that was for their dinner was contained in a very long-necked jar with a narrow mouth, in which the Fox could not insert his snout, so all he could manage to do was to lick the outside of the jar. "I will not apologise for the dinner," said the Stork: "One bad turn deserves another."
The moral of the story (from the point of view of looking at discrimination at least – there are other morals as well) is that whilst, on both occasions, food was presented in the same way and there was no denial of food, the means of delivery nevertheless prevented the stork and fox eating each others food - because they were different from each other (in the above fable the effective discrimination was deliberate; in another contexts it could be unintentional, “unwitting” or “thoughtless”).It is also the case that all human beings are differenty in a variety of different ways as well as sharing a commonality in being human.
Unless we recognise and value the diversity of all our communities – with all its shapes, sizes, ages, ethnicities, religions, sexualities, etc., - and are prepared to offer choices to people in the way that services are delivered, we will inevitably provide services that only meet the needs of some and not all despite possibly our best intentions. To feed both the stork and the fox on an equitable and fair basis we have to provide the food in different ways (and possible different food as well). Anything else will discriminate against one or the other whilst superficially treating them “equally”.
To summarise at this point: it is not “discrimination” to fund certain groups to provide certain and specific services that meet certain needs in certain ways (such as BME/Women’s or LGBT groups). Indeed the reverse applies. If services are provided “to all” in the same way this is likely to result in unequal, unfair and inappropriate services. This is particular so if there is a history of unequal and unfair treatment that continues and it is right for this to be addressed in this way.
**** End of Part 1 ****
Part 2 will look at:
What is the legal position in respect of discrimination and providing fair and equitable services. What does the law have to say about having separate ethnic (or gender-based or LGBT) groups.
****
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Here is the news. Or not as the case may be: Part 2
My fellow Independent (Socialist) Councillor in Northampton, Tony Clarke, has posted a second part to his blog "Here is the news. Or not as the case may be".
This second part details yet another example of how the judicial system seems to be treating far-right/fascist terrorists very differently from Muslim terrorist and the media (except for the BBC on this occasion) ignore such stories. See: http://tonyclarkeindependent.blogspot.com/2009/08/here-is-news-or-not-part-two.html
******
This second part details yet another example of how the judicial system seems to be treating far-right/fascist terrorists very differently from Muslim terrorist and the media (except for the BBC on this occasion) ignore such stories. See: http://tonyclarkeindependent.blogspot.com/2009/08/here-is-news-or-not-part-two.html
******
Monday, 10 August 2009
Challenging Prejudice with Fact
The vast majority of people who live in social housing in Britain were born in Britain, according to a research study published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission on 7 July.
The study found that less than two per cent of all social housing residents are people who have moved to Britain in the last five years and that nine out of 10 people who live in social housing were born in Britain. The independent research, which was undertaken for the Commission by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), found that social housing policies are targeting those in most need including the homeless, the elderly and families with children.
It also found no evidence to support the perception that new migrants are getting priority over British-born residents. Nor was there any evidence of abuse of the system, including 'queue jumping' or providing false information. Despite the evidence, the public has a different perception of who gets priority for social housing - often exacerbated by wild and inflammatory campaigning on the issue by the racist British National Party and others.
Focus group discussions held as part of the project exposed widely-held fears that the allocation process puts white British families at a disadvantage and that migrants are 'cheating the system'. This myth is often at the core of discriminatory behaviour and contributes to tension and violence in many areas.
Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Commission, said: 'We have to recognise that people's perceptions are powerful, so it's vital that social housing providers and policy makers work to foster understanding about what is really happening on the ground. Much of the public concern about the impact of migration on social housing has, at its heart, the failure of social housing supply to meet the demands of the population. The poorer the area, the longer the waiting lists, therefore the greater the tension. Government and social housing providers need to work with the communities they serve to address these issues.'
For a full copy of the report go to: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ehrc_report_-_social_housing_allocation_and_immigrant_communities.pdf
********
The study found that less than two per cent of all social housing residents are people who have moved to Britain in the last five years and that nine out of 10 people who live in social housing were born in Britain. The independent research, which was undertaken for the Commission by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), found that social housing policies are targeting those in most need including the homeless, the elderly and families with children.
It also found no evidence to support the perception that new migrants are getting priority over British-born residents. Nor was there any evidence of abuse of the system, including 'queue jumping' or providing false information. Despite the evidence, the public has a different perception of who gets priority for social housing - often exacerbated by wild and inflammatory campaigning on the issue by the racist British National Party and others.
Focus group discussions held as part of the project exposed widely-held fears that the allocation process puts white British families at a disadvantage and that migrants are 'cheating the system'. This myth is often at the core of discriminatory behaviour and contributes to tension and violence in many areas.
Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Commission, said: 'We have to recognise that people's perceptions are powerful, so it's vital that social housing providers and policy makers work to foster understanding about what is really happening on the ground. Much of the public concern about the impact of migration on social housing has, at its heart, the failure of social housing supply to meet the demands of the population. The poorer the area, the longer the waiting lists, therefore the greater the tension. Government and social housing providers need to work with the communities they serve to address these issues.'
For a full copy of the report go to: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ehrc_report_-_social_housing_allocation_and_immigrant_communities.pdf
********
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Here is the News. Or not as the case may be.
My fellow Independent (Socialist) Councillor in Northampton, Tony Clarke, recently posted the following blog. It is well worth repeating. If you wish to see the orginal go to: http://tonyclarkeindependent.blogspot.com/2009/07/here-is-news-or-not-as-case-may-be.html
"Counter terrorism detectives investigating plots in Yorkshire have seized the largest suspected terrorist arsenal in England since the early 1960s. The haul includes over 300 weapons, ranging from rocket launchers to firearms and pipebombs.They have been found in the last six weeks during raids of over 20 properties. Some People have been arrested. Several have been charged and reports suggest more arrests are imminent.The police investigation is linked to arrests in Europe, New Zealand and Australia. The police are examining allegations that many of the guns were manufactured or reactivated, then sold over the Internet.
Detectives have also discovered maps and plans of target buildings in the the homes of those arrested.All of the above took place in a series of raids and arrest in Yorkshire in the last 6 weeks.So why hasn't it hit the media in a big way? Surely the biggest arms cache seized in nearly 50 years, including the discovery of rocket launchers is big HEADLINE news at a time when terrorism is such a national concern and obsession? And the media have not been shy in the past at exposing Britain's "Home Grown Terrorists" and the threat they pose to our country.
But the difference here is a simple albeit inexplicable one. You see all those arrested were far right extremists, the investigation was part of a campaign against Neo Nazis, and amongst the finds less dangerous but more worrying were membership details of the BNP. In addition to the finds reports of attacks on Mosques (the focus of those discovered maps and plans) are on the increase. All this points to a concentration of far right terror activity set in Yorkshire, where the BNP won a seat in the European parliament last month. A Whitehall official said: "We are not picking them up anywhere else in the country like this and it may be related to the strong support for the BNP." And it also suggests that todays conviction of NF member Neil Lewington for the manufacture of improvised bombs and last years conviction of fellow Nazi Martin Gilliiard are just the tip of a very nasty iceburg.
So why the news clamp down? why can do the media publish Lewington's conviction and yet seem keen to hide the evidence of even worst planned atrocities in Yorkshire?
The only national politician seemingly willing to speak out seems to be my old work mate and fellow once expelled Labour Party member Ken Livingstone! Ken is now chair of Unite Against Fascism and he was clear in stating his concerns when he said "It is extraordinary that the entire national media are not galvanised by the discovery of the largest terrorist arms cache in Britain since the 1960s and clear statements by the authorities that there is a rise in violent far right terrorism." This is clearly a threat to every Black, Asian, Muslim and other minority ethnic and religious group in Britain, as shown by the firebombing of Muslim targets which could easily have led to deaths. This shows the reality behind the election of the BNP to the European parliament and the effects of the drip, drip, drip of Islamophobia in the media. "We need an all-out campaign to politically defeat the extreme right, the media to expose the threat of far right terrorism and the police to relentlessly pursue those responsible for every attack."
I agree with him wholeheartedly and perhaps some need to be asking some serious questions as to how our broadcast news is selected and transmitted. It seems not a week goes by without news reports of suspected Muslim Terrorists being led away from their homes for questioning, usually set against a framed backdrop of the local community carrying out tasks that are little more offensive than shopping or playing in the street or simply going about their daily business.
If we are going to win the war against terror, and ensure that the 'Prevent Violent Extremism' agenda is successful then we need to ensure that equal attention and focus is given to the obvious dangers coming from the white supremacists and the far right in our own back yards instead of only focusing on Muslim Communities and fueling further the Islamaphobia that exists almost unhindered in our country."
Cllr. Tony Clarke
******
"Counter terrorism detectives investigating plots in Yorkshire have seized the largest suspected terrorist arsenal in England since the early 1960s. The haul includes over 300 weapons, ranging from rocket launchers to firearms and pipebombs.They have been found in the last six weeks during raids of over 20 properties. Some People have been arrested. Several have been charged and reports suggest more arrests are imminent.The police investigation is linked to arrests in Europe, New Zealand and Australia. The police are examining allegations that many of the guns were manufactured or reactivated, then sold over the Internet.
Detectives have also discovered maps and plans of target buildings in the the homes of those arrested.All of the above took place in a series of raids and arrest in Yorkshire in the last 6 weeks.So why hasn't it hit the media in a big way? Surely the biggest arms cache seized in nearly 50 years, including the discovery of rocket launchers is big HEADLINE news at a time when terrorism is such a national concern and obsession? And the media have not been shy in the past at exposing Britain's "Home Grown Terrorists" and the threat they pose to our country.
But the difference here is a simple albeit inexplicable one. You see all those arrested were far right extremists, the investigation was part of a campaign against Neo Nazis, and amongst the finds less dangerous but more worrying were membership details of the BNP. In addition to the finds reports of attacks on Mosques (the focus of those discovered maps and plans) are on the increase. All this points to a concentration of far right terror activity set in Yorkshire, where the BNP won a seat in the European parliament last month. A Whitehall official said: "We are not picking them up anywhere else in the country like this and it may be related to the strong support for the BNP." And it also suggests that todays conviction of NF member Neil Lewington for the manufacture of improvised bombs and last years conviction of fellow Nazi Martin Gilliiard are just the tip of a very nasty iceburg.
So why the news clamp down? why can do the media publish Lewington's conviction and yet seem keen to hide the evidence of even worst planned atrocities in Yorkshire?
The only national politician seemingly willing to speak out seems to be my old work mate and fellow once expelled Labour Party member Ken Livingstone! Ken is now chair of Unite Against Fascism and he was clear in stating his concerns when he said "It is extraordinary that the entire national media are not galvanised by the discovery of the largest terrorist arms cache in Britain since the 1960s and clear statements by the authorities that there is a rise in violent far right terrorism." This is clearly a threat to every Black, Asian, Muslim and other minority ethnic and religious group in Britain, as shown by the firebombing of Muslim targets which could easily have led to deaths. This shows the reality behind the election of the BNP to the European parliament and the effects of the drip, drip, drip of Islamophobia in the media. "We need an all-out campaign to politically defeat the extreme right, the media to expose the threat of far right terrorism and the police to relentlessly pursue those responsible for every attack."
I agree with him wholeheartedly and perhaps some need to be asking some serious questions as to how our broadcast news is selected and transmitted. It seems not a week goes by without news reports of suspected Muslim Terrorists being led away from their homes for questioning, usually set against a framed backdrop of the local community carrying out tasks that are little more offensive than shopping or playing in the street or simply going about their daily business.
If we are going to win the war against terror, and ensure that the 'Prevent Violent Extremism' agenda is successful then we need to ensure that equal attention and focus is given to the obvious dangers coming from the white supremacists and the far right in our own back yards instead of only focusing on Muslim Communities and fueling further the Islamaphobia that exists almost unhindered in our country."
Cllr. Tony Clarke
******
Thursday, 25 June 2009
How loony do you have to be to get into the BNP?
Just to illustrate how "nutty" (but dangerous nonetheless) the BNP are, their recent candidate in Rushden for election to Northamptonshire County Council (Wim Wauters - good British name that!) has recently stated:
"..... Fascism is already in power and it didn't come in from the 'right-wing' (they haven't figured out they should call it Nationalism), but from the left-wing liberals running personality cults who do the bidding of big money. Obama is a contemporary example... Mussolini is an older one."
Fascism already in power (in the UK, USA, where....?)? Obama a fascist? How loony do you have get to be in the BNP these days? What other weird and wonderful conspiracies lurk in the vivid imagination of neo-fascists these days?
*******
"..... Fascism is already in power and it didn't come in from the 'right-wing' (they haven't figured out they should call it Nationalism), but from the left-wing liberals running personality cults who do the bidding of big money. Obama is a contemporary example... Mussolini is an older one."
Fascism already in power (in the UK, USA, where....?)? Obama a fascist? How loony do you have get to be in the BNP these days? What other weird and wonderful conspiracies lurk in the vivid imagination of neo-fascists these days?
*******
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
