IPPR: fuelling popular racism?

The hardline message of the new report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) on irregular immigration is designed to reassure working-class voters that a Labour government would control immigration.

The IPPR, an influential think-tank with strong links to the Labour Party, starts with the policy position that ‘irregular immigration’ must be reduced, because of its social costs and pressure on local services, and the damage a ’shadow’ economy of exploited irregular migrants does to the fabric of the UK. In the past, the IPPR’s favoured means of reducing irregularity was a large-scale regularisation programme, which protects workers’ rights and brings them out of the ’shadows’. But in its latest report, No easy options: irregular immigration in the UK, it turns away from the regularisation policy and instead, with regret, embraces tougher controls: pre-entry, on entry, and enforcement. What’s more, it believes it is the civic duty of migrant support organisations, particularly publicly funded ones, to assist in returns programmes. Why this change of heart?

Full story

Source: Institute of Race Relations

Creating common sense racism – its election time again

By John Grayson

To what extent are politicians entrenching a common sense racism as they purport to deal with popular fears?

It is election time again and politicians are returning to their core ‘narratives’ and vote winning strategies. The politics of race and prejudice coded as ‘immigration’ dominated media coverage of the 2010 general election. It is certainly unclear whether it was actually a determining issue in the outcome of the election – but politicians and their ’spads’ (special advisers) never let a few facts stand in their way. For instance one interesting recent poll, the MORI Economist April 2011 ‘Issues Index’ (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2765/EconomistIpsos-MORI-Issues-Index-April-2011.aspx), stated that ‘This month fewer (17%) mention race relations/immigration – the lowest percentage to do so since April 2002′ whereas 52% mention the economy, 24% unemployment and 22% foreign affairs.’ One might expect ‘poll driven’ politicians to welcome this drift away from fear and anxiety on immigration. But this is not the way racism now plays out in British politics. It is assumed that there is an embedded rightwing and prejudiced ‘common sense’ discourse around race relations and immigration. John Humphrys on the Radio 4 Today programme on 15 April, interviewing politicians on David Cameron’s Romney speech on immigration put it clearly, ‘A lot of people would say he was just speaking a lot of plain good common sense.’ The Daily Express echoed the theme with a leader the same day on ‘Prime Minister’s Common Sense about Immigration’.[1]

Full story

Source: Institute of Race Relations

Show Racism the Red Card

Show Racism the Red Card, a campaign that uses footballers to educate against racism, has published its April 2011 newsletter.

Subscribe to the newsletter at:
http://www.srtrc.org/home

Multiculturalism in Europe

Gary Younge refines the discussion on multiculturalism in light of recent comments on the issue.

Full article

Accusation of racism in UK visa applications process

A survey of overseas travel companies has rated the UK top in terms of lost income due to abandoned visa applications. The European Tour Operators Association claims the UK system is ‘arrogant and slightly racist’.

Read more

Source: Travel Weekly

Cameron’s Munich speech marks securitisation of race policy

By Liz Fekete (IRR)

Cameron’s speech signals a fundamental departure in British race relations.

Why did British prime minister Cameron choose to attack ‘the doctrine of state multiculturalism’ and indicate the parameters of the government’s new counter-terrorism policy at an international security conference in Munich?

The Munich International Security Conference was founded in 1962 and focuses on transatlantic relations and global security, attracting an audience of leading US and European politicians, military, security experts, scientists. media etc. In delivering his speech, Cameron clearly had in his sights a domestic audience, wooing the Sun and the Daily Mail, both of which, in calling for the disciplining of Muslim communities, have promoted a crude British nationalism based on uncritical support for the armed services and military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Only the day before. the Daily Mail had carried a feature attacking two Birmingham Muslim councillors, Salma Yaqoob and Mohammed Ishtiaq, for refusing to participate in a standing ovation for a British soldier awarded the George Cross for bravery in Afghanistan.) But Cameron’s speech was also intended to send a clear signal to the United States and the European center-Right that Britain would no longer pursue different ethnic minority and race policies from its European counterparts. In particular, Cameron was showing his support for Angela Merkel and her German Christian Democrat party’s idea that security and cohesion are brought about not through integration and pluralism, but through monoculturalism and assimilation into the dominant Leitkultur (lead culture).

Cameron’s speech was reported as a trailer for the up-and-coming government counter-terrorism review and Lord Carlile’s review of the Prevent strategy. And it is here that Cameron indicated to a German security audience support for the German intelligence services’ approach to the compartmentalisng of Muslim organisations into ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’, with greater surveillance of those deemed ‘illegitimate’. In his speech, Cameron promised that the British government would no longer fund or share platforms with Muslim organisations that, while non-violent, were also a part of the problem because they belonged to a ’spectrum’ of Islamism. While those who openly support terrorism are at the ‘furthest end’ of this spectrum, it also includes many Muslims who accept ‘various parts of the extremist world view’ including ‘real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values’.

In this, what should be feared is that Cameron is indicating that the government’s review of counter-terrorism policy has been greatly influenced by the approach taken by the German intelligence services (Verfassungsschutz) which has at its base a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate Muslim organisations coupled with the most widespread system of religious profiling in Europe. Verfassungsschutz manuals also outline a ’spectrum’ of radicalisation’ and include a classification scheme for Muslims which regard the highly religious as just a notch or two below the potentially violent on a continuation of radicalisation. (In fact, the pyramid structure that the German intelligence services use to express this spectrum of radicalisation has already been adapted by the British intelligence services.) The upshot of the German approach is that a number of representative Muslim organisations, while not proscribed as terrorist organisations, are deemed unconstitutional and a threat to German values. As such, they are kept out of official government dialogue mechanisms and do not receive any public funding. Not only are they placed under state surveillance, even though the government acknowledges that they do not promote violence, but members of so-called unconstitutional organisations may also be subjected to reduced employment opportunities in certain professions, and excluded from citizenship via naturalisation. It is an approach that, in 2007, came under severe criticism from the International Crisis Group which defined it as comprising a ’slippery slope’ view of Islamic extremism, which by lumping together many non-violent organisations with ‘a few potentially violent group’s created a blunt instrument for countering terrorism that leads to stigmatisation (Read an IRR News story: ‘Germany: intelligence services target Muslims’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2007/april/ha000010.html)).

Another point of note is that Cameron in attacking ‘the doctrine of state multiculturalism’ was sending a signal that government policy in future will not be built on pluralism or integration but monoculturalism, assimilation, exclusion (and surveillance) of those Muslim organisations which refuse to play ball. With the ditching of multiculturalism, also goes the ditching of ‘race relations’ based on the Roy Jenkins model of ‘equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance’. And if we are really to go down the German route of monoculturalism, ‘race relations’ policy will also transform beyond recognition, as monoculturalism presupposes the subsumption of the minority under the majority. From now on, ‘ethnic minority’ policy will not only be securitised but will act as an adjunct to anti-terrorist laws.

—-
FOOTNOTE

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

The final straw

Article originally published 12 January 2011 (Institute of Race Relations)

By Jenny Bourne

Why is the former home secretary embroiling himself in a racialised crime issue?

Jack Straw is at it again – saying the unsayable. He seems to think his working-class roots and pragmatic reputation gives him the right to say the racially unsayable or, rather, to racialise the sayable. Straw has joined the fray about gangs of men of Pakistani origin preying on vulnerable white girls for sexual gratification/retribution. It is an explosive allegation incorporating a whole phalanx of issues on which the public is known to be sensitive. But Straw it was who in 2006 suggested that women constituents should remove their face veils in his presence at surgeries.

The issue of ‘Pakistani’ men grooming young, sometimes underage, white girls for sex has been simmering – but mainly on a back burner – for some years. In 2004, a Channel 4 investigative piece ‘Edge of the City’ about Bradford social service’s attempts to deal with the problem was initially withdrawn (and later shown during the summer) after the BNP claimed the contents provided it with a party political broadcast. In fact the BNP went on to produce its own videos about Asian ‘grooming’ and, if you look at its website, it has repeatedly returned to this theme over the years. But it was the Times which thrust the theme into the headlines in the first week of 2011 as it quoted ‘evidence’ based on just fifty-six cases studied by the Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science at University College London. This was followed by alarmist stories in both the Daily Mail and Daily Express. Libby Brooks in the Guardian[1] pointed out how the Times had created a category of ‘on-street grooming’ which neither existed in law nor was recognised by any social agencies she spoke to. It looks as though the researchers are now, in the wake of the racist reception of their research – with the BNP crowing, ‘we told you so’ – trying to disown the way their findings have been used.[2]

Apart from what is being said, there is also the matter of how and where things are said. Straw did not on this occasion go to his local mosque or Muslim associations in Blackburn with some evidence of local cases that needed to be discussed – or at least there is no evidence that he did. Instead, he made a public pronouncement on BBC’s Newsnight on 8 January about a national ethnic trend for which he gave absolutely no evidence. This followed the sentencing of two Pakistani men for a series of crimes involving the rape and sexual abuse of numerous girls which took place in Derby – hundreds of miles from his constituency in Blackburn.

Straw has legal training and served as Home Secretary for four years, so can hardly be unaware of what constitutes a crime and also how statistics actually stack up. Moreover he is a hardened speaker and well used to dealing with inquisitors such as those on Newsnight. He is unlikely therefore to have been provoked by the heat of the moment into sloppy thinking and intemperate language. But, after starting with the sensible observation that ‘Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders’ wings are full of white offenders,’ he went on, ‘But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls.’ And worse, he then held the whole of the Pakistani community responsible for ‘their’ reprobates. ‘We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way.’ He then managed to visit the problem onto Pakistani culture: ‘These young men act like any other young men. They’re fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits.’ And finally ended his contribution by echoing misogynistic ghetto language to somehow emphasise his point. ‘So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care, who they think are easy meat.’

There was, as Keith Vaz chair of the home affairs select committee was quick to point out, absolutely no justification for racialising what is a crime and not a community-based cultural trait. He termed Straw’s remarks as ‘pretty dangerous’. No doubt he was aware that a moral panic around an ethnic group could be in the creation. For just as ‘mugging’ was created as a supposed Black crime of robbing white people on the street in the 1970s, a backlash was being provoked against people of Pakistani descent who were now prone to another supposed crime of ‘on-street grooming’ of young ‘indigenous’ girls.

But we can probably guess why Straw did it. He seems to believe that Labour has to move on to the ground and take up the issues that the extremist EDL or BNP might take up. By showing that Labour can also hear working-class dissent, he expects that the Right’s racial agenda will be undermined. But evidence over the past fifteen years reveals the contrary. When mainstream politicians take to the racialised ground, they do not cut the aforesaid ground from under the racists’ feet. Rather they serve to normalise racist arguments. In other words, in this case Straw will be assuring those white working-class people who are already anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, ‘anti-P**i’ that there is something in their fears – making extremist arguments mainstream and lending them respectability.

As Vaz implied sexual predators and allied crimes exist in many avatars and cannot be attributed to one ethnic group. Sexual trafficking, grooming, exploitation etc unfortunately are prevalent crimes in the UK and often involve a group of men ie a gang. The women who are their prey will inevitably be some of society’s most vulnerable and rightless. If they had a family, a community, a support system to go to, they would not be victims of such criminals. And where gangs are not involved, the majority of sex crimes actually take place within the family – and that includes Pakistani ones.

—-
FOOTNOTE

[1] Libby Brooks, ‘Our ignoble tradition of racialising crime is revived’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-crime-tradition), Guardian 7 January 2011. [2] ‘Child sex trafficking study sparks exaggerated racial stereotypes’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping), Guardian 6 January 2011. One of the researchers made it clear on Newsnight that evidence from a small study of two areas had been generalised to a national trend.

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Racial violence laid bare

By IRR News Team

Ongoing research by the Institute of Race Relations exposes the reach of racial violence that continues to spread across the county.

Following the publication of a briefing paper, Racial Violence: The buried issue (http://www.irr.org.uk/pdf2/IRR_Briefing_No.6.pdf) in June 2010, the IRR has continued to monitor racist violence in its various guises across the country; the list reproduced below is a collection of some of the most serious cases of abuse and physical violence that took place between the months of January and June 2010, that we have found so far this year.

Random street attacks by gangs of youths, attacks on workers in isolated jobs, such as taxi drivers, takeaway and restaurant owners, and railway staff, alcohol-fuelled racist abuse, arson attacks and cases of graffiti and vandalism all figure on the list below and have been chosen to exemplify how contemporary racial violence affects Britain’s minorities. Attacks on Muslims and vandalism in and around mosques also feature highly on our list.

The 2010 cases that have been analysed reflect the patterns of violence that emerged from our research for 2009. Where once such violence predominately affected people in deprived areas of London like Southall, Newham and Tower Hamlets, now victims of verbal and physical abuse are living in areas that have been traditionally white, and where migration has occurred on a relatively small scale.

• 1 January 2010: A 29-year-old Turkish man was assaulted on a street in Danbury, Essex, around midnight on New Year’s Day in what police called a ‘nasty’ racially aggravated attack. During the assault he was punched, kicked, and was left with a dislocated shoulder and cuts and swelling to his face. (Clacton Daily Gazette, 10 January 2010)

• 10 January 2010: 56-year-old Chinese takeaway owner Sui Chung was hospitalised for two nights after he was set upon by a group of around six youths in Clifton, Nottingham. After being racially abused, Mr Chung came out to challenge the youths but was attacked and suffered a broken arm and wrist, bruising to his face and a swollen eye. This is apparently not the first attack – Mr Chung says that in the fourteen years since he opened his takeaway he has had near constant abuse from gangs of up to thirty youths. (The Monitoring Group, 21 January 2010)

Read more

Suspicious package left at Refugee Council

Police are investigating whether a suspicious package put in a post box of the Refugee Council in Birmingham was a racially-motivated “malicious hoax”.

A package found in the Lionel Street office was not harmful, West Midlands Police said, and a cordoned off area was later reopened.

It said it was keeping an open mind in terms of motive, “but cannot rule out that it was racially motivated”.

Read more

Brown leaves Leicester following BNP row

Preston North End have signed Wayne Brown following the defender’s departure from Leicester City by mutual consent.

Brown was left out of Leicester’s squad for their play-off semi-final matches against Cardiff after he angered teammates, including PFA chairman Chris Powell, by revealing he had voted BNP in the recent general election.

At the time, PFA Deputy Chief Executive Bobby Barnes expressed his disappointment at Brown’s decision.

The PFA has worked for many years with a number of anti-racism bodies to try and eradicate racism from the sport, at all levels, and Barnes felt Brown’s actions had ‘set the movement back’.

“Football has worked hard over the years to really be a beacon in the fight against racism and it is very discouraging to hear these comments when you think of the tireless work so many people, and so many organisations, have put in to get to where we are today.

“In my day as a player you had to contend with racist comments coming from the terraces, so for this to come from within a dressing room is very, very disappointing and our members are angry that Wayne Brown was not prepared to abide by our mission statement.”

Next Page »