Article by Lee Jasper:
The events of the last two weeks in France stand out as a powerful
statement that only by recognising the reality of racism can inclusive
societies be
fully developed.
I am reminded of the Langston Hughes poem, ‘Justice’,
in which he observed:
That Justice is a blind goddess Is a thing to which we blacks are wise: Her
bandage hides two festering sores That once perhaps were eyes.
The Francophone notion that everyone in France is either a French citizen
or a foreigner, that only French nationals have citizenship rights represents
free range for discrimination, inequality and, crucially, is one of the most
damming the legacies of colonialism, racism. A purely cosmetic declaration
of equality under the guise of secularism by the French state is contradicted
by a number of recent events – the six million votes cast in the 2002
Presidential poll for France’s leading fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen which
put the far right at the heart of French mainstream politics; followed in
short measure by a successful broadside attack on the right to cultural and
religious expression with the banning the hijab in schools, the removal of
books on Islamic culture from some local libraries and the withdrawal of
funding for local arts festivals celebrating French diversity to name but
a few.
But it also runs counter to a social and economic geography that condemns
entire communities of Arab, Muslim, African and other Black communities to
poverty and hopelessness, where racial attacks go unmonitored and often unreported.
The communities which, in 2002, demonstrated and organised to defeat Le Pen’s
most ambitious bid so far are the ones who now feel themselves most ignored
and let down. In fact these communities are not recognised even in statistical
terms, as ethnic monitoring is illegal in France.
In recent days, there has been much commentary and analysis in this country,
of the France’s approach to multiculturalism (or lack of it) and the
problems it now faces. Some commentators – myself included – have
upheld the pathways trodden in recent years in Britain as a possible model
for France. In reality, only by recognising and respecting cultural difference
and simultaneously implementing strong anti racist policies providing equality
of opportunity can you begin to develop social cohesion. Real equality requires
an acknowledgement of the impact of past inequality and, in the present,
the adoption of proactive policies to root out racism and the social, political,
economic and cultural exclusion to which it is linked.
The fundamental starting point for the Mayor’s Office has been the
recognition that institutional racism exists and therefore we have embedded
race equality into our mainstream agenda from the development of our Mayoral
strategies, right through to our cultural events and economic regeneration
programmes. We have done this by championing equalities in London, tackling
deprivation and addressing economic disadvantage.
The London Plan, the Mayor’s strategic planning guidance for the capital,
embodies a strategy for accommodating population growth and jobs in a sustainable
way, based on an improved and expanded public transport network. It sets
out policies to address poverty, which disproportionately affects black and
minority ethnic communities with provision of social infrastructure, the
public realm and affordable housing.
In relation to economic development and regeneration, London is one of the
world's wealthiest and most vibrant economies, but includes some of the country's
poorest communities - 43 per cent of London's children live in households
below the poverty line. The Mayor’s economic development strategy seeks
to rapidly secure the large-scale infrastructure investment in transport,
housing and services which can sustain the growth, realise the gains of its
global role, but redress the shortages, spiralling prices, threats to the
environment and social inequality which this growth has produced or exacerbated.
We have undertaken extensive research into equality and diversity encompassing
London’s changing demography and the impact of social and economic
development. Diversity Works for London is a three year £10 million
Mayoral campaign to promote the business case for workforce and supplier
diversity.
We are developing the GLA as an exemplary equalities organisation and have
taken steps to ensure that the profile of the workforce reflects London’s
diversity.
Not only have we have set, met and exceeded the challenging recruitment and
retention targets for ethnic minority communities – 26 per cent of
the Authority’s staff come from the ethnic minority community – we
have also developed a budget and equalities process in order to ensure that
promoting and delivering equality is an integral part of the resource allocation
decision-making process right across the GLA Group. This strategy has enabled
us to improve the BME staffing profile of the MPS from 4% in 2001 to 7.7%
BME staff across the workforce by the end of this financial year. During
this year alone, 16% of all new recruits were from BME communities.
The Mayor’s Culture Strategy supports a programme of events in Trafalgar
Square and across London to celebrate the capital’s diversity including
Notting Hill Carnival, the largest street event in Europe.
There is no doubt that our approach has generated significant gains, something
that France desperately needs to find – beginning with dialogue with
those who are on the sharp end of social exclusion and racism – to
attack economic inequality and include its Black, Arab, African and Muslim
population in the heart of French society.
But there is a danger. The positive, socially inclusive legislation and policies
pursued in Britain and in London in particular are not the full story. On
matters of critical importance Government is intent on the introduction of
new legislation that will fragment and exclude rather than include and cohere.
Alarmism and exaggeration will do no one any favours, but let us realise
that we are at a moment of important choice.
As a society we can pursue the route reflected in much of the Anti-Terrorism
Bill, which equates to blaming and targeting whole groups of people. These
are the very communities whose mass organisations have been consistent in
their condemnation of the events of July. The involvement of the Muslim community
in the anti-terrorist strategies is essential and entirely possible. Yet
we are carving out a policy that will alienate the Muslim communities. Undoubtedly
Islamophobia will rise. Another example: we have a proposed Mental Health
bill which black communities look at with deep apprehension of fear of disproportionate
use of sectioning and detention powers.
These fears extend to high use of medication and of being medicated against
their will, once they are detained under Mental Health legislation; of being
subject to locked psychiatric wards; and of facing death through inappropriate
forms of control and restraint – as has happened with too many of our
young black men – some examples are Rocky Bennett; Roger Sylvester
and many others.
At the moment, black communities are engaged in what many regard as a life
and death struggle to keep black people with mental health problems from
being unduly discriminated against and disadvantaged by carelessly drawn
legislation that threatens to decimate our communities. We are campaigning
through the National Black Mental Health Network and the African & Caribbean
Mental Health Commission, which I chair – to ensure that these inequalities
do not go unchallenged.
Then there is immigration and asylum. Immigration is London’s lifeblood
- whether voluntary movement to find work, or the forced arrival of refugees.
People born outside the UK now make 29% of all the city’s residents
and 35% of its working-age population – its labour force. Without our
migrant Londoners the city’s economy would collapse. And of course
they, with their children and grandchildren, make up Black, Asian and minority
ethnic London. The importance of that diversity is reflected in our latest
Annual London Survey, where 82% of all Londoners said ‘enjoying its
cultural diversity’ is one of the things they value about the city.
The gateway through which people come to develop these communities is the
UK immigration and asylum regime. That gateway is increasingly surrounded
by barbed wire. The current Immigration Asylum & Nationality Bill is
the fourth major piece of legislation in this area since 1997, each adding
more controls and deterrence measures with far-reaching implications for
existing communities in London.
The new Bill for example drastically curtails rights of appeal against immigration
decisions for many categories of migrants, including people already here
who are refused extension of their permission to stay – in effect criminalising
them if they do not leave at once.
Now the Government is seeking to insert new amendments driven by its short
sighted view that the answer to terrorism is to ‘crack down’.
These give the Home Secretary power to strip dual nationals (of whom we probably
have several hundred thousand in London alone) of their UK citizenship if
he deems it necessary ‘for the public good’. And to re-interpret
the 1951 Refugee Convention so he can deny asylum to anyone suspected of
any involvement in ‘encouraging’ terrorism anywhere in the world.
In effect this means writing the new UK Terrorism Bill into the UN Convention.
It also calls into question the Government’s commitment to offering
sanctuary – at a time when it is turning refugee status from permanent
into temporary protection, with the risk that the refugee will be removed
after five years.
Focusing the immigration regime increasingly on exclusion at our borders,
and on internal controls, can only sharpen social exclusion in our cities – and
give legitimacy to racists who feel they should apply some ‘internal
controls’ of their own.
In London we still have a situation where Black children, and African-Caribbean
heritage children in particular, underachieve hugely compared to their peers.
In 2004 only 28.4% of African-Caribbean heritage boys achieved 5 or more
grade A-C at GCSE level, compared to a London wide-average of 48%. Our teaching
workforce in London does not reflect the communities it serves. 22% of children
in London’s schools are Black, compared to 7% of London’s teachers.
In boroughs such as Lambeth and Southwark, roughly 50% of the children in
schools are from African-Caribbean heritage backgrounds, compared to 16-18%
of the teaching workforce. Across London, 18%, nearly 1 in 5 pupils in London’s
schools are Asian, but the ratio of Asian teachers to Asian pupils is 1:41.
We know this matters for a number of reasons. Research has shown that when
black boys in schools were asked what they thought were the reasons for underachievement
in schools, low teacher expectations of them are seen as a major reason.
The government’s own 2004 survey of London schoolchildren revealed
that only 42% of Black pupils felt that they were respected by teachers,
compared to 55% of White children and 59% of Asian pupils. If Black children
don’t feel that their teachers even respect them, is it any wonder
that there is an attainment deficit for Black children in our education system?
Finally, we have the Government’s Equality Bill in which it plans to
abolish the country’s only statutory body dedicated to fighting racism,
the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). 2006 will mark the CRE’s
30th anniversary. If the Government gets its way, this historic organisation
will be consigned to death row by the end of that year until 2009, when it
is finally laid to rest. The Government’s plan is to set up a new body,
the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR). But how will this body
look? It will have no guarantee of black, Asian or minority ethnic Commissioners – the
government is currently opposed to such provision – no race equality
committee – nor ring fenced funding. Ministers are, at this very moment,
considering establishing this Commission in Manchester instead of London,
one of the most diverse cities in the world, which itself has provided many
challenges and lessons in how to create social inclusion. The CRE budget
is to be cut. The duty of the CRE at present to formally consider all cases
of racism presented to it will be abolished. The network of local race equality
councils will be ended and links with communities eroded.
Disabled people have successfully lobbied for a Disabled Commissioner and
a Disability Committee, which we welcome, but similar demands made in the
recent House of Lords debate and proposed by Lords Ouseley and Adebowale
on race are refused. Why?
The Governments rhetoric holds an uneasy echo: the failure to guarantee our
right to a race committee or to representation will itself undermines equality.
Let us be clear: declarations of equality are one thing, the reality is quite
another. That is why black communities up and down the country, in response
to consultation by the CRE, vigorously opposed the abolition of the CRE and,
secondly, demanded representation from the outset in any merged commission.
These choices face us at a time when the BNP has seen its biggest electoral
gains in British political history. The BNP will welcome the abolition of
the CRE. This is precisely the time to strengthen our structures and laws,
not weaken them. Whether the French are ready to accept it or not, the '
colour blind ' approach has had disastrous consequences, not only for Algerian,
African and Muslim communities, but also for France as a whole. For many,
the French ideals of “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" remain
empty vessels, a dream deferred in the absence of embracing and addressing
the central question that is how do European cities and governments actually
do to ensure that all communities are respected and represented in economic,
social, cultural and political life?
Yes, Britain can provide both positive and contrasting experiences that the
French could learn from – London’s experience prime among them.
Our challenge is to build on these experiences, tentative as they are, not
take a path away from them, which is what the Government’s Equality
Bill will undoubtedly do. It is true; the CRE is by no means perfect. But
we must separate individuals from institutions. And we must by no means become
complacent or indeed arrogant. The situation in France reminds us that, as
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said, ‘we are not where we want to be, but
thank god that we are not where we used to be’. Without the CRE, we
are in danger of going right back to where we started.