C E H R - 1. The Beginnings 2004-05
A. White Paper proposes a single equality
body (May 2004)
On July 19th 2003, the Race Equality Directive
[2000/43/EC], approved by the Euro Parliament in 2000, came into force across
Europe. The directive required all EU member states to implement comprehensive
race legislation into their own national laws.
But as the deadline approached, most Member States had failed to implement the
EU Race Equality Directive. Said UK Labour MEP Claude
Moraes, a former Commissioner for Racial Equality in the UK and author
of the Parliament's Declaration on Article 13: "With this inaction, national
governments are sending a clear signal that they will only pay lip service to
their basic obligation to protect millions of their citizens from racism."
The truth is that EU governments have never been enthusiastic about
eradicating racism.
In May04, the British government in a White Paper 'Fairness for all'
, proposed a Commission for Equality & Human Rights (CEHR) to
replace the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE).
The CRE was asked to hold consultations with community groups about the
proposals. In their news release of 22 July 04, the CRE didn't name these groups
nor on what basis they were selected. Anyway, others who feel left out were
invited to "influence the future course of race relations" by responding by 06
August 2004.
The news release included a sample of responses most of which oppose the
dismantling the CRE and replacing it by a wishy-washy body where race won't be
the core issue. Here are a few:
1. "I am worried about the dilution of the race agenda. the equality and
diversity lobby have a different mindset."
2. "In the 1980s, public bodies had race equality units - these turned to
equality units, diveristy units and finally absorbed into regeneration work."
3. "The government is constantly moving the goal posts. Europe is all about
putting up barriers. They don't really want black people. CEHR is being created
to accommodate the new Europe."
4. "Every piece of anti-race legislation has been fought with blood, sweat and
tears. The government now says it is no longer needed."
5. "We came from a position of total exclusion of black people where NCP stood
for 'no coloured person' and the police engaged in 'nigger hunting'. We need to
keep the CRE, cherish it. The government should be told - NO WAY."
The CRE confirms that "many participants in the consultation events were
very hostile to the CEHR in its entirety... Black and ethnic minority groups
were almost unanimous in their opposition to the proposal. We cannot identify a
single ethnic minority speaking in favour of the proposals."
The CRE therefore had no option but "to unequivocally oppose the proposals for a
CEHR based on the White Paper... it is the wrong proposal at the wrong time."
Yet, the government pressed on with its proposal. The CRE news release noted the
"widespread concern at the speed at which the government is seeking to
introduce the CEHR".
CRE commissioners voted 10-2 against the government plans for a Commission for
Equality & Human Rights (CEHR) at a special meeting in July 2004. [See
www.cre.gov.uk ]
Chair Trevor Phillips explained: “This is
the wrong proposal at the wrong time. We will not be distracted from our
immediate priorities of integration, racial equality and community cohesion.”
Following their ‘unequivocal’ rejection of the proposals, the CRE agreed to
discuss with other equality commissions and the government on the best way forward.
The CRE’s most important objection was that the focus on law enforcement
would be diminished by the new body. The White Paper said that the
CEHR’s enforcement powers would be used only in the last resort. The CRE felt
that without an equality Act, a CEHR would weaken the cause of equality overall,
and offer ‘second-class protection’ to issues of age, sexual orientation and
religion or belief.
The CRE had found little support among ethnic minorities who felt their
interests would not be represented as effectively as the CRE has done. The speed
at which the govt seeks to introduce the new commission caused alarm at the CRE
that the new body would cause upheaval in its work.
Both the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and the Disability Rights
Commission (DRC) agree that with the CRE that the CEHR should be supported by
consistent equality legislation. Karen Chouhan of the 1990
Trust said: “The CRE has recognised what many grassroots
orgs have been saying from the start.” Several unions expressed
reservations about the wisdom of combining equality issues and human rights in
the same organisation.
[It may
be worth noting that the London based Confederation of Indian Organisations
(CIO) decided to back the creation of the new body. Their newsletter Namaste,
issue 32, Summer 2004, noted on its front page that " CIO backs the merger of
3 equality commissions..." Their Secretary General Mr Lukka was quoted as
saying such a body would be greatly effective in handling race & sex
discrimination "which have a great deal in common". forgetting that while
sexism is a patriarchal view that devalues woman, racism treats all non-whites
as inferior to whites and hence fit for discrimination and second rate
treatment.]
B. Early
misgivings
Concerns were expressed by 1) the 1990 Trust and 2) a former director of the CRE.
1. Highlights from 1990 Trust's response June 2005 [Ref 1]
The Chief Executive of the Trust, Karen
Chouhan, noted:
"The success of the proposal for the CEHR depends on its consultation with
communities. We realised that the new body signalled the most significant
changes in the attention to race equality since the introduction of the Race
Relations Act (1976). In the summer of 2004 we held discussions with 400
organisations across the UK and many more individuals on the government White
Paper ‘Fairness For All’.
"There were serious concerns on whether such a body could pay enough attention
to race equality issues. Black communities had to be active partners in the
design and monitoring of race equality policy legislation and implementation.
The body had to be independent and accountable to Black communities.
Consultation had to be wide ranging and transparent."
The principal recommendation was that the CEHR should include a Race Committee
that set race equality objectives and monitored progress.
2. Views of former CRE director, Herman Ouseley, Jan 2006 (www.irr.org)
The Equalities Bill which has just been through parliament will be enacted
shortly. It creates the CEHR and abolishes the CRE, the Equal Opportunities
Commission (EOC) and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC).
Calls that the CRE needs to be retained, and not absorbed in the CEHR were
rejected. The government has already indicated that the proposed CEHR would be
'strong' on anti-discrimination legislation but weak on enforcement. The
government clearly does not want to upset employers who discriminate.
Who will be appointed to run the CEHR is absolutely crucial, too. It would be
short-sighted to appoint any of the Board members from the existing Commissions
who might bring vested interests. Presently the commissioners tend to do what
the government ministers want them to do. For instance, no government department
has ever been served any non-compliance notices by the CRE! Nor has any
university or higher education institution.
Representatives of the CEHR should also reflect the ethnic diversity of the
population to ensure equality and fair treatment for all.
Recently, race equality activists, led by Lee Jasper, the CRE, and Black and
Asian MPs, argued for a Race Committee along the same lines, as specified in the
Bill, for a Disability Committee. However, the government rejected this
proposal.
References
1. 1990 Trust,
'Our Rights, Our Future', a 52-page
Report, June 2005
|