House to house wars by Mateus_27

We have just witnessed the annual birthday-highlighted betrayal of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., with clergy leading the way – a betrayal of what King taught and was dedicated to when he was assassinated, namely, exposing the US overseas crimes against humanity for predatory investments that were draining away men, money and resources, and causing poverty and injustice at home.

With aircraft carriers off the coast of Iran, ever new act-of-war sanctions being put in place, and calls to bomb Iran crescendos in Washington, some of us had foolishly thought that this year’s King birthday observances might see a few prominent clerics calling attention to King’s condemnation of US wars, long taboo in mainstream military-oriented America.

Organized religion in America has, for forty-five years, cooperated with the  understanding that no one shall mention that the great civil rights leader and national hero had denounced his government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”

The buildup to war on Iran, the daily toll of human lives from military action in many Muslim nations, the invasions of Afghanistan , Iraq, Panama, Dominican Republic, etc., the CIA criminal and antidemocratic civil war creating activities, the continuation of the war in Vietnam war for eight years after King’s murder, all needed the silent cooperation of clergy that King condemned as betrayal.

King’s betrayers also betray those millions of innocents, who, in their own beloved countries, fall in harms way of heavily armed Americans and remain undefended by a US clergy busy praising and expressing love and gratitude for what King did for them, while it blackballs the King who worked to do the same for his equally loved brothers and sisters in countries under US attack.

Do all these many thousands of clergy imagine that no one significant will ever notice these betrayals? Do any of the elderly ministers, who knew King personally, not feel some bites of conscience?

It’s hard to believe that Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Andrew Young, who had held the dying King in their arms and went on to high political office within the establishment, did not have to grit their teeth to be able to hold themselves back from speaking of King’s condemnation of US wars at the unveiling of the King Monument last year.

Sincere antiwar scholars have long accepted that clergy adheres to a strictly conformist role in a society ruled covertly and overtly by the investment community consensus on Wall Street and the military-industrial complex through their control of all three branches of the government, of all important sources of information with power to dis-inform, of the Pentagon and of the vast secret functions of the CIA.

The sudden tempestuous 1967 King caused problems for religious leaders, implicating them in complicity for having never challenged pathetic lies justifying mass murder that King was  exposing. Ensconced in the national body politic, they have stonewalled on. Even today, to our knowledge, not a single congregation in the nation endorses King’s condemnation of US wars.

Antiwar activists are always searching for clergy who have followed in the footsteps of King during his last year that provoked a national controversy long since carefully blacked out of public awareness. http://kingcondemneduswars.blogspot.com/

This writer feels fortunate to know Father Paul Mayer, who worked with King, endorses the King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign, and was recently in Occupy Wall Street’s Freedom Park making sure people knew of King’s condemnation of US wars and predatory investments.

I am also lucky to have had the chance to chat briefly with Rev. Jeremiah Wright before hearing him speak at the Monthly Review 50th Anniversary, where he eloquently expounded on reasons solidly based on  history and King’s teaching, why every sensitive person aware of the violent death of millions should want to consider what Wright was repeatedly shown crying out in video, “God damn America for its crimes against humanity.”

But the most educating King learning experience was spending an hour and half with Riverside Church Head Minister William Sloan Coffin in 1982, while working under his guidance in the church tower’s International Liaison Office in support of the UN 2nd Special Session on Disarmament .

Rev. Coffin’s life had been intertwined with King’s, and his trip to Hanoi as invited negotiator for the release of US POWs had antedated King’s own involvement. Rev. Coffin had been jailed many times and finally convicted of conspiracy to counsel, aid, and abet resistance to the draft.

Coffin was a musician and former CIA officer in its Russian Department. I had performed on the first cultural exchange with the Soviet Union and shared his passion for the language. He was interested that I had been in Moscow during the Cuban missile crisis and on two other State Department run tours in Latin America during CIA and Pentagon actions in a half dozen countries in turmoil. I remember being struck by his insight as he reviewed the history of organized religion so often being on the side of repression and automatic opposition to revolution, noting that the revolutions of France, Mexico, Russia, Spain, and China had been anticlerical for the people’s memory of the church having been hand maiden to conquering empires who produced the suffering that was the fertile ground for revolution in the first place. So impressive to hear this from a minster famous for physically interfering with government crime in the name of Jesus, who never doubted the role of the Christian church in caring for society, but was keenly aware that modern empires had used and perverted the church into materialism and as an accessory to domination by powerful criminal elements.

I never saw him again, as I as spent most of the next  twenty years in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Thailand (and returned a Buddhist).

During six years in Korea, I applied King’s teaching and discovered things were not as I had been led to believe by President Truman and from a conversation in the church courtyard.  Koreans, including Korean Christians all know that American business interests had President Theodore Roosevelt snub Koreans and recognize the Japanese occupation of Korea; that President Wilson had formally recognized Korea as Japanese territory (in all, making possible a brutal 40 year occupation); that Americans had not fought the Japanese in Korea, coming in rather when Koreans had already accomplished their own politically democratic free Korea; that after unconscionably cutting the nation in two, had brought Singman Rhee in from Washington, who would set up a hated government, whose police and special forces would massacre (now fully UN documented) a couple of hundred thousand unionists, socialists, communists often along with their families in the South in the years before the army of the Northern government invaded and with little opposition overran all of the South, uniting Korea in the five weeks before the US invaded bringing death to three million and flattening every city but one in the North and South; that a severely militaristic North Korea is the result it having been bombed so mercilessly, threatened with the atom bomb, and strangled with tight international sanctions and economic blockade for nearly 60 years, while under continual barrage of anti-communist propaganda in Western media; that Rhee fled for his life after the war, and a series of military dictatorships prevailed under a heavy US Army presence until the mid 1980s; that in spite of all this deadly result many Korean Christians and their clergy feel the need to accept the international media version of American righteous protection of Koreans from communism.

Working as Assistant Conductor of the Vietnam Symphony Orchestra (founded by Ho Chi Minh) in Hanoi, during most of the 1990s, I learned something of the human side of what the Vietnamese call the American war after the French war of recolonization paid for by US taxpayers.

All the musicians had lost family, “killed by the Americans‘ they would smile in Buddhist equanimity when asked. Between preparing Beethoven and Brahms I got to know the most soft spoken, heroic, charming and fun to be with people in the world. If many of Americans recognize their complicity, why should not clergy, who turned their back on King’s revelations.

I cringe when I think of the Grimm fairy tale nature of the anti-Vietnamese propaganda heard over so many years. Do clerical stomachs not turn like ours do as candidates for public office are acclaimed as heroes for having “served‘ in Vietnam.

On the opening day of the US bombing of Baghdad in 2003, I marched in a London street protest. The next day as our flight on the way to India detoured well away from Iraq, we could see flashes on the horizon – Iraqis being killed and maimed supposedly to depose a Saddam Hussein supported by the CIA for two decades? Had to ask myself, is bull being sold as to why the US is bombing or invading this or that small country because clergy leaders deny the necessity to study history carefully, as King came to do to help his people.

This idea of clergy not properly protecting us from deception even of the crudest historically ass-backwards kind was still fresh in my mind as I read the three Calcutta English language newspapers, and watched BBC Asia, which interestingly is quite a bit to the left of BBC London or New York, because it has to compete with local channels serving a citizenry less gullible after suffering a century of racist colonialism. (The British, including clergy, back in England feed on the same outlandish nonsense excusing and justifying the colonial behavior of their armies abroad just as America’s clergy accepts absurd excuses for American neocolonial wars  abroad).

At a dinner party thrown for the patrons of the concert series, I was introduced to an Anglican minister stationed in India. Revved up as I was from watching floods of videos and photos of piles of bodies of civilians, headless children, body parts and clothing strewn everywhere, (images not being seen in America), I thought to comment inquisitively, how the war, with British pilots bombing, must be weighing heavily on him, as one responsible for moral leadership. He looked at me puzzled, a little annoyed, and answered to the effect that a minister’s job had absolutely nothing to do with war or preventing it, that church and politics don’t mix. Altercation proceeded: “Church and its government’s homicide surely don’t mix either – you bless the troops shipping out to kill”, I said. “Its the job of a priest, rabbi or minister”, he replied. “It’s a political act of acquiescence or complicity in homicide “, I told him.

I thought to myself, yes, of course, Western establishment entrenched religious leaders must be the same throughout the world. Wasn’t I in India, where pastors took tea with wealthy faithful, both well acclimatized to a multitude of the landless being starved so that a profit might be turned from what would have been their land to cultivate (predatory investments King spoke of). Charity, rather putting an end to the legalized starving of the poor, is the usual clergy led Christian response.

When I was a kid, I tired of listening to sermons about the hem length of ladies skirts and such, when the headlines of the newspapers I delivered were about millions of people starving to death. It caused me to visit my schoolmates houses of worship looking in vain for better Christianity.

As an adult, I have on many occasions confessed, feeling as an American, that I am drenched in the blood of millions, only to hear my minister or priest trying to help me be at peace with it.

Official clergy enjoy prestige as the guardians of morality, family and community values but unlike King are careful not to answer why Americans and Christians from other nominally white nations, are killing Afghanis in Afghanistan, for ten years designating Taliban as enemy as were the Vietcong in King’s day.

The average cleric would most likely talk no differently than the average American, either in some agreement with an outrageous lie justifying war on Afghanis, or fielding a disarming remark to deflect such an uncomfortably serious and aggressive question, “Look, nobody likes war” or the more fundamental oxymoron, “War is war” and “God will receive the victims.”

By praising exceptional clergy King cut at the majority, “surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history.”

Even on Kings birthday  the whole Baptist community leadership and the NAACP focused solely on domestic injustice, while the wars that King condemned as perpetuating domestic injustice rage on unspoken of. Is this not an obvious repudiation of King’s guidance?

Do all these pastors and church officials they think King was wrong when he taught, in the maturity of the increased awareness of his final year, the futility of trying to improve America while America is destroying other nations, using up social and material resources to conquer abroad for accumulation of capital by investors?

A prominent New York church, where King once denounced his government for crimes against humanity, held a special King birthday event in which the personable minister opening the service, though having on other occasions decried today’s wars, spoke of “that awful war” (in Vietnam) as if that is what King had spoken against and not described it as being a part of the bloody wars and calculated violence presently still going on for financial interests. Misleadingly listed in the program was hearing a recording of “Beyond Vietnam” (in which King had detailed US crimes.) We heard only a carefully selected few minutes long snippet calling for improving society along general principles of social well being that would not have offended supporters of today’s wars or even war criminals or war profiteers.

King had told us, “The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady.” We have seen  a pattern of suppression, the presence of U.S. military advisers in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. “Look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the country. This is not just.”

If antiwar activists would relentlessly quote from King’s Beyond Vietnam sermon nonstop, it would make it difficult for the majority clergy to go on ignoring King’s condemnation of US wars. According to Howard Zinn clergy opposition would make difficult for US wars to be continued and would make network entertainment/news hailing Vietnam and Iraq military ventures as glorious prosecutable as hate crimes.

]]> http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/29/king-who-condemned-us-wars-again-betrayed-by-war-supporting-clergys-praise/feed/ 0 http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/28/americans-can-choose-between-being-american-or-human-but-not-both-presently/ http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/28/americans-can-choose-between-being-american-or-human-but-not-both-presently/#comments Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:49:31 +0000 Mark Watson http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/?p=4509 Article By Jay Janson (about the author)

God Bless America - American Flag with M4A1 Rifle and Dollar sign from japetonida

MARINES URINATING ON AFGHANI CORPSES Graphic Video -  Viewer Discretion Advised, Information Clearing House, January 12, 2012 - click here

“Many parents who wouldn’t think of letting their children see the above-named movie wouldn’t think twice if their children joined the Marines.

Oh, but this is just a few bad apples in the military [as Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said]. This has been said so often and for so long that it’s getting to the point where so many apples are bad it is hard to find a good one. You know, the good ones who just kill for the US government without killing civilians for sport, bombing wedding parties, carrying out battlefield executions, killing hundreds with cluster bombs, covering up botched raids, posing for pictures with their victims, murdering civilians, and keeping body parts of their victims “

Some day in the perhaps not so distant future, after Americans are humiliated by the defeat of their government’s attempt to control and exploit every bit of the planet and its inhabitants, they will be finally free to rehabilitate themselves as the Germans did after suffering through their Nazi era.

But, more importantly, sadly and unfortunately for a clear picture of a consistently inhumane US foreign policy, this official list does not include CIA sponsored violence fomenting the overthrow of governments all around the world unfavorable to unjust and manipulative private US investments, and nefarious activity within almost every single nation on earth arranging the marginalization of uncooperative patriot leaders.

With the now overwhelming control of news and information right down into primary schools by a Western, largely white, consensus of investors, even when horrific facts of US crimes against humanity come to light, such desperately needed info is media managed into insignificance for a psyop bombarded TV watching America public as well as for the great population watching via satellite transmission in all industrialized commercialized and materialist programed societies abroad.

Deeply buried in the tangle of distracting spectacular entertainment is the fact that most of America’s wealthy families backed, invested in and collaborated with Adolph Hitler, almost every major corporation functioning right up to, and some even during, the German war in Europe; that during the US participation in WW II, a million German and Japanese homes were targeted with fire-bombs, atom bombs dropped on women and children, and since the war threats to nuclear bomb again elsewhere made on fourteen occasions. Rationalized or just shrugged off are its genocidal slave trade and slavery, its Wounded Knee, No Gun Ri, Sinchon, My Lai, Fallujah style massacres over America’s two-hundred and twelve years short history; its Guantanamo, its Abu Ghraib, its frantic terrorism by its military and now unmanned drones in the poor former colonial world, its super in size, unequaled in history, investment in production and distribution of weapons of mass destruction; its placement of US military bases to cover the globe into protect those, what Martin Luther King Jr. called, “unjust predatory investments” creating and sustaining wars for their maintenance; its preparations for a world war of incrementally greater profits than the previous ones; its threat through further ‘development’ and mindless material progress to the very physical survival of the planet and its species.

The advice of the flower children of the 60s, to “just drop out” of US imperialism, was similar to that of Jack Kerouac of the Dharma bums of the earlier ‘Beat Generation’, so influenced by black jazz musician greats, seemed to echo Jack London and Walt Whitman’s call to an re-appreciation of nature and humanity ‘on the road’ in true individual freedom to avoid spiritual death in stifling conformity to an inculcated ideal of desperate greed.

Of course a similar case can me made for citizens of European empires having to choose to be on the side of humanity or on the side of an empire persecuting humanity for plunder, such as, especially, the British and French so recently challenged witnessing their empires bomb wealthy Libya into submission to their proxy armed insurgents, who were also those of the US, the EU and the international community of nations, (read international community of predatory investors), currently focused on destroying the intolerable independence of Syria.

Americans like Tom Paine, Eugene Debs, W.E.B. Debois, Helen Keller, Paul Robeson, and to a great extent Thomas Jefferson, refused to choose and sought to fight with an intense aim to change their US into something more intelligent, more sane, more moral and acceptable. They fought surrounding corruption, amorality and misanthropic materialism in the tradition of the anarchist heroes of Europe: Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Victor Hugo, Emile Zola, E. F. Schumacher and Ivan Illich in the Americas, just as those rebels of the ancient world, Zeno, Lao Tzu, Mo Ti, Sidhartha Gautama (Buddha), and Jesus fought against stultifying and imprisoning imperial dictatorships of body and mind.

 Shall Americans choose between sanity or empire, or choose not to choose but to change America?

In British schools, colleges, and universities, and in the mainstream media Britain and America are portrayed as anti-racist and anti-Nazi. It is often repeated that Britain and America fought against the Nazis in World War II. It is often taught that Britain and America are committed to racial harmony and are against all forms of racial prejudice.

Therefore, it will probably surprise many that Britain and America, along with the rest of Europe rejected a UN Resolution calling for all countries to eliminate all forms of racism, xenophobia, and promotion of Nazi ideals.

In a shocking article by Carla Stea, (NEO-NAZISM: United Nations Anti-Nazi Resolution and Falsification of History: Global Research:January 22, 2012), a journalist at the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations, Britain and particularly America are exposed as Nazi sympathisers and opponents of race equality.

Before I go into this, let me first explain briefly what the UN Resolution states.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/66/460 on “Inadmissibility of Certain Practices That Contribute to Fuelling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.”

The Resolution speaks of, “the provision of the Durban Declaration in which States condemned the persistence and resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-Fascism and violent nationalist ideologies based on racial and national prejudice and stated that those phenomena could never be justified in any instance or in any circumstances.”

It highlights concerns about the rise of neo Nazism and extremist political groups. It highlights the disturbing trend involving the glorification of the Nazi movement and its former members.

It mentions, 1. “…the increase in the number of racist incidents in several countries and the rise of skinhead groups, which have been responsible for many of these incidents, as well as the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence targeting members of ethnic, religious or cultural communities and national minorities, as observed by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in his latest report.”

The Resolution states that these acts represent an abuse of freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly and more importantly calls on states to, “…take the necessary measures to put an end to the practices described above, and calls upon States to take more effective measures in accordance with international human rights law to combat those phenomena and the extremist movements, which pose a real threat to democratic value.”

It calls on states, (a) “To condemn all propaganda and all organizations that are based on ideas of racial superiority or that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form;…”

The Resolution’s most important ideals are expressed in these sections in my view.

It calls on states:

(c) “To declare as an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;”

 (d) “To declare illegal and prohibit organizations and organized and all other propaganda activities that promote and incite racial discrimination and to recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;”

 (e) “To prohibit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, from promoting or inciting racial discrimination;”

When you look at these ideals it would be the end of all far right organisations based on racial superiority such as the British National Party in the UK or the Ku Klux Klan in America. It would spell the end for media organisations that perpetuate ideas of immigration based on skin colour. The Daily Mail, The Sun, and many UK newspapers would struggle to fill their newspapers which often publish anti-immigrant stories.

It would spell the end for politicians and political parties who use immigration as an excuse for society’s problems. It would be the end of police racist stop and search. The end of newspapers highlighting crimes based on race.

It would spell the end of irrational nationalism, and the ideas that other people are foreigners to a country, on an earth which belongs to us all. No more census forms based on race and religion. No more alarming statistics about the birth rates of non whites.

The aims and potential effects of this Resolution I believe are numerous and revolutionary.

Despite all this however, Carla Stea said in her article that America, Britain and Europe voted against this Resolution on December 19, 2011.

John F. Sammis, the United States Deputy Representative to The United Nations Economic and Social Council, explained in a statement on November 17, 2011, why America would not be voting in favour of the UN Resolution. He said:

“The United States supports many elements of this resolution. We join other members of the Third Committee in expressing revulsion at any attempt to glorify or otherwise promote Nazi ideology. The United States has been a strong supporter of the UN’s efforts to remember the Holocaust and has a deep commitment to honoring the memory of the millions of lives lost. We also condemn without reservation all forms of religious intolerance or hatred.”

“We remain concerned, however, that the resolution fails again this year to distinguish between actions and statements that, while offensive, should be protected by freedom of expression, and criminal actions motivated by bias that should always be prohibited. The United States shares the concern expressed in this resolution regarding increases in the number of racist incidents expressed in any medium or forum, including on the Internet.”

 “However, we do not consider curtailing expression to be an appropriate or effective means of combating racism and related intolerance. Rather, it is our firm conviction, as reflected in the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States, that individual freedoms of speech, expression and association should be robustly protected, even when the ideas represented by such expression are full of hatred. It is for this reason that the United States has taken a reservation to Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. We remain convinced of the need for this reservation.”

 “In a free society hateful ideas will fail on account of their own intrinsic lack of merit. The best antidote to intolerance is not criminalizing offensive speech but rather a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”

Note, that Sammis mentions in the last paragraph that in a free society hateful ideas will fail on their own account because of their lack of merit. Is this the reason why the UN Resolution points to an increase in racism and Nazi ideals? Is that the reason why the UN Resolution highlights the disturbing trend of Nazi glorification because these ideas have failed and lack merit? Clearly there is a huge contradiction in America’s position and the reality on the ground.

Carla Stea mentioned in her article how America and Europe harboured Nazi criminals after World War II, contrary to what has been widely taught in schools, colleges and universities. America provided a safe haven for Nazi criminals and even worked with them.

Stea believes that some of the grandchildren of Nazi war criminals who were given refuge in Europe, may well have been indoctrinated with Nazi ideology, and she believes that this would explain why since 2006 members of the European Union have abstained on the UN Resolution, “expressing deep concern at the glorification of the Nazi movement…”

What is most striking about this Resolution is that the countries which America and Britain call undemocratic, repressive and evil have voted in its favour. Iran, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Korea, Belarus and the Russian Federation all voted for the Resolution.

Revelations like this exposes the real enemies of racial equality and humanity. The countries who portray themselves as peacekeepers and guardians of justice. The countries which pass themselves off as containing the highest democratic values.  It is clearly a lie.

For further research:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28800

http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/177340.htm

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,RESOLUTION,,,49abf2ef2,0.html

List of how countries voted on the resolution: http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=1R2734F8793A2.233868&profile=voting&uri=full=3100023~!944044~!1&ri=2&aspect=power&menu=search&source=~!horizon

]]> http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/23/america-and-britain-vote-against-un-racism-and-nazi-resolution/feed/ 0 http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/19/race-injustices-in-the-criminal-justice-system-set-to-continue-for-some-time/ http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/19/race-injustices-in-the-criminal-justice-system-set-to-continue-for-some-time/#comments Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:59:39 +0000 Mark Watson http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/?p=4480 A report by the race equality charity Runnymede Trust has revealed that race injustices in the criminal justice system will continue into the future despite the charity calling for a new approach to these issues.

A report titled “Criminal Justice v. Racial Justice”, by Danny Dorling, Manny Barot, Theo Gavrielides, Mary Hickman, Simon Holdaway, Kelly Jussab, Karim Murji and Colin Webster and edited by Kjartan Sveinsson, in January 2012, has revealed that the criminal justice system from police Stop and Search, arrests, to the criminal courts is riddled with racial discrimination.

Colin Webster, of Leeds Metropolitan University, said “Between 2004/5 and 2008/9 the number of white people being stopped and searched increased by around 30 per cent, while the number of black and Asian people being stopped and searched increased by over 70 per cent.” (p.10)

According to Webster, young black people represented 27 per cent of robbery-related offences dealt with by the Youth Justice Service in 2004, despite being only 3 per cent of the 10-17 year old population. (p.10)

More interestingly, Webster stated that whilst young white males reported higher drug use than young black males, it is young black males that are overrepresented in the youth justice system for drug related offences. (p.10)

Webster said that research suggests police are focused on areas with a large black and minority ethnic population, and particularly they focus on crimes involving black people such as robbery, despite it being rare compared to assault, vehicle theft and and burglary, commonly associated with white males. (p.12)

So in other words the crime statistics reported by the mainstream media gives the impression that black people are committing most of the crime, when in fact this is not the case.

Webster said, “…black people and Asians were more likely than white people to be arrested and charged when there was not sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution against them.” (p.12)

Despite the police abusing Stop and Search Powers to disproportionately target people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, Webster said that police forces in general have resisted reforms to this tactic. (p.13)

Simon Holdaway from the University of Sheffield and Karim Murji, Open University, argue that the passing of the Equality Act 2010, under a Labour government has diluted race equality. They argue that the new act lumps all equality groups such as gender, disability, sexuality etc., under one body, and each group competes for attention. As a result race could be and has been pushed aside or diluted. (p.24)

They also say that under the new coalition government police officers are no longer required to record information about the people they stop and search. (p.25)

State Racism: The Hidden Agenda

The history behind the introduction of the Equality Act 2010 has largely been hidden from black and minority ethnic communities. The act, as Holdaway and Murji suggests was justified as a common sense approach to equality. What black and minority ethnic communities may not know is that leading black and minority ethnic community activists warned that this very act would dilute race equality, some went as far as to say that it was a conspiracy and deliberate by the Labour government.

Former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Lord Ouseley, told the Socialist Worker (Where you can’t say ‘Stephen Lawrence’:7 June 2003) that a government race relations conference a minister told him that most MPs did not meet black people outside of parliament. He also said that top government ministers such as David Blunkett and Jack Straw were deliberately playing down race equality and pushing the name of Stephen Lawrence down the list of government priorities.

Ouseley also said that a top police officer admitted to him that the name of Stephen Lawrence was never mentioned at meetings between the police and government ministers. In other words the public display of concern by the Labour government at the time was a charade.

Sir Bill Morris, the former leader of the Transport and General Workers Union supported Ouseley’s assertions, stating in a epolitix interview that there was a “…silent conspiracy to jettison the report of Lord Macpherson, who identified institutionalised racism as a factor which inhibits the growth and progress and development of black people taking their rightful place as managers and leaders.”

He added, “That embarrassed Britain and there are a lot of people who are trying to bury that agenda and there are some of them in government.” (BBC: TGWU boss attacks ‘racist’ ministers: 7 September, 2003)

From the outset black and minority ethnic activists said that Labour’s proposals for a new equality body suspiciously diluted race equality.

The 1990 Trust, which was the UK’s first national Black organisation set up to defend the interest of Britain’s lack communities, said that the new body would damage the Stephen Lawrence agenda and mean less monitoring of how public bodies comply with the Macpherson report recommendations.

Director, Karen Chouhan, said it would encourage those who want to discriminate as they would be less likely to be accountable. More importantly, she said that in her experience when race was merged with other equality issues in local government it fell behind.

In light of all of this it seems that the silent conspiracy continues as the Runnymede Trust report shows.

The fierce resistance to race equality

While the authors of the report recommend measures in which these issues can be tackled. One factor that needs to be recognised is that not only is there fierce resistance to racial equality by successive British governments, the British media and large sections of the population, Britain is not as tolerant as many people would like to believe.

Perhaps it is because there has always been a false sense of racial tolerance in Britain which is now being undone in the current economic crises; to why racial progression is painstakingly long and drawn out for black and minority ethnic communities.

What can be said at this time is that in order for genuine racial progress to occur in this country, an honest no-holds-barred debate on race by ordinary people and not politicians is needed to establish whether there is a workable future for a racially diverse society in Britain.

Until this happens we can expect another generation of black youths, as well as youths from other ethnic backgrounds behind prison bars and in young offenders institutions.

For further research:

http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/CriminalJusticeVRacialJustice-2012.pdf

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=3829

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3087170.stm

http://www.1990trust.org.uk/about/1990-trust

]]> http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/19/race-injustices-in-the-criminal-justice-system-set-to-continue-for-some-time/feed/ 0 http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/17/asian-football-awards-shortlist-announced-for-wembley-stadium-extravaganza/ http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/17/asian-football-awards-shortlist-announced-for-wembley-stadium-extravaganza/#comments Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:11:11 +0000 Mark Watson http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/?p=4468

Press release by Imran Hassan: Initiate Sports©

The first ever Asian Football Awards (AFA) will take place at Wembley Stadium on 24th January 2012 where outstanding UK Asians will be honoured. This inaugaral event is expected to attract a premier list of guests to gather, support and celebrate outstanding Asians in football.

The AFA has been launched to recognise the great contribution to both the professional game and grassroots initiatives by individuals and groups across the UK with South Asian heritage. The FA and Kick It Out are supporting this landmark initiative.

The events primary objective is to create an awareness of the positive efforts made by Asians within the UK football industry. It also aims to engage with organisations and individuals to help increase Asian participation levels in the UK.

The AFA are proud to announce that Sporting Equals are to be the Legacy Partner for the 2012 event. There has been tremendous support since the announcement of the awards last November that the organisers have decided that all profits will be used for legacy projects and future bursary disbursements for young elite Asian players.

Some of the AFA nominations include: Michael Chopra (Ipswich Town), Danny Batth (Wolves FC/Sheff Wed), Dr Zaf Iqbal (Liverpool FC), Manish Bhasin (BBC), The Zesh Rehman Foundation, Anwar Uddin (Barnet FC), Permi Jhooti (FIFA Ambassador), Chelsea Asian Soccer Star, Javed Khan (Premier League),Tony Fernandes and Lakshmi Mittal (QPR FC).

David Bernstein, FA Chairman: “The FA is committed to diversity and inclusion across all areas of the game and I’m delighted that the Asian football community are celebrating their achievements at Wembley Stadium.”

Baljit Rihal, Co-Founder Asian Football Awards:

“We have received hundreds of inspiring nominations from across the country. It is such a pleasure to know that so many Asians are involved and passionate about the game of football. We hope that the Asian Football Awards can play a part by recognising great individuals, organisations and initiatives.”

“Our vision has always been to support the growth of Asians in UK football. Since we announced the event last year, the media attention and support from all across the industry has been phenomenal. I can proudly say that the Asian Football Awards will most definitely encourage more Asians to get involved in every aspect of the game.”

Arun Kang, CEO Sporting Equals:

“Sporting Equals are delighted to be the legacy partner of the Asian Football Awards and believe that our Talent ID Programme, will provide real opportunities for talented young people to be exposed to high performance coaching, developing their skills and encourage more diversity in professional football. We believe our partnership with the AFA can both deliver a meaningful legacy and continue to support our wider work. Sporting Equals welcomes and recognises the importance of celebrating the achievements of Asians in football, looks forward to the AFA becoming a key annual event for the future, and working with them and other partners to facilitate change.”

Shalin Patel, Head of UK Marketing, Sony Entertainment Network “As an organisation, we have always had a close association with raising the profile of sport in the British Asian community and the Asian Football Awards are an exciting initiative which we are proud to associate with and help build support for. Good luck to everyone involved.”

For further information or tickets please contact Initiate Sports Email: afa@initiatesports.com Call: +44(0) 8456 805 325

Child B is apprehended after landing in Dover. He is subjected to something called a “welfare interview” and asked “Are you in any pain?” Yes, he says. The little finger on his left hand is in a splint. He is bleeding from his anus. His interrogator writes that Child B has been prescribed “Petadine” by doctors in Belgium. The boy is asked if he wants to see a doctor now in Dover. Yes, he says. But he doesn’t see a doctor. That was just a question on the form.

Despite the pain, the bleeding, the request for medical help (denied), the lack of sleep (he has not slept for more than 24 hours), and the fact that Child B has been prescribed Pethidine (that’s what it is), a drug known to be associated with “euphoria, difficulty concentrating, confusion and impaired psychomotor and cognitive performance”, Child B is subjected to a further interview and then a “Full Screening Interview” upon which the authorities may rely when deciding whether or not to grant him asylum. The interview is conducted through an interpreter by telephone. No legal representative is present.

Child B is asked dozens of questions about how he came to this country, about his biodata and his documents, then a mandatory declaration is read out to him: “I am aware that it is a criminal offence to fail to provide a document establishing my identity and nationality at a leave or asylum interview and/or seek to obtain leave to remain in the United Kingdom by deception. I understand that my fingerprints will now be taken and examined against existing immigration and police databases. I declare that the information that I have given is correct and complete.”

He must sign. When all this concluded, Child B is sent for medical attention to the accident and emergency department of a local hospital.

Let’s stop here. This is not fiction, but real life — as designed by the UK Border Agency — for vulnerable children who may have fled war zones or been trafficked for sexual exploitation. All the quotes are from a new report by Adrian Matthews, Policy Adviser at the Office of Children’s Commissioner for England, published this morning: Landing in Dover, The immigration process undergone by unaccompanied children arriving in Kent.

Why the rush to interview?

Why not wait until an interpreter can be present?

Why doesn’t the child have any legal representative given the fate that might await him if he is sent away?

Here is one reason: if children are interviewed immediately on the day of arrival, those who fail to register a claim for asylum straight away can be sent to France under something called the “Gentleman’s Agreement” that was signed by France and the UK and is dated April 1995.

Gentlemen indeed.

The Gentleman’s Agreement has only now, after 15 years, been exposed by Adrian Matthews.

The Children’s Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson, congratulated the Border Agency’s new chief executive Rob Whiteman on agreeing to stop applying the “Gentleman’s Agreement” to children once it had been “brought to his attention“. But the agreement — which has no legal basis —  has been in full view of Border Agency executives for years and still applies to adults and to children deemed by officials to be adults.

Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.

Landing in Dover makes one key recommendation: “Interviewing, beyond the gathering of basic identity data, should be postponed until after a child has had a period of some days (or longer if deemed necessary by a childcare professional) to recover from their journey and the opportunity to instruct a legal representative.”

In 2010 (the last full year where data is available) across the whole of the UK there were 1,717 applications for asylum from unaccompanied children. Nobody knows how many children have been returned under the Gentleman’s Agreement nor what became of them.

Clare Sambrook, novelist, journalist, pro-bono co-ordinator of End Child Detention Now, won the 2010 Paul Foot Award and the Bevins Prize for outstanding investigative journalism.

]]> http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/17/a-child-a-bleeding-anus-interrogation-by-the-uk-border-agency/feed/ 0 http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/13/george-lucas-makes-new-film-about-americas-first-african-american-pilots-in-world-war-ii/ http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/13/george-lucas-makes-new-film-about-americas-first-african-american-pilots-in-world-war-ii/#comments Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:03:37 +0000 Mark Watson http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/?p=4444

Star Wars director, George Lucas is producing a new film due to be released this month called “Red Tails”, about the first ever African-American pilots to be used in combat during World War II.

Legendary Star Wars director, George Lucas will be producing the film “Red Tails“, about the first African-American pilots used in combat during World War II.

Anthony Hemingway

The film is directed by African-American film and television director, Anthony Hemingway. Hemingway has directed episodes of popular American dramas such as The Wire and CSI: New York.

The Red Tails, tell the story of the first African-American men who overcame racial hostility and racial segregation in the US military to fly airplanes in combat during World War II. The term “Red Tails” came about because the pilots of the 332nd Fighter Group painted the tails of their P-47′s red.

Despite stringent tests from the War Department designed to only accept pilots of the highest education and intelligence, and supposedly place African-American applicants at a disadvantage, the African-American applicants excelled becoming the first black pilots to serve in combat during World War II. They became known as the The Tuskegee Airman.

Yet, despite passing the tests with distinction the US military continued to stand in the way of the Tuskegee Airman. It was US law during those times to racially segregate African-Americans into separate army units. Ironic, when you think that people are taught Word War I and II was fought to protect freedom. Apparently, the freedom under discussion was obviously not reserved for people of colour.

It was only because the training was so complex that military leaders decided that segregated units was impossible to achieve their aims. In other words desegregation did not occur because they felt African-Americans were equal.

The racial discrimination continued. Major James Ellison was transferred it was said because he insisted that African-American men under his command had authority over the police and other white civilians. (Francis, Charles E. and Adolph Caso. The Tuskegee Airmen: The Men Who Changed a Nation. Boston: Branden Books, 1997.)

There was resistance to African-Americans training at the air base, and African-Americans were denied access to the Officer’s Club. One African-American pilot, Lieutenant Milton Henry decided to assert his rights by entering the club, but was court martialed and discharged. (Moye, J. Todd. Freedom Flyers: The Tuskeegee Airmen of World War II. New York: Oxford University Press (USA), 2010.)

While white officers were promoted in just four months no African-American pilot was promoted.

Overall, the Tuskegee Airmen won three Distinguished Unit Citations, one silver star, approximately one hundred and fifty Distinguished Flying Crosses, 14 Bronze Stars, 744 Air Medals and 8 Purple Hearts.

Tuskegee Airmen - Circa May 1942 to Aug 1943 Location unknown, likely Southern Italy or North Africa

Hollywood rejects all black heroes

While Hollywood gives the impression of racial equality in its films, this is far from the truth. According to the Huffington Post (January 1, 2012), in an appearance on the Daily Show, George Lucas spoke of the resistance he got from Hollywood to obtain funding for the film because of its all black cast.

Lucas told Jon Stewart, “It’s because it’s an all-black movie. There’s no major white roles in it at all…I showed it to all of them and they said no. We don’t know how to market a movie like this.”

Lucas had to fund the movie himself.

Lucas also said that he was concerned that if the movie failed at the box office it would spell trouble for black filmmakers who wanted to break into the mainstream in general.

Equality or Assimilation

Racial equality has been fought for by black people living in western countries, often at a very high price with assassinations, murders, torture and other tactics that white supremacists have used to keep black people down.

Yet it has to be asked whether we truly understand what equality and freedom means?

Whilst black history, both in America and Britain is filled with examples of bravery by black soldiers and pilots in World War I and World War II, it seems that in our pursuit for equality and freedom, rather than challenging the existing European colonial structures, we have assimilated into these structures and now become part of the very system that has oppressed us and other nations since European expansion into the non-European world.

It shows the strength of our spirit, resolve and intelligence, that despite years of slavery, and the cultural, mental, physical and psychological genocide of our people, only decades after African-Americans were passing tests designed for whites, and flying planes which was thought beyond their intellectual capacity during those times.

However, it is important that we recognise that fighting in European wars also means that we have become part of the very system which plundered our homeland and continues to plunder our homeland as well as the land of others through war.

Legendary boxer and racial equality campaigner summed it up in the 1960s when he refused to fight in Vietnam. He said, “No, I am not going 10,000 miles to help murder, kill, and burn other people to simply help continue the domination of white slavemasters over dark people the world over. This is the day and age when such evil injustice must come to an end.” (“Muhammad Ali — The Measure of a Man.” (Spring 1967). Freedomways, 7(2), 101-102.)

Has Western military objectives really changed that much today? Arguably not. Nearly all European conflicts and wars are now conducted in the Middle East, Africa and soon Asia.

So yes, we should be proud of what the Tuskegee Airmen managed to overcome,  we should herald their bravery, but we should never be proud that they fought on the side of imperialists. That is the objective, brutal truth of the matter.

That is the problem I have with this film. It gives the impression that the American military was and is somehow a force for good in the world.

Despite that, black people should support this film as a form of defiance towards Hollywood, who clearly only wants us and other people to see white heroes on our screens.

For further research:

http://newsone.com/entertainment/casey-gane-mccalla/george-lucas-tuskegee-airmen-movie-will-come-out-in-2012/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/george-lucas-hollywood-di_n_1197227.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16525977

http://www.aavw.org/protest/homepage_ali.html

On 11 January, the Lords’ debate on the Welfare Reform Bill continues.  The Bill threatens basic entitlement to housing and other benefits – a roof over our heads. 

• Benefit cap of £500 a week including rent: larger families including those with informally-fostered children, single mother families, households with disabled people, families of colour more likely to be on lower incomes – face eviction from central London and other cities if the cap goes through.  For more see here.
• The housing benefit cap is already forcing people to go without food and heating to pay the rent, or into unbearable overcrowding. Like in the US, people will end up homeless, destitute, begging and on the street.
• The Social Fund relied on to furnish a new home or cope with emergencies – children coming back from care, women fleeing domestic violence, people coming out of hospital and prison – is being abolished.  People won’t be able to start a new life or escape a violent relationship; they’ll at the mercy of loan sharks.
• Disabled children and adults face all-round cuts: to disability benefits, benefit additions and concessions – a return to hardship and charity.
• Child Benefit – which all mothers earn and all children need – will be taken from the poorest families by the benefit cap.
• Income Support, which recognises the contribution of mothers and other carers, is being abolished and replaced with back-to-work conditions as soon as the child turns one.

Protests forced the government to drop plans to cut mobility money for people living in residential homes. But other cuts to disabled children and adults are still in the Bill.  On 14 December, after lobbying and testimony from people affected, the Lords defeated government moves to cut housing benefit by £12-22 a week for Council tenants who have a spare room.

Come and raise your concerns on 11 January. Bring placards with your organisation’s name and issues you are concerned about. Lobby the Lords – support amendments to keep Child Benefit out of the benefit cap, extend concessions for women fleeing domestic violence, ensure immediate benefit payments for people coming out of prison, and Zacchaeus 2000 amendments to protect claimants from unliveable benefit repayments, sanctions and bailiffs. Lobby your MP; contact them to make an appointment or write to them about your personal situation – find your MP here.  If you are unable to come on the day, ring them or write, for Lords’ addresses see here; and sign the epetition here.

For more info about the day, contact SMSD and the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust

smsd@allwomencount.net  0207 482 2496  PaulNicolson@z2k.org  07961177889

1pm Wed 11 January

 Oppose the Welfare Reform Bill & benefit caps.

Cap greedy landlords, not low-income people!

Meet opposite Parliament – Lords’ entrance Abingdon St SW1

 All Welcome

Tom Adeyemi will be another among a long list of victims as long as the FA's fines are pathetic.

The ugly stain of racism in football has been the focus of media reports since top Premiership players such a England captain and Chelsea player John Terry and Liverpool player Luis Suarez were at the centre of racism allegations in November last year, but if the football governing body continues to hand out lenient sentences for racism it will probably never be eradicated out of football completely.

In the latest of a serious of football scandals involving racist remarks towards black players since November last year, police have arrested 20-year-old man from Aintree, Merseyside, on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence, after witnesses saw him calling Oldham player, Tom Adeyemi, a ‘fucking black bastard‘, during an FA Cup tie between Liverpool and Oldham on Friday 6 January.

Adeyemi was said to be distraught and received support from Liverpool players such as Steven Gerrard and Dirk Kuyt, nevertheless, this is the second racist incident involving the Liverpool football club.

In November last year Liverpool forward Luis Suarez denied racially abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra during a match. Suarez’s denials was called into question when the FA called upon two language and linguistics experts.

Evra said that when he asked Suarez why he had kicked the football at him, he responded, “Because you are black.” (Mirrorfootball.co.uk: FA release racism judgement: Evra claimed Suarez said, ‘I don’t speak to blacks’: 31 December, 2011)

A shocked and angered Evra then asked Suarez to repeat what he said to the reply, “I don’t speak to blacks.” When Evra threatened to punch Suarez, the Liverpool player responded in Spanish, saying “Dale, negro, negro, negro”, which translates as “okay, blackie, blackie, blackie.”

Suarez admitted he used the word ‘negro‘, but claimed that the usage was acceptable in his home country of Uruguay, and was part of the language whilst he was growing up. What the FA did not seem to pick up and directly ask Suarez to expain, was why he switched from English to Spanish to use that term towards Evra? Was Suarez cleverly trying to cover racial abuse? There is arguably something to this point.

What the experts did conclude was that Suarez’s references to ‘negro‘ as Evra stated would be seen as a racial term in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America. However, the language experts also found that if Suarez’s version of events was true, it would not be seen as racist in his home country and Spanish-speaking America. Yet Suarez’s switch to Spanish to say those words to Evra should certainly have raised concerns because it could have proven that he knew if he had said them in English it was clear cut racism.

In the end the FA and language experts had to go on the credibility of both witnesses and said that whilst Evra was calm and consistent, Suarez was contradictory and inconsistent, in particularly with the video footage.  He was found guilty of racial abuse and banned from playing for 8 games, and also fined £40,000.

The fine is less than a week’s wages for Suarez and the 8 game ban will not hurt his career at all.

In another incident England captain and Chelsea player John Terry was charged with racially abusing Queens Park Rangers player Anton Ferdinand during a heated confrontation between the two during a match in which Terry is suppose to have called Ferdinand a ‘fucking black cunt‘.

Apparently the police and the Crown Prosecution Service believe that there is enough evidence to pursue the case.

If Terry is found guilty he will face a pathetic £2,500 fine and his England captaincy will be under threat.

FA afraid to really tackle high profile clubs and players

In April 2010, Viv Anderson, England’s first ever black international football player called for tougher fines by the FA on racism after saying that the current fine is “nonsense.” (Read England’s first black international calls for tougher fines on racism in football)

Anderson said that the current £14,000 fine was ridiculous and called for a hefty £1 million fine which he believes will send a strong warning to perpetrators and clubs.

Whether the FA has the leadership to actually impose these kind of fines is debatable, as they seem to be afraid to tackle big clubs and top players when it comes to racism.

Life time bans for so called fans who shout racist abuse would send the right type of message. Season bans for players who use racist terms would send a strong message, but it seems that the FA is not really serious about kicking racism out of football.

John Mann, a Labour MP and Leeds supporter told The Times in May 2009 that not only were racist and religious abuse incidents in football matches within England a problem, there were disturbing levels of racism and religious intolerance at junior and amateur clubs as well as the lower grassroots level of football.

If the FA is not willing to impose hefty fines and bans which will have an impact on a player’s career, we can expect more incidents in the future.

For further research:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2083678/Liverpool-race-row-Tom-Adeyemi-Patrick-Collins-say.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2083515/Liverpool-race-row-Police-probe-Tom-Adeyemi-abuse-Anfield.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16186556.stm

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Luis-Suarez-and-Patrice-Evra-racism-row-FA-findings-say-Liverpool-striker-gave-unreliable-and-inconsistent-evidence-article847872.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4013607/John-Terry-Racism-Charge-Terry-charged-over-Ferdinand-comments.html

]]> http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/08/racism-will-probably-never-be-kicked-out-of-football-as-long-as-punishments-are-lenient/feed/ 1 http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/08/lawrence-convictions-should-be-treated-as-new-evidence-of-a-joint-enterprise-say-lawyers-who-changed-the-law-on-double-jeopardy/ http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/08/lawrence-convictions-should-be-treated-as-new-evidence-of-a-joint-enterprise-say-lawyers-who-changed-the-law-on-double-jeopardy/#comments Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:01:58 +0000 Mark Watson http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/?p=4404 Press release by Society of Black Lawyers©

The Society of Black Lawyers is calling for the immediate prosecution of the three remaining men who are suspected of being involved in the racist murder of the black teenager, Stephen Lawrence in 1993. The call follows the conviction and sentencing of David Norris and Gary Dobson who were both given life sentences at the Old Bailey.

Norris was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years and three months and Dobson received 15 years and two months. Both were sentenced under old guidelines as if they were juveniles because they were under the age of 18 when the crime was committed. Dobson had previously been acquitted in 1996 following a private prosecution brought by the Lawrence family. It was only due to a change in the law on double jeopardy in 2005 that he was able to be tried again.

SENTENCING

Jide Lanlehin, criminal barrister commented:

‘We welcome the sentences that have been passed and recognise that the judge’s hands were tied in that respect. The sentences could have been much longer if judicial discretion, based on exceptional circumstances had been possible. Such a crime, if it had been committed by juveniles today, would have attracted a far longer sentence. Sadly, neither the sentencing guidelines nor legislation allowed for such discretion to be exercised.’

JOINT ENTERPRISE: JAMIE ACOURT, NEIL ACOURT & LUKE KNIGHT

SBL Co-Chair, Peter Herbert OBE commented:

‘The SBL is calling on the Crown Prosecution Service to undertake an immediate review of this case, with a view to bringing prosecutions against the three remaining suspects. Our view is that the convictions of Norris and Dobson represent substantial new evidence of a joint enterprise in relation to all five men. Luke Knight and the Acourt brothers should be re-interviewed. They should not think that they are safe from the continuing call for justice.’

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Rosemary Emodi, Vice Chair of the SBL commented:

‘SBL made written and oral submissions to the Macpherson Inquiry in 1998, arguing that the law on double jeopardy should be reviewed. It was the one recommendation that specifically addressed the particular circumstances of the Lawrence family following the failed private prosecution in 1996. The wide-ranging impact of the Stephen Lawrence case is well documented. But it was the dignified and unwavering fight for justice, led by Doreen and Neville Lawrence that has been so compelling. As lawyers, the SBL believes that our role is not just to practice the law. We must shape it, influence it and where necessary, change it. Dobson’s conviction stands as an enduring testament to that belief.’

The Society of Black Lawyers is the oldest organisation of African, Caribbean and Asian lawyers, jurists and law students. Founded in 1969 by the late Rudy Narayan and Sigbhat Kadric QC, the SBL is a dynamic civil rights advocacy organisation which exists to:

· Promote equality and diversity within the legal profession;

· Act as a representative and strategic voice for lawyers, legal executives, law students, paralegals, jurists and legal academics of African, Asian and Caribbean heritage; and

· Campaign to ensure access to justice and legal services for ethnic minority and disadvantaged communities.

]]> http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/08/lawrence-convictions-should-be-treated-as-new-evidence-of-a-joint-enterprise-say-lawyers-who-changed-the-law-on-double-jeopardy/feed/ 0 http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/07/enquiry-demanded-into-racism-allegations-against-livonia-schools-in-michigan/ http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/07/enquiry-demanded-into-racism-allegations-against-livonia-schools-in-michigan/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 11:25:48 +0000 Mark Watson http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/?p=4392 Press release from our Religious Correspondent©

Hindus have asked for a thorough probe into the racial profiling allegations against Livonia Public Schools in Michigan (USA) leveled by a former school Principal as reported in the media.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that reported stereotyping by school teachers who “believed that children of Indian descent were dirty and should be checked as a group for lice” (as reportedly alleged by this former Principal), if true, was quite shocking.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, pointed out that lumping together all children belonging to one ethnicity in one group basing on stereotypical views was not acceptable. If the racial profiling was found, as alleged by this former Principal, it should be immediately curbed and steps should be taken that it should not happen in the future.

Students of India descent in USA schools were an outstanding group of young people who usually outshined in performance in various fields, Rajan Zed stressed.

Livonia Public Schools, whose mission statement included “Teaming together to ensure learning for all”, runs 26 schools/centers in Livonia and Westland cities of Michigan. Dr. Randy Liepa is the Superintendent.

]]> http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/07/enquiry-demanded-into-racism-allegations-against-livonia-schools-in-michigan/feed/ 0 http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/06/taxi-drivers-refuse-to-pick-up-black-people-more-twitter-revelations-from-dianne-abbott/ http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/01/06/taxi-drivers-refuse-to-pick-up-black-people-more-twitter-revelations-from-dianne-abbott/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:49:18 +0000 Mark Watson http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/?p=4372 Just a few hours after Labour MP Dianne Abbott came very close to losing her job for tweeting that “white people love playing ‘divide and rule’”, a new Twitter revelation where she said that taxi drivers refuse to pick up black people has enraged taxi drivers and put Abbott back in the centre of another race row.

Diane Abbott is in the centre of another race row after another revelation from her tweets revealed that she said taxi drivers refuse to pick up black people.

Abbott’s comments related to a discussion about racism on Twitter, where she said, “Dubious of black people claiming they’ve never experienced racism. Ever tried hailing a taxi I always wonder?” (Daily Telegraph: Diane Abbott: taxi drivers refuse to pick up black passengers: By Tim Ross, Political Correspondent: 6 January 2012)

Speaking for the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, Steve McNamara told the Telegraph, “We find it amazing that in this day and age someone in Diane Abbott’s position can try to resurrect the stereotypes from the 1960s. At worst she is racist and at best she is stupid in making comments like that. Either way, she should go.”

McNamara said that 9000 members of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association were from black, Muslim and other ethnic backgrounds, and also stated that Labour leader Ed Miliband was afraid to sack  Abbott because “She is a high profile black woman and he is obviously weak.”

Abbott has since said that she was referring to her own experiences, however once more she has stirred up an unwelcome debate on racism in the UK.

It is interesting that Abbott mentioned how some black people deny experiencing racism, and in that context she referred to her own experience of hailing taxis and obviously felt that some taxi drivers have not picked her up because of the colour of her skin. For the media to refer to that as racist is once again a farce. Essentially, they are now saying that even the experiences of a person from a black or minority ethnic background can be interpeted as racist.

Everyday racism is still pervasive for many people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

In December 2010,  a group of professional black footballers, who play for League One club Bournemouth, were left shocked when they were told by a manager of Pizza Hut in Bournemouth to pay up front because of the way they looked. The manager even threatened to call the police if they did not pay upfront, and during a dispute about the discrimination they were experiencing, the staff called the police claiming that the players were disruptive, despite witnesses contradicting their claim. (Read Pizza Hut staff shock black footballers in race row)

The everyday racial attitudes of many whites has arguably not changed drastically either over the years. In January 2008, 64 percent of Guardian readers in a poll said that the term “sooty” was not racist in reference to a race row over Prince Charles, who referred to a so called Asian friend of his in this way. Guardian readers went even further to say that it was  an affectionate term to use for someone from an ethnic background. (Read Britain’s warped sense of racial tolerance.) This from Guardian readers who are suppose to be liberal.

In a Daily Telegraph article by Alasdair Palmer and Karyn Miller ((‘White flight’ plus immigration always add up to segregation: 8 October 2006), they said that the white middle classes were leaving areas where there is a large or increasing ethnic population.

This is the reality of race relations in modern Britain.

Abbott’s ‘divide and rule’ comment still alive in party politics

Probably the worse part of the media’s demonisation of Diane Abbott is that her comment referring to white people loving to divide and rule can be demonstrated by observing party politics in Britain.

On March 22, 2010, the Conservative Party was exposed carrying out that old trick of divide and rule, after being accused of ‘airbrushing’ out pictures of ethnic minority candidates from their campaign literature in areas where they were opposing the BNP. (Read Tories tarnished in racial ‘airbrushed’ pictures row)

Labour as well will resort to racist politics to win votes as it was shown when they sent leaflets to white voters saying, “Labour is on your side—the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers”, and “Lib Dem MPs voted against Labour’s Asylum and Immigration Bill. Lib Dem MPs said failed asylum seekers should continue to receive state benefits.”  Note, that the leaflets had pictures of the Saint George flag to ensure white voters that Labour was on their side.

This is merely a couple of examples of how political parties carry out the same racially divisive tactics which Dianne Abbott referred to, and yet these politicians are defining racism for the masses.

It is in parliament itself, the so called corridors of British democracy and equality where the most vicious racism has been recorded.

A Quilliam report in November 2010, revealed that racism was rampant in parliament; with Black and Asian MPs being subjected to racist remarks regularly, and used to paint a false picture of racially inclusiveness in British politics. (Read Racism pervasive in parliament says report)

One candidate mentioned how she was told by a councillor that she had come a long way and that people like her were cleaning toilets in Heathrow.

Many Black and Asian MPs said that they were used by political parties for public relations purposes to portray them as racially inclusive.

In 2005, Dawn Butler, who became only the third black female MP in parliament spoke of the vicious racism she suffered from members of all parties. In one incident Butler said that former Tory minister David Heathcote-Amory confronted her as she sat in the members section on the terrace, telling her that it was for members only. When Butler said she was a member the Tory minister turned to a friend and said that they are letting in anyone these days.

When Butler took the offence to higher authorities she said that no one was interested. The Tory chief whip and the Speaker of the House even told her that nothing could be done.

In 2007, Butler was using the members lift and a number of politicians began speaking about how cleaners and catering staff should not use the members lift. Despite hinting that she was an MP the voices of the politicians grew louder in complaint as if they did not want to accept her position.

These are probably the same MPs now grumbling against Dianne Abbott and calling her a racist.

The truth is Britain needs a good, open race discussion but those who divide and rule at the top cannot afford this as quite a few ugly truths would come to light.

For further research:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8997510/Diane-Abbott-taxi-drivers-refuse-to-pick-up-black-passengers.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1530877/White-flight-plus-immigration-always-add-up-to-segregation.html

Will this spell the end for Dianne Abbott's political career?

Shadow minister for public health, Dianne Abbott is at the centre of another race row after tweeting ‘white people love to play divide and rule’ during a conversation on Twitter about the sentencing of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers.

Abbott, who was at the centre of a previous race row in May last year when she described Nick Clegg and David Cameron as ‘two posh white boys (read Diane Abbott hypocritically attacked for ‘two posh white boys’ comment), is again in the media spotlight after tweeting that ‘white people love to play divide and rule’.

The context of the tweet discussion occurred when freelance journalist Bim Adewunmi commented on Twitter about the sentencing of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Adewunmi wrote, “I do wish everyone would stop saying “the black community” though. WHICH ONE?” (Mail Online: Diane Abbott faces calls to resign over ‘racist’ tweet that says ‘white people love to play divide and rule’: By Richard Hartley-parkinson: 5 January, 2012)

Abbott wrote back “I understand the cultural point you are making, But you are playing into a ‘divide and rule agenda’” She then went on to say that “Ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better.” However, the tweet that caused offence was when she said, “white people love to play “divide and rule”, we should not play their game.”

Abbott claims that her views were taken out of context and apologised for any offence that she may have caused but it seems that the political damage has already been done.

Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi called for Abbott to quit. She said, “A healthy society should not tolerate any form of racism. Abbott should apologise and resign or Ed must sack her.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg referred to Abbott’s comment a as “… stupid and crass generalisation.”

Former MP George Galloway has been the only person so far to have defended Abbott, saying “Diane Abbott has been my friend for 25 years; only the obtuse would think her a “racist“”.

How racism has been diluted to prevent genuine racial equality

This is not the first time Abbott has been at the centre of controversy. In May 2010 she cause uproar after describing Nick Clegg and David Cameron as “Two posh white boys”, referring to the narrow leadership of British politics.

She also clashed with BBC’s This Week  presenter, Andrew Neil after he quoted her saying “West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children”, in defence of her sending her children to a private school. Apparently, Neil interpreted her statement as implying that white mothers would not do the same.

The Daily Mail article quotes political blogger Guido Fawkes, who said, “She is a shadow minister and represents a constituency that is 61% white.” In this respects as I have stated in my previous article referring to her ‘posh white boys’ comment, Abbott is very naive to make racial statements knowing full well that they will be taken out of context.

When I wrote the article White victimhood: The new racism, I set out to explain how racism has been severely diluted by the British government and media, and the main victims are now being accused of being racist themselves.

A study was conducted by sociologists from Harvard and Tufts universities in America which found that white Americans now see themselves as victims of racism and believe that black people have ‘gained’ the advantage over them despite African-Americans still being subjected to racial discrimination in the job market, and suffering poverty rates at nearly twice the levels of whites.

The same trend can be found in Britain, with the media now portraying whites as the main victims of racism. Whites now believe that black and minority ethnic groups are promoted at work because of the colour of their skin. They believe, contrary to the statistics that they are the main victims of racism and discrimination in housing, health care, social benefits and government grants.

Whites are now saying it is racist for black people to have exclusive black groups such as the Black Police Association, Black Unions and social groups etc. What is ignored is why these black associations and groups are needed in the first place, namely racism. It is ignored that black people have to work twice as hard to get promoted than their white counterparts because of racism. It is ignored that the statistics clearly show that black and minority ethnic groups live in the most deprived areas because of racism. It is ignored that black people are the main victims of racist attacks.

Who is to blame for this false perception that whites now have that they are victims? The media? Or is it that this new white victim mentality absolves them of dealing with their own racism towards other races?

As I said in that article, white victimhood is a new dangerous form of racism which serves to reverse the gains of racial equality.

In another article where I discussed this issue called Black councillor is convicted of racism: Is this the end of racism as we know it?, a black councillor was convicted of racism for referring to an Asian colleague as a ‘coconut‘, because she was supporting cuts for ethnic minority projects. This is how ridiculous the definition of racism has been reduced to in Britain.

However, it has to be said that black and minority ethnic groups only have themselves to blame. Jews will not allow anti-semitism to be defined by Germans, women would never allow men to define sexism, yet black and minority ethnic groups take their definition of themselves and racism from the very people who practice it. It is no wonder racism has been turned on its head and whites now pass themselves off as victims.

The definition of racism in its historical context has always been about one race believing themself to be superior to another. No other race has demonstrated this zeal to prove this than Europeans. To this day European scientists have an obsession to seek genetic proof that they are superior to other races. An example of this was when Dr James Watson, a Nobel prize winner and DNA pioneer sparked controversy when he was quoted in the Sunday Times as saying that Africans were inferior to Europeans. Another example is the British media’s obsession with the birth rates of non-whites.

It is now ironic that the victims of racism are now being labelled racists. In today’s racism definition, both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, along with all civil rights leaders would be done for racism. That is how devilish this new interpretation of racism has become.

Abbott will probably be sacked as a result of her comments, and no doubt this will serve as a warning to all black and minority ethnic MPs or community leaders.

For further research:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082527/Diane-Abbott-racist-tweets-MP-faces-calls-resign-divide-rule-comment.html

“DESPITE THESE VERDICTS, TODAY IS NOT A CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION…WE ARE JUST ONE FAMILY AMONG HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS STILL SUFFERING” (Doreen Lawrence)

JUST West Yorkshire welcomes the guilty verdict of Gary Dobson and David Norris and the imposition of minimum sentences of 15 years and 2 months and 14 years and 3 months respectively, almost two decades after the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The verdict represents a landmark decision which declares categorically that race has to be considered in the context of a crime. While the tenacious and dignified struggle of Doreen and Neville Lawrence has come to symbolise the fight for racial justice, yet another family is grieving over the murder of their son Anuj Bidve, an overseas Indian post-graduate who was callously shot in the head on Boxing Day in Manchester.

Like Stephen who had aspirations of a career in architecture, Anuj too had a promising career in microelectronics ahead of him. The failure of the Manchester police to inform the Bidve family of their son’s death or to keep them posted on the status of the investigation has ominous overtones of the Metropolitan Police’s treatment of the Lawrence family in the immediate aftermath of their son’s murder. The Met’s disregard for victims’ families became a central recommendation in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report in which the presiding judge Lord Macpherson called on:  “Senior Investigating Officers and Family Liaison Officers be made aware that good practice and their positive duty shall be the satisfactory management of family liaison, together with the provision to a victim’s family of all possible information about the crime and its investigation.“(Chapter 47, point 26, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Recommendations)

The fact that the Bidve family only learnt of their son’s death on Facebook merely highlights how the Report’s Recommendations, have been kicked into the long grass, despite assurances from polices forces across the UK that the Macpherson recommendations are integral to policing practice. The abandonment of the monitoring group that oversees the implementation of the Macpherson recommendations represents a complacency in policing practice at a time when racist crimes continue to be committed.

The Lawrences’ 18-year campaign for justice has been a running sore which has held up a mirror to the racism that still dogs parts of British society. In this context the Prime Minister’s statement to the Lawrence family, outlining his hope that the outcome “brings at least some comfort after their years of struggle” provides cold comfort at a time when his government is actively undermining the equalities and human rights agenda and delivering racially and religiously divisive speeches, which make BME lives unsafe on British streets.

The Lawrence campaign highlights the dual capacity of British politics and the press and the media to either bridge or create divides. The Lawrence campaign became a cause célèbre due to the weight that the Daily Mail threw behind the Lawrence family’s campaign for justice. Similarly the decision by the Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw to set up a public inquiry was instrumental in adding political weight behind the Lawrence’s struggle. If politics is to be a force for good then David Cameron would do well to devise a robust policy framework that delivers a Just Society rather than tinker on the edges with the rhetoric of the Big Society.

It is apparent that the jury conviction of the 2 suspects would not have been possible without the Metropolitan police’s decision to undertake a cold case review, the leading role of Scotland Yard’s Clive Driscoll in pursuing the investigation and the forensics team’s painstaking role in in pursuing the investigation. However the court proceedings revealed that justice might have yet been perverted, as the basic safeguards that should have been observed to prevent contamination of crucial material evidence, had been clearly ignored. The criticism leveled at the Metropolitan police in Doreen Lawrence’s poignant statement following the guilty verdict, highlights the personal and emotional burden she has been carrying. “Had the police done their job properly I would have spent the last 18 years grieving for my son rather than fighting to get his killers to court.”

JUST believes that the Metropolitan Police has crucial questions to answer as to how and why the contamination of vital evidence occurred. Unless there is an urgent review of present procedures and clear processes on the preservation of key evidence across all police forces, the pain that the Lawrence family had to endure is likely to be repeated.

So has justice been served in the Stephen Lawrence case? The Acting Chief Constable of Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick believes that the campaign of the Lawrence family has led to major changes towards racism in law, policing and society as a whole.

She is correct in so far as in the decade since the Macpherson Report, the legal framework has undoubtedly been strengthened and BME communities enjoy better safeguards, albeit with a higher threshold of proof for race hate crimes.

In policing and criminal justice terms however the statistics point to the disproportionate targeting of BME people: 1 in 4 of the prison population is Black; young men are 8-10 times more likely to be stopped and searched than White men; more BME police officers are leaving the service compared to their white counterparts; a disproportionate number of deaths following contact with the police are of Black people; almost half the deaths of people in police custody are mental health service users; deaths of those detained under the Mental Health Act account for 62 per cent of all deaths in state custody.

The disproportionate targeting of BME young men is not just specific to London but plagues young people in West Yorkshire too as a video compiled by JUST West Yorkshire in the immediate aftermath of the 7 July London bombings and the introduction of draconian anti-terror legislation revealed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCdIGO5tvbY&feature=youtu.be )

Recent proposals by the police to purchase water cannons, deploy rubber bullets and use disabling laser technology to quell future riots, highlight the continued use of punitive measures to policing young people and the BME community.

As for the Met’s third claim that the Lawrence campaign has led to a transformative change in attitudes towards racism within British society, the response of Anuj Bidve’s father is instructive in this regard. When asked about the experience of fellow Indians in the UK, he said: “all my friends who have been to the UK have had some sort of bad experience there.”

This might not be wholly accurate but for BME communities, in the decade since the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report they have witnessed a number of alarming trends: the resonance of far-right ideas within sections of the British electorate; government policy which continues to define BME and particularly Muslim communities as the Other; anti-immigration, anti-asylum and anti-immigrant stories that drive the sale of the tabloid press. The split along the fault-lines of race and religion that are occurring within British society while the frameworks which enshrine minority rights – Equality legislation, civil liberties and human rights – are coming under relentless attack, creates a nervousness about the place of the BME citizen within British society.

The experience of the Bidve family in relation to the treatment they have received at the hands of the Manchester Police, highlights that almost a decade since the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report and the introduction of the term Institutional Racism, the definition and the Recommendations have even greater saliency.

It is a very sensitive issue for any Indian. If someone dies, we have to perform all the rites. We burn the body on the day of death and for the next 13 days we have to do several other things, otherwise the soul might not rest in peace … (we) were ready to fly to Britain to bring the body home, but despite help from the Indian authorities there had been no progress in getting it released. They say the investigation is still pending, the charge sheet has not been filed and a second postmortem is still pending. The holidays are taking their toll. If there were more people working, we would not have to wait so long.

Until there is a radical change to policing responses in relation to hate crime and murders police forces across England would do well to heed Doreen Lawrence’s appeal “not to use my son’s name to say that we can move on” because “racism and racist attacks are still happening in this country.”

The call from the Bidve family to the British authorities “to help us to believe again that Britain is not a racist place” echoes the cry of the Lawrence family for fair justice. The renewed commitment of public bodies to the definition of Institutional Racism and the wholesale adoption of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report recommendations may be an effective starting point on the journey towards Fair Justice for ALL.

As Stephen’s father so aptly put in his statement: “Something has happened over the last 7 weeks, I have seen justice been done. I will let this good news sink in however I’m conscious there were five or six other attackers. I don’t think I will be able to rest until they are brought to justice.”

Ratna Lachman Director

Photos released by the Crown Prosecution Service show Gary Dobson, left, and David Norris. The two men have been convicted of the 1993 murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence

Two men standing trial for the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 has been found guilty by a jury who reached a unanimous verdict, 18 years after the young black teenager was murdered by a gang of white racists.

Gary Dobson and David Norris have been found guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence in a racist attack in April 1993.

A system that condoned race murder

Stephen Lawrence was attacked whilst waiting for a bus on 22 April, 1993, at 10:35pm. A group of white racists referred to him as a ‘nigger’ and stabbed him. He managed to run over 100 yards but the five inch knife wounds caused his lungs to collapse.

The racist murder was shocking enough for black and ethnic minority communities, but it was how the police dealt with evidence corruptly and prejudiced that outraged black and ethnic minority communities in England.

Evidence of corruption involving police officers and suspects was aired by a BBC investigation in July 2006. (Lawrence case ‘corruption’ probe : BBC: Wednesday, July 26, 2006)

In 2009, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) arrested a former police constable on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice by allegedly withholding evidence.

In November 2007, the police said that they were looking into new scientific evidence linking the DNA of the suspects with clothes at the scene of the murder. It is this evidence that has led to the new trial on November 14, 2011.

Gary Dobson and David Norris were two of the five males who took part in the attack on Stephen Lawrence, and have now been finally found guilty of his murder, 18 years after he was killed.

After Stephen’s murder the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) were found to be institutionally racist by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, after he led an inquiry into the murder and subsequent investigation by the police and CPS.

The enquiry is said to be a turning point in British race relations history, with the police force and public civil services such as the NHS, councils, schools and the judicial system being subjected to race equality recommendations.

Resistance to race equality

It would be nice to believe that after 18 years of fighting, the Lawrence family and race equality campaigners have finally found justice with this conviction, but the evidence reveals that the battle continues and in fact racism is as alive as ever in the UK.

When Macpherson concluded that the police and criminal justice system was institutionally racist, the impact and effect of this has often been played down by the mainstream media and the government.

This term indicates that a group of people working within an organisation conspired and continue to conspire to apply unfair policies, practices and laws to black and minority ethnic people.

What does this mean in practical terms? Let us examine this together. In my article, New equality report reveals a racially unequal Britain, on October 11, 2010, I referred to The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report titled, “Young Black People and the Criminal Justice System” (2006-2007).

The report found that, “Black people of all ages are three times more likely to be arrested than white people…Black people constitute 2.7% of the population aged 10–17, but represent 8.5% of all those arrested in England and Wales…Black people are just over six times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people…” (P.16)

It was also said that “Once they have been charged with an offence, black young offenders are significantly less likely to be given unconditional bail compared to white young offenders and black young offenders are more likely to be remanded in custody compared to white re-offenders.” (P.17)

Young people of mixed race ethnicity were also the victims of a racially discriminative justice system. According to the report “…young black people and young people of ‘mixed’ ethnicity, when sentenced, are more likely to receive more punitive sentences than young white people.” (p.17)

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said that by the ages of 22-24 the number of Asians and black people in neither employment, education or training rises.

The EHRC report said “Recent research found that Black and Asian groups earn less than White British people with the same qualification level and in particular Black male graduates earn 24% less than White British male graduates.” (p.415)

In social housing, black and minority ethnic groups live in the most deprived areas and according to research racial discrimination is responsible.

Institutional racism is a serious disease which prevents black and minority ethnic people from fulfilling their potential and progressing from generation to generation.

Yet, whilst the media and the government will be using the conviction of Gary Dobson and David Norris to sell papers and win votes respectively, let us not forget that they have resisted the changes recommended in the Macpherson report.

According to the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) an average of five race murders occur in the UK every year since the race murder of Stephen Lawrence in April 1993 by a gang of racists. (Read  Five racial murders per year says race institute)

What must be asked is why these murders do not make the news? Instead the mainstream media, the same media claiming to be on the side of racial justice has been busy stirring up white people by claiming that they are now the main victims of racist attacks. The IRR report rubbished these claims as research found that 94 percent of race murders are perpetrated by whites.

In my article White victimhood: The new racism, I reported how the mainstream media and the government are deceptively making out that whites are now being discriminated against.

The Macpherson recommendations is now being turned on its head, and black and minority ethnic groups are being accused of racism, accused of being promoted in employment because of their skin colour among other accusations. This campaign of reverse racism has been led by the media and despite all the accusations, it is black and minority ethnic groups that suffer the most racist attacks, still live in the most deprived areas, are more likely to be unemployed despite being educated; it is these groups that are more likely to be put in jail and convicted.

It is the disease of racism which resulted in the parents of Stephen Lawrence having to wait 18 years to see some justice, and the battle against racism is far from over.

For further research:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5214644.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/08/ukcrime.lawrence

23 year-old Anuj Bidve brutally murdered on Boxing Day in Manchester.

Police investigating the brutal shooting of Indian student Anuj Bidve in an apparently motiveless attack are now investigating the possibility that the murder was racially motivated and a hate crime.

Twenty-three year old Anuj Bidve was studying a postgraduate degree in microelectronics at Lancaster University, and was out in Manchester, Salford with a group of Indian friends over the Christmas period.

According to the police report, Anuj was approached by two white males and asked for the time, a brief conversation followed and then one of the white males pointed a gun at Anuj’s head and shot him at point blank range.

The police say that there was no apparent motive for the murder and was completely baffled at the motiveless purpose of the crime, however two days after the first reports regarding the killing the police now say that they have not ruled out that the attack may be racially motivated and a hate crime.

Five males are being questioned by police in relation to the murder of Anuj. His parents who live in India are reported to be devastated by the murder of their son.

Anuj was in the UK for only three months and his brother-in-law, Rakesh Sonawane, said that it was his dream to come to the UK. A dream that has now turned into a terrible nightmare for his friends and family.

Police say that there was no racial language or remarks leading up to the murder and on a Facebook page set up in memory of Anuj, it says that he was killed for not answering the question about the time.

It is still speculation whether Anuj’s murder was racially motivated or part of the senseless ongoing gun crime on UK streets, however considering that the jury of the Stephen Lawrence trial are deliberating whether Gary Dobson and David Norris are guilty of the teenager’s murder 18 years after his death, if Anju’s murder is established as racially motivated it will send shock-waves throughout the black and minority ethnic communities.

It can easily be proven how the mainstream media and the British government has created a climate of hate and fear against immigrants, however this analysis will be delayed until more is known regarding the motive for the killing.

At this time our thoughts go out to the Bidve family and to Anju’s friends.

For further research:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-16331668

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8980090/Indian-student-shot-in-Manchester-fourth-suspect-held.html

In a speech in Oxford on the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, the prime minister called for a revival of traditional Christian values to counter Britain’s “moral collapse”. He said “live and let live” had too often become “do what you please”. The speech has alarming echoes of his earlier address at the Munich security conference where he asserted the primacy of mono-culturalism and assimilation as a bulwark against security threats facing the UK in which Muslims were primarily implicated.



The attack on the multi-cultural and multi-religious fabric of British society locates Cameron on the same ideological spectrum as the Far Right who have peddled their anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant messages as a badge of respectability.

We should not be surprised that a “vaguely practising” Christian should use his blithe ignorance of the central tenet of Christianity – Love thy neighbour – to drive a wedge between Christians and non-Christians. His speech points to a moral blindness at the core of his world-view – while cutting life-line services to the most impoverished and letting stock brokers and city financiers scot-free, he has demonstrated his Judas-like credentials in betraying the poor, infirm and weak.

For someone who has been cocooned in a life of plenty and surrounded by people who look more like him than the non-Christian non-White Other, his speech highlights the racism, xenophobia and parochial world-view that inform his view of the world.

For a Prime Minister who should know the facts about the land that he presides over, here are just a few short lessons that may help him on his way.

Lesson 1: Britain is and has always been a diverse society. Early in our history we were invaded by Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans armies and later Africans were brought to Britain by force in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as slaves or servants. Over the years, thousands of people have arrived in Britain as refugees from France, Ireland, Russia, and other countries, escaping from persecution or famine in their own countries. Britain has always been a diverse country and it is our difference and ability to coexist that has made us the envy of the world. People from all cultures, faiths and ethnicities can be found in every corner of Britain and each person in his or her own way has contributed to make Britain the place it is today. Tony Blair in 2001 recognised this by saying “We get strength from the cultures and races that go to make up Britain today“.

Lesson 2: The EU-funded European Social Survey published in April 2009 found that only 12% of British people belong to a church. The empty pews in churches across the length and breadth of England should attest to the increasingly secular nature of British society.

Lesson 3: Two High Court Judges, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson, as part of their judgement in the case of the Pentecostal couple in March 2011 said the law of England was not Christian:
 “We cannot avoid the need to re-state what ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood principles regulating the relationship of religion and law in our society. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy. Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century. Our society is now pluralistic and largely secular. We sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths. The laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form.”

Lesson 4: The support for faith schools within the British education system is a policy that is being actively promoted by your Education secretary Michael Gove. Faith schools make up about a third of the 20,000 state-funded schools in England and these include schools from the Church of England, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim denomination and the numbers are set to increase through the life-time of your government. Is it a case of the right-hand of government not knowing what the left-hand is doing? Or is it a case of government speaking in forked tongues?

Lesson 5: In these difficult times of adversity the mark of true leader is not to divide but to unite his people. So before you distribute the King James version of the Bible to all schools, you would be advised to read it first and understand the true spirit of Christ who preaches love, tolerance and equality.

Romans 14:1-23 “But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ…Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.”

Corinthians 10:31-32: “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:”

Most importantly be guided by this biblical maxim from the King James Bible:

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.”

Lesson 6: Some people are non-White and non-Christian – get over it Cameron!

]]> http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2011/12/22/some-people-are-non-white-and-non-christian-get-over-it-cameron/feed/ 2 http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2011/12/01/ethnic-minority-uk-citizens-retiring-abroad-miss-out-on-full-state-pension/ http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2011/12/01/ethnic-minority-uk-citizens-retiring-abroad-miss-out-on-full-state-pension/#comments Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:50:42 +0000 Mark Watson http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/?p=4300 Press release by Runnymede Trust©

Ethnic minority UK citizens retiring to countries outside of Europe could lose up to £24,000 over 20 years due to their UK Basic State Pension not being up rated in line with inflation.

The discovery was made by the Runnymede Trust, the UK’s leading race equality think tank, in its latest report To Stay or Not to Stay: Retirement Migration Decisions among Older People.

The report found that while UK pensions are uprated in a small number of non-European countries such as the USA, Jamaica and Barbados, pensions are frozen in the vast majority of Caribbean, Asian, African and South American countries.

This affects many Black and Asian Britons retiring to their country of birth in the Caribbean, Africa and South Asia, as well as others who choose to leave the UK to retire in Australia or Canada.

For many, the prospect of losing pension income overseas through receiving a frozen pension is a barrier to retiring abroad, as not receiving a full pension can have a big impact on quality of life in the retiree’s new country of residence.

This is particularly the case where the cost of living is particularly high, such as Australia, or where medical bills can be expensive, such as the Caribbean.

For example, one participant in the research who retired from the UK to the Caribbean said:

“It didn’t work because the cost of living is very expensive and [as] I worked [in the UK] for so many years and paid in my taxes and my national insurance, I found it difficult to go to be paying doctor bills for medication, so it just didn’t work for me”.

In addition, the report found that many of those wanting to retire abroad have lived and worked in the UK for 30 or 40 years, or were born in the UK, and therefore feel that as they have contributed to the UK economy through working, paying taxes and national insurance – as well as contributing to their communities – it is unfair that their contribution is not repaid in full through their pensions.

Commenting, the report’s author Phil Mawhinney said:

“It is clearly unfair that the people who were encouraged to rebuild the UK after the Second World War by working for the NHS should risk losing their entitlements if they return to the Caribbean, or elsewhere. The current system of overseas pensions uprating is arbitrary, with no logic behind a pension being uprated in Jamaica but not Trinidad. We therefore call on the Government to uphold fairness and uprate all overseas UK pensions.”

 Peter Morris of the International Consortium of British Pensioners said:

“While many ‘frozen’ pensioners live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, they also live in Trinidad&Tobago, Dominica, India, Pakistan and Nigeria. As the number of older Black and minority ethnic people in the UK grows over the coming years, more ethnic minorities may face the unfair situation of not receiving their full entitlement if they leave the UK. Now is the right time for the government to take action by uprating all overseas pensions.”

Two members of a group set up to ensure community confidence in the investigation of the police shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham have resigned, following reports of losing confidence in the Inquiry set up by the IPCC. The row centres around the role of the IPCC in authorising the removal of key evidence related to the investigation. The taxi Duggan had been travelling in was taken away from the scene by police just after the shooting, despite it containing “evidence of major significance”.

Stafford Scott and John Noblemunn were part of a three-member community reference group appointed by the IPCC to investigate the circumstances of Mark Duggan’s shooting after he was shot dead by a Scotland Yard marksman on 4 August in Tottenham, North London. The shooting led to the worst kind of rioting and disturbances; five people died, numerous others were injured and an estimated £200 million worth of property was damaged.

On 21st November 2011 the Guardian reported concerns expressed by Stafford Scott, one of the members of the Inquiry who wrote:

“I have been alarmed to learn that not only have the IPCC broken their own guidelines by giving out erroneous information to journalists regarding the ‘shoot-out’ involving Mark Duggan and police, that didn’t actually happen. But I have discovered that their investigation … is flawed and in all probability tainted to a degree that means we will never be able to have faith in their final report into the killing.” ­(1)

On 12th August 2011 Channel 4 News reported that, the Independent Police Complaints Commission admitted that Duggan did not open fire, stating, “it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged“. (2)

On the same day the Guardian reported a statement from the IPCC substantiating the concerns raised by Scott and Noblemunn:

“Analysis of media coverage and queries raised on Twitter have alerted to us to the possibility that we may have inadvertently given misleading information to journalists when responding to very early media queries following the shooting of Mark Duggan by MPS officers on the evening of 4 August.”(3)

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has already had to admit that, despite police claims that Mark Duggan had fired at them first, the bullet embedded in a police radio was actually police issue.

Unfortunately this is not the first time that concerns have been raised over its failure to investigate complaints properly. JUST West Yorkshire is aware of a number of cases where the IPCC, in contravention of their own statutory guidance, has failed to investigate complaints made to them regarding the criminal behaviour and serious misconduct by police officers from the Professional Standards Department in West Yorkshire. Instead the complaints were referred back to the very department that the concerns were being made against, thereby raising serious questions about the impartiality of the investigation.

The National Audit Office conducted a review of the IPCC in 2008 and found it did not have any formal procedures for reviewing cases and its investigators had inadequate training.

Similarly, research undertaken by the Institute of Criminal Policy Research (ICPR) in 2008 revealed that 78% of the respondents they interviewed believed that the IPCC process lacked any impartiality and 80% said they were either ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with the manner in which their appeal had been dealt with. Just under half of appellants did not believe the IPCC had furnished them with clear reasons for their final decision.

The research by the ICPR also reported that nine cases had been lost or conceded to date by the IPCC because it accepted that casework managers had made errors in “handling appeals, dispensations or discontinuances, or the IPCC had made unjustifiable decisions on the disclosure of evidence gathered in the course of an independent investigation.” (4) Concerns were also highlighted in the Review regarding IPCC’s inexperience around evidence gathering and interviewing skills required to conduct complex investigations.

JUST West Yorkshire has logged with the National Black Police Association, concerns raised by a number of BME police officers from the West Yorkshire constabulary, about IPCC’s failure to investigate the manner in which the Professional Standards Department have conducted themselves in relation to a number of cases.

JUST believes that in view of the prevailing charge of incompetence levelled at the IPCC it is incumbent on the Home Office to review the funding and operational performance of the IPCC. JUST believes that an urgent independent inquiry should be conducted into the IPCC with a view to compiling a report to determine whether the IPCC needs to be overhauled or replaced by a framework that inspires public confidence and promotes the cause of fair justice within our society.

For further research:

1. http://www.channel4.com/news/police-watchdog-misled-journalists-over-duggan-shooting

1. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/police_complaints_commission.aspx

1. APPELLANTS’, COMPLAINANTS’ AND POLICE OFFICERS’ SATISFACTION WITH THE INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION  (ICPR Research 2008)

http://www.justwestyorkshire.co.uk/

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission has found former American president, George Bush Senior and former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair guilty of war crimes in relation to their invasion of Iraq in 2003, a landmark ruling which will test whether there is an equal international justice system for western leaders.

On November 19-22, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission held a trial which signifies the most important legal proceedings since the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis after World War II.

Charges against Tony Blair and George Bush Senior were brought by the victims of Iraq in 2009, and following a thorough two-year investigation formal charges were brought against Bush and Blair.

Both leaders were charged with Crimes Against Peace by invading Iraq in March 2003, in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

They were also charged with the Crime of Torture and War Crimes.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission was founded in 2008, as a result of the numerous victims who came forward demanding justice against Blair and Bush. Note, that other international forums such as the International Criminal Court did not take this action, despite taking action on the scarcity of evidence when it comes to leaders in African and Arab countries.

The trial was conducted by highly qualified legal professionals. According to Global Research, (Bush and Blair to be Tried for War Crimes: November 19, 2011):

“The judges of the Tribunal, which is headed by retired Malaysian Federal Court judge Dato’ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, also include other notable names such as Mr Alfred Lambremont Webre, a Yale graduate, who authored several books on politics, Dato’ Zakaria Yatim, retired Malaysian Federal Court judge, Tunku Sofiah Jewa, practising lawyer and author of numerous publications on International Law, Prof Salleh Buang, former Federal Counsel in the Attorney-General Chambers and prominent author, Prof Niloufer Bhagwat, an expert in Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and International Law, and Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, prominent academic and professor of law.”

Global Research also said that  the prosecution was led by “Professor Gurdial S Nijar, a prominent law professor and author of several law publications and Professor Francis Boyle, a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law, and assisted by a team of lawyers.”

The trial was held at the headquarters of the Al-Bukhary Foundation at Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

Victims who came forward to testify against Bush and Blair in October 2009 to the commission,  included a man who was held in Guantanamo Bay for six years because of a case of mistaken identity. The commission even discovered that the United States military knew the man was not the right person after only a few days but held him anyway and subjected him to inhumane torture and mental suffering.

A woman victim told the commission how she was used a human shield whilst being detained on a helicopter so that any resistance from Iraqis would have resulted in her injury or death. Another victim gave evidence to how he was threatened to admit he was a terrorist, or his wife would be executed in the cell next to him.

None of these victims were given legal representation or charged with any crimes.

The second part of the trial led to the conclusion by the judges that no head of state can renounce international law or treaties, therefore when Bush and Blair circumvented the UN to invade Iraq, they broke international law, and any action following that decision was unlawful and therefore a war crime.

The judges agreed with the prosecution’s evidence that Blair and Bush deliberately lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction as a pretext to regime change. Therefore, again they had broken international law in a war of aggression.

In a dramatic ending to a historical trial, the judges found Blair and Bush guilty of war crimes, and concluded that they had committed genocide, crimes against peace and humanity.

It was found that the United States falsified documents to claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was also recommended that the names of Blair and Bush be added to a symbolic war crimes register, and that documents will be sent to other members of state who will be expected to act within international law and arrest these war criminals should they be located in their country.

Now for the real test of global justice

It was Malaysia’s retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who was a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war, that came up with the idea behind this legal proceedings to indict Blair and Bush, as well as their associates with war crimes.

The effort it has taken to bring all these great legal minds together, and the bravery to hold such a historical trial against western leaders is unprecedented in history.

Both the International Criminal Court and the United Nations will be given the full trial reports and be expected to act accordingly within international law and comply with the ruling.

What happens next will define whether all leaders across the world are covered under international law equally, and whether this bold process started by individuals with a conscience and a desire to see justice prevail, was worth the painstaking research and effort.

Tony Blair, George Bush, and their associates still walk free. There is no international arrest warrant for these individuals as there has been for leaders like the late Colonel Gaddafi. The International Criminal Court is a farce. The United Nations is toothless when it comes to bringing justice to powerful leaders.

As wonderful as this verdict sounds to many of us who wish it could be carried through to the end, the truth remains that these leaders are walking the streets relaxed.

The truth remains that Bush, Blair and their associates will never be paraded in the media just as Colonel Gaddafi was, blood-soaked and dragged like dogs through the streets with the sound of cheers around the world. Bush, Blair and their associates will not be hanged by their neck until they are dead, just as former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein was, and for killing much less people. Bush, Blair and their associates bodies’ will not be buried in a secret location, but most likely will be given state funerals as heroes of history. This is the reality of this situation as depressing as it sounds.

The significance of this ruling will be interesting to observe over the next few months, but for now, these convicted murderers continue to walk free and above the law.

For further research:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27751

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27743

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27749

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27771

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27772

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27818

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27820