Dear Mr. Philip Davies MP,

We the undersigned from the West Yorkshire Racial Justice Network are writing to you to express our deep concern at the tirade of abuse unleashed by you against the Gypsy and Traveller community.

Your statement published in the Telegraph and Argus criticising Bradford Council for putting £352,000 towards refurbishing amenities at the Mary Street and Esholt sites in Shipley, and describing the works as “an outrageous waste of money” reveal the racist attitude, and discriminatory lens through which you “serve” some of your constituents.

We are disappointed at the misleading language deployed in your statement, which depicts a largely flawed reality of the funding assigned for renovation of sites, and robs Gypsies and Travellers of their rights as equal citizens who are entitled to access central and local government funds.

As organisations committed to promoting racial equality, we would like to set out the reasons why we believe your statement seems designed to widen the gap in inequalities between West Yorkshire’s communities.

“Waste of money”:

Your description of the works as being “an outrageous waste of money” ignores the fact that the repairs at the site are essential to bringing accommodation up to the standards required by law.

Expenditures for the refurbishment project draw on £468,000 worth of funds designated specifically for increasing pitches that was provided by the Homes and Communities Agency, and another £352,000 put forward by Bradford Council. Both funds are ring-fenced which means that, by law, the money cannot be used for any other purpose.

Commenting on your stance regarding the renovations, Helen Jones, chief executive officer at Leeds GATE, an organization advocating for the rights of Gypsies and Travellers said:

“Philip Davies’ views are of course disappointing but not surprising. He is increasingly out of touch with modern housing and public health management.

“The old approach of utterly disregarding the health and wellbeing, and social care needs of whole groups of families on the basis of minority status – and on the fact that they had wheels, so authorities literally could just push them out of the district – is increasingly discredited.

“On a cost basis alone maintaining decent well established homes, enabling young and old to tap into local social networks, services and opportunities, represents significantly less drain on public finances than the old ‘shift em, shift em’ approach advocated by Mr. Davies.  There is no lack of evidence that such an approach leads to crisis driven or reactive policy and service provision which is significantly more expensive to deliver.”

Indeed, it is acknowledged that nationally there is a shortage of suitable accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites highlights the government’s aim to increase the number of sites in appropriate locations with planning permission in order to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply. The policy asks local councils to identify sites to meet Traveller needs for five years, and to forecast fifteen years ahead where possible. Councils were given 27 March 2013 as a deadline to demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites or else applications for temporary permissions would be granted.

To support the local councils with this process, in January 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government announced successful bids totaling £47million that go towards providing over 750 new and refurbished pitches for Travellers.

We commend Bradford Council for fulfilling their responsibility and pressing on with the refurbishment plan.

Ratna Lachman, Director of JUST West Yorkshire, a human rights charity believes that Bradford Council’s efforts to meet the housing needs of Gypsies and Travellers without discrimination, demonstrates an enlightened approach.

“The right to family life and secure accommodation is a human rights issue and Bradford Council’s investment in making suitable and secure accommodation available for Gypsies and Travellers should be held up as a model of good practice to be emulated by all local authorities. As a Bradford MP he should be working co-operatively with Bradford Council to meet the very real housing shortages facing Gypsies and Travellers instead of appealing to populist sentiments that have very little basis in reality.”

Equal citizenship:

In Britain, we pride ourselves on the values of equality and have legislation in place that reflects our will as a nation to stamp out intolerant attitudes from public life. Yet the persistent discrimination meted out to the Gypsy and Traveller community, fuelled by the rhetoric you espouse, undermines those efforts.

Gypsies are one of the most disadvantaged groups in the country and members of this community experience multiple forms of deprivation compounded by extreme racism and exclusion; factors which lead to poorer chances in life.

Your statement that “The Council just seems to have a never-ending supply of money for these politically-correct hobby horses” is both callous and discriminatory as it sets a paradigm where refurbishment of Gypsy and Traveller sites should be viewed differently from refurbishment to any other form of social housing.

Representation:

Gypsies and Travellers have had a presence in Shipley and Baildon for centuries – the Baildon Gypsy Fair held in June 2012 celebrated this community’s long-standing heritage and connection with the area. Many of your constituents will belong to that community and as their MP you are required to represent their interests and advocate for their needs too.

Therefore, claiming that your “constituents think this sort of thing should not be a priority for Bradford Council” raises questions over your connectedness with some of your constituents, and whether you are truly representative of them.

At a time when communities are looking towards their politicians for leadership in promoting greater community cohesion, your stance and language, will exacerbate prejudices and encourage the far right to continue sowing seeds of hatred in our towns and cities.

The Racial Justice Network submitted the above statement to Philip Davies MP and invited him to comment. He responded saying:

“With regards to whether I am effectively representing my constituents, a poll in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus following the article showed that 92% of respondents agreed with me which I am sure you will accept is a very high figure.

However, if you feel that you are more in tune with my constituents than I am then I suggest that you, or one of your colleagues from your organisation, stands against me at the next General Election so that the people of the Shipley constituency can decide.  As a democrat I am very happy to accept the verdict of my constituents at the General Election whatever that might be.”

His response is disappointing as it defines politics in populist rather than inclusive terms and only serves to further disempower already marginalised Gypsy and Traveller communities.

The Open Letter is supported by:

Advocacy Support
African Women Support Project
Building Bridges
Equity Partnership
Father Nicholas Clews, representing St. Margaret’s Church
Involve Yorkshire & Humber
JUST West Yorkshire
Leeds Gypsy and Traveller Exchange
Leeds West Indian Charitable Trust
Next Generation
Ravensthorpe Community Centre
Thornbury Centre
York Travellers Trust

By: Arwa Almari – West Yorkshire Racial Justice Network Coordinator

Levels of prejudice have fallen in the twenty years since the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, but British Future’s new report ‘The Integration Consensus’ also reports widespread public recognition of the challenges which remain to tackle discrimination and racism in Britain today.

57% of respondents in Yorkshire and Humberside believe racism in Britain is lower today than 20 years ago, compared to 51% nationally. 17% think levels of racism are similar and 13% that things have got worse. Yorkshire had the most optimistic improvement score for any region, though the regional differences are fairly narrow, with the main difference being that Londoners (33%) were a good deal less likely to cite an improvement over the last two decades. Londoners were as likely to say don’t know (20%) or that things had remained the same (22%) as to think they had got worse (18%).

These results come from a nationally representative poll, conducted by Britain Thinks. The 2032 respondents across Great Britain included 175 from Yorkshire and Humberside. Care should be taken, in citing these results, to note the small sample sizes at a regional level. The regional pattern, overall, rarely presented striking differences in the shape of attitudes across different parts of Britain. The Report captures a rise in everyday tolerance across recent decades as Britain has become more diverse. 6% of people say they would be uncomfortable at having a neighbour from a different ethnic background, and 4% about their children’s best friends. 44% of respondents to the British Social Attitudes survey in the 1990s said they would be uncomfortable at their children marrying across ethnic lines, that has fallen to 9% in this 2013 poll. The role which sparks the highest level of discomfort (for 13% of people) is the Prime Minister being of a different race to themselves.

However, clear majorities recognise that prejudice still plays an important role. 54% today perceive a lot of prejudice against Muslims (a figure which was about 25% higher than for any other minority ethnic or faith group). Yorkshire responses on this were similar level to those across Britain. 29% of respondents believe there is a lot of prejudice against Asians in Britain today, including 38% of Yorkshire respondents. That figure was significantly higher than in London (23%). 24% of people perceive a lot of prejudice against Black Britons, a view shared this time by 21% in Yorkshire and 29% in London. Nationally, perceptions of levels of prejudice against Muslims in 2013 are similar to early 1990s views of levels of prejudice against black and Asian Britons, as over 50% of people told the 1991 British Social Attitudes study that there was “a lot” of prejudice against Blacks and Asians. Today, three-quarters of respondents across Britain do still recognise prejudice persists against Asian and Black Britons, but at lower levels, so public attitudes overall would seem to strike a balance between recognizing progress and the persistence of prejudice today.

11% of respondents in Yorkshire and Humberside perceive a lot of prejudice against White Britons, in line with the national findings, suggesting a small but limited audience for this form of “backlash” grievance politics. A slightly smaller proportion (43%) in the region declared that there is “hardly any” prejudice against the majority group, a view held by 53% across Britain. The British Future publication reports on a two-day citizens’ jury held in Eltham, South London, bringing together 38 year olds, who grew up at the same time as Stephen Lawrence, with 18-year olds today. The jury discussions captured significant shifts in attitudes to race and diversity in an area, which had been sharply polarized around issues of race in the 1990s. Participants felt there was more contact as the area had become more diverse. Eltham was 93% white in 1991 and 69% white British in the 2011 census.

While the far right had a visible and polarizing presence in the 1990s, they were largely absent today. The jury’s priorities for good community relations were increasing attention on vocational skills in schools; improving contact between the police and young people, and ensuring the police were visible, diverse and came from the communities they served; enabling community groups to use local spaces, such as schools, more easily; and increasing public engagement in how money is spent locally, especially at a time when budgets are under pressure.

The jury proposals were put to a panel of MPs, David Lammy and Gavin Barwell, during an evening debate. A subsequent national poll on the jury’s proposals saw increasing vocational skills in schools (62%) and ensuring police are visible and represent local communities (61%) emerge as the most popular priorities for improving life in communities around Britain.

The report “The Integration Consensus” can be read in full at

www.britishfuture.org or http://www.britishfuture.org/publication/the-integration-consensus/

Sunder Katwala is Director of British Future

***

It is odd to think that Stephen Lawrence, a teenager who was killed 20 years ago this week, looms as large in various parts of my professional life (as an artist and teacher) as Tagore, Arundhati Roy, Martin Luther King Jr, and Gandhi does. His death did not unleash a popular outcry against racial injustice. On the contrary, like so many criminal killings of Black and minority people at the time, the authorities and the nation at large were nonplussed. In fact, the Police lost vital evidence in the case due to a lack of timely action, the Crown Prosecution Service failed to prosecute, and it took years and a change of government (from Tory to Labour) before a public inquiry was granted. But what the tragedy of Stephen’s death did unlock was a pragmatic and long-suffering determination by the Lawrence family, friends and supporters to build change in this society one brick at a time. Their efforts over the last two decades have led to important changes in law and institutional attitudes towards the issue of race … or has it?

This morning I looked at a photograph of Doreen Lawrence, Stephen’s mother, and the country’s current political leadership outside the church where a service had been held in his memory. Aside from the obvious visual evidence that, 20 years on, our leadership is still White, it troubled me to realise that we are rather smug about the legacy of Stephen Lawrence: that we can all stand round Doreen Lawrence for the anti-racist photo op, affirm our anti-racist credentials but then go back to the comforts of our institutionally racialised organisations and practice. Doreen and friends have done the job. There is an Equalities Act in place. The great and the good publicly honour Stephen. We are therefore now ’post-race’.

While we pay lip service to our own conceptions of how society is no longer racist, the facts of the nation’s institutional racism speak for themselves. Black and minority ethnic citizens continue to be stopped and searched, imprisoned and generally criminalised more than their White counterparts. Public institutions continue to under-recruit or to adequately retain Black and minority ethnic staff, especially at senior levels, in spite, of the increasing number of qualified graduates emerging from our colleges and universities over the 20 years since Stephen’s death. Since the Northern Riots of 2001, we have adopted the attitude of blaming minority communities for not integrating into ’our’ culture, and to solve the problem of ’them’ living parallel but separate lives from ’us’, we have regressed to a pre-Lawrence policy of assimilation.

But the stakes are higher than we realise, not just for minority ethnic people, but for us all. The laws and perspectives created that expedite the criminalisation or disadvantage of one particular group can easily be turned against another in a different time. If the work to eradicate racism and institutional racism is taken for granted, belittled or forgotten, this can become a back-door through which all our fundamental civil liberties and human rights are eroded.

The funny thing about memorials is that they have the very bizarre effect of permitting us to forget. The marble, stone or bronze monuments that dot our streets fade into the everyday urban landscape until, once a year, red wreathes call them back into the present. The further away in time these memorials are from the person or event they memorialise, the more they become objects of curiosity and divorced from our contemporary reality (but of course the opposite is true, that we enjoy our current circumstance only because of the persons or deeds memorialised). In the same way, remembering Stephen for me is not about memorialising him but to be aware of and, if possible, to act against the small movements of institutional racism around me. As such, Stephen Lawrence’s legacy is not that it is a *landmark* of anti-racism in British politics, but that its demand is for a *practice* and attitude of anti-racism to be established in British political and institutional culture.

Jack Tan

Jack Tan is an artist working around issues of politics and social justice. He is currently doing his PhD research in the performance of civil rights at Roehampton University, and teaches Sculpture at the Royal College of Art.

Constants, contradictions and change

On leaving an England football match, we ended up behind an overweight Portsmouth fan singing at the top of his voice “You don’t have to wear a veil to support England”.  One of his compatriots turned and saw us and nudged the “singer” at which point he turned round too.  Averting his gaze from us, he said to his compatriot “What, I’m not a racist.  It’s just my opinion.”  Although he returned to his song, he soon stopped when he saw two policemen at the exit we were all heading for.

For those trying to understand what change there has been in Britain since the murder of Stephen Lawrence, incidents such as these can provide evidence of change: Asians going to an England football game to support England when less than a generation ago there were virtually no black faces on the pitch and often none in the terraces.  At the same time it can provide evidence that racism is still engrained in everyday life, with people finding new and more ingenious ways of saying who belongs and who does not.

At times hard won change has been too readily undermined.  In 2013 we saw a man, who was in charge of the prison service when Zahid Mubarek was murdered after being put in a prison cell with a known and violent racist, telling social workers and others that they were paying too much attention to ‘race’ in attempting to place children in care with adopters.  He proposed changes to legislation which if enacted will go against the evidence, the advice of many practitioners, as well as the House of Lords committee that reviewed the proposed legislation.  What hope for real progress when hard fought and evidenced change is undermined by ill-informed and politically motivated action.

But the history of social action tells us that change is never linear, nor without setbacks.  So the evidence that shows black and minority ethnic older people are more likely to have their needs assessed than in the past is significant.  The fact that sheltered and supported housing for black and minority ethnic communities have been established in places such as Leicester, Liverpool and London is important.  The fact that we now have a national screening programme for sickle cell and thalassemia is telling.  The fact that over 20,000 black and minority ethnic parents have accessed an evidence-based parent education programme since the year 2000, with independent evidence demonstrating its effectiveness is also a sign of change.  The fact that a myriad of mental health agencies are finding ways to ensure that talking therapies reach communities such as gypsies and travellers matters.

Acknowledging how much change there has been is not the same thing as saying racism is not an issue any more.  It is certainly not the same as those who have announced the end of institutional racism.  However, acknowledging that Britain is not what it was at the time of Stephen Lawrence’s death is a necessary step.  It recognises the efforts of Mrs Lawrence, the myriad of voluntary and community organisations as well as the range of individuals and communities that have fought for better schools, better housing, better health and social care, better and more accountable policing, better and more representative media and better laws and better law makers.  It also recognises that positive change is possible.  Finally, it also recognises that something can be done about the injustices of a young man’s life being taken and no one being held to account.

Jabeer Butt

Deputy Chief Executive

Race Equality Foundation

She highlighted race and immigration in the run up to the 1979 general election, claiming in a 1978 television interview that British people feared being swamped by people with a different culture. The upshot was that: the Conservatives overturned Labour’s lead in the opinion polls; she led the Conservatives to victory in the general election; and the National Front vote was wiped out. Her anti-immigration remarks created a climate of support for the government’s hardline approach to immigration; setting a precedent that made immigration a feature of future election campaigns.

The impact of the ‘swamp’ remarks on the British public was not restricted to the issue of immigration; it also had repercussions for the criminal justice system, being implicated in the miscarriage of justice for black Bradford man – George Lindo. In a trial where the evidence pointed to his acquittal, the all-white jury returned a guilty verdict; a verdict that was delivered on the day following the broadcast of Thatcher’s interview. Lindo’s supporters remain convinced that Thatcher’s remarks had influenced the jury. His conviction was subsequently overturned on appeal.

Testimony of her antipathy to non-white foreigners was revealed in her reluctance to accept Vietnamese boat people as refugees but showed a willingness to accept Rhodesians, Poles and Hungarians as refugees on the basis that they could more easily be assimilated into British society. She objected on the basis that it would be wrong to accommodate Vietnamese immigrants in council housing whereas white citizens were not.

‘Operation Swamp’, known as the ‘sus laws’, had Thatcher’s approval. This initiative permitted police officers to conduct random stop and search on crime suspects; providing cover for white police officers to roam inner city streets, spreading fear and terror amongst local people and, in the process, generating complaints of police brutality. These complaints, by and large, went unresolved even when deaths in police custody were featured.

This repressive regime impacted heavily on the black youth of Brixton and it was here, in April 1981, that police misconduct provoked a violent outbreak of rioting; an outbreak that engulfed many inner city areas throughout the summer of 1981. Bradford was touched in a unique way when 12 youths, known as the Bradford-12, were cleared of all aspects of rioting and established the right of communities to defend themselves from attack. The rioting spawned the Scarman report which called for the recruitment of ethnic minorities to the police force and the ending of racial disadvantage. Local authorities had barely started tackling racial disadvantage before the popular media began to pin the ‘loony left’ label on them; thus undermining Scarman.

Her infamy rocked the people of South Africa and the republicans of Northern Ireland. In South Africa she will be remembered for backing the vicious apartheid regime by opposing sanctions and labelling Nelson Mandela’s ANC a terrorist organisation. In Northern Ireland she will be particularly remembered for:  the hunger strikes; censoring Sinn Féin’s leaders; banning Sinn Féin’s Assembly members from Britain; the collusion between British forces and unionist death squads; and the political and religious discriminatory practices.

Thatcher loved wealth creation but only managed to enrich the wealthy. Her policies beggared the poor and feather-bedded the rich with the income gap between the top 10% and the bottom 10% doubling; the proportion of pensioners living below the poverty line more than tripling; and taxation for the rich falling by more than a half. These policies had a disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities who are over-represented among the poor.

Thatcher had no love for people from ethnic minorities. On the contrary, she placed them at the sharp end of her most oppressive instincts; controlled by the police internally and kept out by hostile immigration rules. She spurned Scarman and wasted the opportunity to challenge racial disadvantage. Her love is reciprocated and there will be no tears.

Being a Londoner (who lived in Leeds ever so briefly), sometimes even I find myself committing that greatest of sins: assuming that everything great happens in London.  It’s a sin that seems especially easy to commit if you’re queer.  Like many other gays and lesbians, I’ve often presumed that queer life is better in our bigger urban centres.   But the weekend before last I was lucky enough to be proven wrong (again), when I participated in the Leeds Queer Film Festival. The selection of films was stellar, and the crowd was friendly and politically engaged. I returned to London glowing, remembering how meaningful it can be to attend queer events that are spot-on politically but still organized from the grassroots.

I was also fortunate enough to be given a slot by festival organizers to show films about a topic that’s close to my heart: queer Jewish diasporic identity and its relationship to Zionism.  I screened two semi-autobiographical films – both made by Jewish lesbians – so it’s probably unsurprising that the session resonated powerfully with my own experiences of encountering the world as a Jewish dyke.  The first film, Treyf, follows two Jewish lesbians as they fall in love at a Passover seder and explore their Jewish upbringing and its impact on their lives.  We travel with Cynthia and Alisa as they fly to Israel, discuss their evolving views on the occupation, host a gathering for Jewish American lesbians of all stripes and sizes, and walk around New York, reminiscing about the vibrant, political Jewish life that thrived there only decades ago.

The second film, Camp, is a three-part, experimental video essay that interrogates the filmmaker’s personal relationship to Jewish history and culture.  In the final section of the film, Mitchell gives us intimate access to a difficult conversation with her grandfather.  As he cuts her hair, she tries to engage him on the issue of Israel/Palestine.  We see how he reacts – he tells her that her political beliefs on the question of Israel disturb him  - and we feel the weight of tension between them (“we’ve been an oppressed nation since the beginning of time, nobody ever wanted us… we have a homeland, it’s a very important thing…”).  As the film closes Mitchell tells us, “I began to feel extremely uncomfortable, afraid of the things we still couldn’t say to each other.”  [I have so been there.]

Screened alongside each other, the films touched upon the complex tensions many of us face as queer progressive Jews:  the ostracism we encounter in our families and synagogues for not being straight and (often, even worse) for not being Zionists; what it means travel inside our parents’ and grandparents’ worlds, in which their lived experiences of anti-Semitism translate seamlessly into their emotive justifications for the state of Israel; how we feel silenced by their narratives of suffering, but also understand them; the difficulties of engaging in Palestine activism, when there seems to be no space for nuance (or even understanding of the weight of intergenerational trauma) in the sometimes strident denunciations of Zionism; our simultaneous, fervent commitment to ending our communities’ complicity in the occupation; and finally, the yearning many of us feel for Jewish queer communities that celebrate our rich cultural heritages – communities that are critical of the violence of Zionism but not merely reactionary to the question of Israel/Palestine.

After the films, I spoke about a new project I’m involved in, which I’m very excited to announce is launching this week. Renounce Birthright is a web-based resource run by and for young Jews, in which we encourage our peers to reject their “gift” of a Taglit-Birthright trip.  Birthright offers a free, all-expenses paid ten-day tour of Israel for all young Jews living in the diaspora – but we know its both produced by, and serves to reinforce the Apartheid practices of the State of Israel against Palestinians.   Moreover, Birthright- Taglit dangerously conflates Judaism (a religion and/or cultural identity) and Zionism (a political ideology which advocates an exclusive Jewish nation-state).

Renounce Birthright aims to contribute the broader struggles for justice in Palestine, and join in solidarity with Palestinians who demand that Israel ends the occupation, recognizes and respects the right of return of Palestinian refugees, and grants equal rights to all its citizens, regardless of faith or ethnic origin. We aspire to build alternatives to Birthright, to Zionism, and to a monolithic European-centred notion of Jewish identity.  Finally, we understand that confronting Apartheid in Palestine is inextricably linked to the complicity of Jewish communities worldwide, and we hope to challenge our friends and families in this respect.

I am proud to belong to a long tradition of radical, secular Jewish diasporic practice – from organizations like the Bund to contemporary Jewish groups resisting Zionism and Islamophobia.  I draw inspiration from women like Emma Goldman and Laura Whitehorn in crafting my own Jewish feminist, queer, anti-racist identity. We don’t have to remake the wheel!  There are cultural resources out there that reflect the complexities of our lived identities, and there are so many of us thirsty to grapple with these issues, it’s just a matter of finding each other. I was utterly elated after my screenings at the Leeds Queer Film Festival – feeling for the first time that my queer realities were represented on screen and that other LGBT folks were invested in understanding my experiences.  Meeting other queer diasporic Jews at the festival, and hearing them articulate the same exact ambivalences I faced in the past, gave me a renewed belief in the importance of creating projects together and reenergized me to continue my work on Renounce Birthright. I encourage everyone to keep their eyes peeled for next year’s film fest.  Queer events that are warm and welcoming, financially accessibly, and position anti-racism at the centre of their politic are pretty rare these days (yes, even in London!) – so this one’s not to be missed.

Aviva Stahl is a queer Jew living in London who by day engages in research and campaigning for the due process rights of detainees of the War on Terror.  She recently co-founded Renounce Birthright, a web-based resource which aims to mobilize Jews in the diaspora to call for an end to the Taglit-Birthright program. For more details you can contact her at renouncebirthright@gmail.com

On Wednesday 27^th April, the newly elected West Yorkshire Police and Crimes Commissioner (PCC) published his policing plan for 2013 – 2018.

The plan comes at a time when confidence in policing is at an all time low – not least due to the findings of the Independent Police Complaints’ Commission recent Report into the Hillsborough disaster, implicating former West Yorkshire Chief Constable Sir Norman Bettison, for gross misconduct. The current Police and Crime Commissioner Mark Burns-Williamson was the Chair of the West Yorkshire Police Authority at the time of the publication of the damning Hillsborough Report.

While Mr. Burns-Williamson was campaigning to be elected as the PCC for West Yorkshire a common refrain from BME communities was the desperate need to restore BME confidence in the region’s policing service. The published Policing Plan however does little to respond to the concerns of BME communities that were highlighted so forcefully during the PCC hustings and the Policing Plan consultation events.

Although the region’s minority ethnic communities now form 18 per cent of the region’s population, the Plan makes no mention of how it intends to address the differential treatment between BME and White police officers and staff, as well as the culture of bullying and intimidation that has led to disproportionate targeting of BME officers in criminal litigation cases – both discussed in an open letter to Williamson which we featured in a previous bulletin. BME organisations in the region made an open call to the PCC to identify effective measures to promote the recruitment, retention and progression of BME staff within West Yorkshire; in keeping with the calls of Greater Manchester Chief Constable Peter Fahy to make a more diverse police force a legal requirement. Our open letter challenged the PCC to challenge the institutionally racist culture within the Force through establishing an in-house BME-support/advisory group directly reporting to the office of the PCC as well as establishing an independent race review. None of these concerns are reflected in the policing plan.

Similarly the Plan is silent on calls by the BME community to introduce comprehensive measures to stop the indiscriminate targeting of BME communities in stop and search operations. In the 12 months to August 2012, while arrest rates for White and Black people were the same, only 8 out of every 1000 people were stopped and searched by the Police while the figure for Black people was 42 out of every 1000.

The Policing Plan also fails to address the results of JUST’s review of current hate-crime arrangements which we found to be unfit for purpose.

Mark Burns-Williamson’s plan provides little evidence that there is a serious will to bring about a change in the institutional racism, which for long has plagued the West Yorkshire police force. Below is an illustration of the key issues the policing plan covers vis-à-vis racial equality, as well as those issues highlighted by BME organisations at various consultation events, which have been overlooked and neglected.

Against the background of a politicised PCC role, the loss of confidence in policing following the Hillsborough disaster and a historical strain in relationships between the police and minority communities, it is imperative that the PCC starts building bridges of trust and confidence, particularly among those communities who have been disadvantaged by unfair policing practices – Not doing so would render rhetorical the PCC’s call to work with communities to develop a responsive service.

JUST West Yorkshire and the West Yorkshire Racial Justice Network are calling on the PCC to develop a consultation and scrutiny framework so that minority communities can be confident that they are served by a police force that is fit for purpose and understands their needs.

By guest contributor: B. Amin

On the weekend, notable members of the Bradford community, congregated to challenge the direction Britain is taking towards the erosion of one of it’s traditional values where the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

The event held on Saturday (Caged Fighters at the Grange Interlink Centre) focused on the imprisonment of Shaker Aamer who, 11 years since his arrest, still languishes in the cells of Guantanamo Bay without charge or trial, and despite being cleared for release twice- by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Conditions in Guantanamo are dire. Human beings are made to wear dog collars and are subjected to inhumane, cruel and degrading treatment. It’s a place of secret torture (in breach of UN conventions) and an environment that reflects every bit the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps.

For most prisoners, the road to Guantanamo is mired with a complete lack of fair play. The democratic principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ are entirely eroded, and the ‘war on terror’ smacks of double standards and mischief making. The poor and powerless have become obvious victims in an orchestrated wilful disregard for human civil liberties within a new paradigm of ‘you’re guilty without ever being able to prove your innocence.’

Raw data shows that of the 1500 or so arrests, there have been less than 50 solid convictions; that’s very marginally over 3%.  This is a shambolic success rate which those in charge should feel ashamed by.  It’s high time Obama closed down Guantanamo – he promised to do so in 2008.  His inability to do so thus far epitomises his weakness and abject hypocrisy.

But to talk about Aamer, is to talk about you and I; our freedoms, and our civil liberties.

While it is noticeable, and statistically evident, that the Muslim community are one of the hardest hit when it comes to unfair imprisonments, this should not detract from the fact that every citizen is now vulnerable to practices such as indefinite detention without charge (tantamount to state sponsored abduction)!

Naturally then, the debate on Saturday focused on Who’s Next?  Great quotes were shared around the room, but the standout quote by far was one by Pastor Niemoller who says: ‘first they came for the communists, then the socialists, then the trade unionists, then the Jews, then the Christians and finally me.’
And as such, at what point do you and I begin to protest against this annihilation of basic human rights?  At what point do we remonstrate against the dehumanisation of innocent human beings?  At what point do we collectively say no to state terrorism?

Aamer is not alone and nor is he and others forgotten.  Their struggle for freedom is supported by campaigners – Muslim and non-Muslim.  But for this struggle to be effective, we must break away from uncritical consumption of mass media, which for the longest time has distorted reality – acting in effect as the crack cocaine of the people by burying the truth in mounds and mounds of information and misinformation; and portraying Muslims as the “Freddy Kruegers” of the modern world.

Aamer’s prolonged ordeal has left his family devastated, as is the case with all prisoners’ families. Aamer has four children, the youngest of whom he has never seen.  Frankie Boyle, the well-known British comedian, recently redirected his damages award of £50,000 to enable Aamer to sue MI6 for defamation.

In order to do your bit, please sign the online petition now.  We need to get to 100,000 signatures by 20^th April 2013.  For more information please go to: http://saveshaker.org/
I leave you with two quotes to ponder:

Location: Unit 4, Carlisle Business Centre, Bradford, BD8 8BD
Hours: 10 hours per week (part time)
Expenses: Travel expenses (using public transport) are reimbursable

Application deadline: Tuesday 2^nd April, 2013 (midnight)
Interview date: Tuesday 9^th April, 2013
Start date: Monday 15^th April, 2013

JUST West Yorkshire is recruiting a voluntary intern to support our vision of promoting racial justice, civil liberties and human rights.

The internship is suited to university students wishing to gain valuable life skills and experience alongside their course of study, through to their summer vacations.

Candidates must view our vision as a key means to attaining their personal life goals. Information about JUST West Yorkshire can be found at www.justwestyorkshire.co.uk

Key elements of the role will encompass:

• Produce a weekly bulletin by:

1. Scanning national and local newspaper websites, among others, for stories on racial justice, civil liberties and human rights to be added to our weekly bulletins.
2. Formatting and inputting material into Mailchimp to produce our weekly bulletin. (Training on the use of Mailchimp will be delivered)

• Monitor all West Yorkshire MPs’ and councillors political activity:

1. Monitor The Public Whip website: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk
2. Monitor They Work for You website: http://www.theyworkforyou.com
3. Monitor other websites such as local authority website, MP and councillor publications, blogs, twitter accounts etc.
4. Monitor voting record and attendance of MPs a councillors
5. Monitor West Yorkshire MPs and councillors’ stances on issues of racial justice, civil liberties and human rights, etc.
6. Produce a monthly summary on monitoring findings. This summary will contribute towards JUST’s monthly watchdog publication on councillors and parliamentarians’ activity.

Successful candidates must possess:

• Three Grade C’s or above at A level
• Excellent interpersonal and written skills
• Ability to work hard, unsupervised, and learn fast with minimal support
• Good organisational and time-management skills
• Must live in West Yorkshire

Candidates must be team players, flexible and passionate about our work.

Successful candidates will benefit from a bespoke job role; that will provide them with relevant experience and skills to assist with their future career plans.

Following the internship, a suitable reference will be provided.

To apply for the above voluntary internship, please email your C.V. (max 2 pages) and covering letter (1 page) setting out your interest and suitability for the role to: admin@justwestyorkshire.co.uk

For further enquiries please contact Ateeqa Darr on 01274 542222 or email admin@justwestyorkshire.co.uk

Human trafficking is the recruitment and movement of people by means such as violent force, fraud, coercion or deception, or abuse of their vulnerability with the aim of exploiting them. It is modern slavery. Despite Wilberforce’s campaign in the UK a little over 200 years ago, we face the reality that there are still slaves in our sophisticated society today.The abolitionist, Ralph Waldo Emerson said: ‘If you put a chain around the neck of a slave, the other end fastens itself around your own’.2 The chains may no longer be visible, but psychological ones still hold many in slavery in the UK today.

Our report explains how modern slavery in the UK manifests itself and the various forms it takes.Taking evidence from over 180 individuals and organisations across all sectors involved in anti-slavery efforts, this review is about what needs to be done if we are collectively going to eradicate modern slavery.There are no simple solutions, but we present a series of inter- related measures that, if collectively and consistently applied, will help stop modern slavery.

Of fundamental importance is the understanding that modern slavery is not primarily an issue of immigration. Yet the lead in government is the Immigration Minister and the UK Border Agency has significant input on decisions over whether or not a person has been trafficked.This sends completely the wrong message.We have heard that law enforcement is often confused as to how to proceed, perceiving incorrectly the issue as one of immigration. Increasingly we are seeing that UK nationals are also forced into modern slavery, without crossing any international border.Victims of modern slavery have had a crime committed against them and our response must be the same as it would be towards any other victim of crime, regardless of their country of origin.

Modern slavery has been allowed to grow and develop in the UK because of demand. Together we have allowed human beings to be bought and sold as mere commodities for profit, gain or gratification. Systemic issues around the demand for modern slavery must be addressed and these will take a generation to deal with, but in the interim we must begin the hard work of making the UK as hostile a place as possible for these criminals to operate in, turning this crime from one of ‘low risk, high return’ to ‘high risk, low return’.

This review is not about quantifying the scale of modern slavery in the UK; an exact number will never be possible given the hidden nature of the crime. The view of the Working Group is that the UK must be more proactive in looking under the stone. We therefore examine existing practices and measures currently in place to identify victims, assessing their effectiveness and making recommendations that will help us to free those who are enslaved and prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. We note that during the course of this review much has changed and been developed by government in the areas of legislation and survivor care, but there is still much more to be done.

We recommend the passing of a single Modern Slavery Act.This will enable law enforcement agencies to see the law more clearly, and not have to reference immigration law for the appropriate offence if they wish to prosecute for trafficking for non-sexual exploitation.The Modern Slavery Act should also include a mandatory duty to investigate all possible cases of potential modern slavery, and a statement of non-prosecution of victims who had no choice but to commit a criminal offence whilst they were enslaved.The symbolic statement of such an Act would reinforce the UK Government’s intention to be at the forefront of the fight against modern slavery, reflecting the serious criminality of trafficking for any form of exploitation and demonstrating that modern slavery will not be tolerated in contemporary British society.

The review highlights the very clear need for strategic leadership, accountability and coordination to combat trafficking and we strongly challenge the Government to change its stance on this matter.We call for the role of an independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to be created under the Modern Slavery Act in order to bring much needed non-partisan leadership and consistency to this issue.Whilst we acknowledge some progress by the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking, we fail to see how this group can give the necessary lead and independence on these matters. It is also vital that through the Commissioner the voices of survivors are clearly heard so that responses to their needs are met.

We also propose measures to develop a more accurate picture of the scale of the problem. We recommend that better engagement with the National Referral Mechanism is fostered through investing Competent Authority decision-making powers into one body. We also recognise that more has to be done to help survivors recover and fully reintegrate. Any society is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members, especially the most hidden and silent.

With particular reference to law enforcement and statutory agencies, we note that much has been written both in terms of procedures and guidelines but often remains at the theoretical level; there is little understanding or practical implementation on the ground. Our review seeks to correct this by making practical recommendations for local police forces, chief constables and Police and Crime Commissioners to implement; a proactive model for combatting modern slavery focused on the fact that modern slavery is a crime with a victim at the centre.

What surprised the Working Group most was the scale and complexity of child trafficking both into and within the UK. Child victims of modern slavery often go unrecognised and an appalling number go missing from care. Current child protection measures are not being consistently applied. If they were, a more successful approach to identifying and keeping children safe from harm would be developed. Child trafficking is serious child abuse, and must be recognised and responded to so that children are kept safe from harm.The provision of safe accommodation and aftercare is a vital next step that needs to be urgently taken.This report highlights the disturbing cases of the internal trafficking of British children for sexual exploitation, and makes recommendations for tackling this appalling crime through properly equipping police and social services.

The private sector also has a significant role to play in ensuring that modern slavery is eradicated. It is essential that businesses ensure that supply and product chains as well as business practices are slave-free. We recommend that the Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill be enacted in the UK.This Bill sends a positive message to the business world, not negatively forcing companies’ hands but encouraging them to look into the problem. Best practices that exist can be shared, increasing the positive social impact of companies.This Bill actively engages the business sector in the fight against modern slavery.This is not about regulation, but about transparency.The Bill allows consumers and investors to make informed decisions, and gives space for companies already doing good work to showcase their efforts to ensure their supply chains are free from slavery.

During the review process many NGOs were consulted and gave evidence. Whereas many helpfully contributed to this report, some did not. Constructive engagement by all parties in both the private and public sector and government and non-governmental sectors is vital if there is to be a successful response to the issue.

The Prime Minister has stated that he wants the UK to lead the world in confronting modern slavery.3 We commend this report to the Prime Minister and Government in its entirety. Implementation of our recommendations would be a radical step forward for the UK.

Finally, I want to thank the members of the Working Group for their hard work and contribution to the whole process. We didn’t always agree, but worked through to a healthy consensus. Special thanks must go to Lucy Maule at the Centre for Social Justice who has worked tirelessly as the lead researcher on this project. I also want to thank James Ewins, Deputy Working Group Chairman, for his commitment and time during the course of this review.This was a new venture for the CSJ but an important one: modern slavery is the major social justice issue of our day and must be not just exposed, but abolished.

CSJ_Slavery_Full_Report_WEB(5)