The new commission for equality and human rights: Building community cohesion and revitalizing citizenship in contemporary Britain

Abstract

This article is an examination of some of the key aspects of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights in Britain proposed in the Fairness for All White Paper in 2003. The article focuses on the role the new Commission will play in the specific areas of revitalizing citizenship, building community cohesion and in conflict resolution in contemporary Britain. It examines the presentation in the White Paper of the “anticipated future challenges” (in relation to ethnic and religious minority groups) that allegedly threaten 21st century Britain and the role the Commission is to play in responding to them. It will be suggested that the ‘core functions’ of the proposed Commission are closely related to many of the developments associated with radical democratic theory, that is: 1) the promotion of intersectional and de-centred social identities and concomitantly an intersectional perspective on inequality and discrimination; and 2) the development of an overarching project that encourages the construction of chains of equivalence between diverse ‘protected groups’ within a culture in which human rights are respected as the ‘common place’ of citizenship. The article concludes that the most significant threat to the Labour government's promotion of a human rights ‘culture change’ as suggested in the White Paper is the government's increasing disrespect for human rights in the name of the war on terrorism.

Notes

1. This White Paper is a consultation document which built on the responses to the Green Paper entitled Equality and Diversity: Making it Happen that was published in October 2002 which sought views on the future role and structure of statutory equality institutions.

2. Although the DRC welcomed much in the government's White Paper (DRC, 2004, p. 3) a number of concerns remained for them, especially the need for dedicated resources to underpin the disability unit and the fact that the broader remit of the single Commission might lead to a loss of focus and impact (2004, p. 8). The EOC supported the principle of the single Commission; however, it too had significant concerns about the aspects of the White Paper relating to resources, enforcing equality legislation and powers (EOC, 2004, p. 4). NGOs such as the Runnymede Trust and Stonewall, on the whole, welcomed the proposals for the creation of the single Commission. However, both these organizations harboured reservations and concerns. For example, the Runnymede Trust, despite its membership of the CEHR taskforce, has some serious reservations about some of the proposals contained in the White Paper. These are: there should be formal recognition that the principles of equality are indivisible; equality legislation should be harmonized; there should be a full and demonstrable commitment to the principle of non-regression; enforcement powers need to be clearly defined; and the body must be demonstrably independent from the government (Runnymede, 2004, pp. 2–3). Nevertheless it suggests that it strongly adheres to its original commitment to the idea of a single body, despite its reservations. Stonewall also had ‘practical concerns’ in relation to how lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people/stakeholders would be consulted and engaged given that “many LGB people are not out and there needs to be special considerations of how they can be effectively engaged in any consultative process” (Stonewall, 2004, p. 5). Stonewall also listed concerns over the creation of a two-tier access risk between strands representing statutory (existing) commissions and ‘new’ strands involved in work with LGB, faith and age communities (2004, p. 5). Perhaps the most damming response to the White Paper was issued by the CRE. In the foreword to the CRE response, Trevor Phillips suggested that the White Paper was a “theoretical blueprint” and that the new Commission proposed in it was a “super-quango” (CRE, 2004, p. 3). The main reservations made by the CRE were in relation to the homogenization of both the causes of and remedies for various kinds of inequalities and discriminations in the White Paper. Phillips suggested that it was:

• Simplistic to suggest that all forms of discriminatory treatment are similar, and misleading to suggest that they will all be susceptible to similar remedies. This does not make one kind of inequality more important than another—but it does make the task of explaining why both need to be addressed by the same body extremely challenging. Yet, this White Paper does not even ask this question.

3. For example, the Oldham Independent Review (2001), the Burnley Task Force (2001), and the Bradford District Race Review (2001), Cantel (2001), the Local Government Association's Guidance on Community Cohesion (2002) and Denham (2002). For a more detailed analysis of this archive of reports, see McGhee 2005.

4. In this White Paper the post-entry ‘managed’ integration of ‘new’ migrant communities was proposed. This provision was implemented in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

5. In the spring and summer of 2001 mill towns in the north of England were the setting for two seasons of unrest. Oldham, Burnley and the city of Bradford were at the epicentre of this disorder. These were also the first episodes of unrest to feature Pakistani Muslim ‘rioters’ so exclusively in Britain. The disturbances in Oldham (on 26 and 27 May 2001) and Burnley (23 and 24 June 2001) and the riots in Bradford (7 and 8 July) have prompted the publication of a number of high-profile reports in the form of ‘race relations reviews’ and ‘community cohesion reports’, some of which will be analysed below. These events, but in particular the events that occurred in Bradford on 7 July have been described as the most serious ‘riots’ in Britain since the 1980s (Hussain & Bagguley, 2003, p. 2).

6. This is not only central to the government's ‘strength in diversity’ consultation strategy launched in 2004 under the former home secretary David Blunkett but is also central to the Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society Strategy to Increase Race Equality and Community Cohesion (henceforth, Improving Opportunities) launched in January 2005 under the new Home Secretary, Charles Clark, who stated in the foreword of the latter that:

• A cohesive society relies on more than equal opportunities for individuals. It also relies on a number of social conditions that help people from all backgrounds to come together and develop a sense of inclusion and shared British identity defined by common opportunities and mutual expectations on all citizens to contribute to society. (Improving Opportunities, 2005, p. 11)

7. According to footnote 12 of the White Paper ‘different communities’ refers to “communities of protected groups” (2004, p. 29).

8. According to Dean, these new discrimination streams should be in place by 2006, when Britain is obliged under a European Union directive to widen the ban on discrimination associated with established discrimination legislation in relation to race, gender and disability to the three new ones (age, religion and sexual orientation) (Dean, 2004, p. 5).

9. The concept of intersectionality is often used to understand the interconnections between the traditional background categories of gender, ethnicity, race, age, sexuality and class (Staunœs, 2003; Anthias, 1998). Intersectionality in feminist scholarship is associated with an anti-hierarchical appreciation of the multiple dimensions of discrimination that make an impact on especially women's multiple identities. For example, the gendered aspects of racial and ethnic discrimination, the racialized aspects of gender discrimination, and the sexualized aspects of gender and racial discrimination (Darling, 2002, p. 3). Intersectional theories of identity and discrimination have in turn had an impact on the feminist movement. According to Fraser, the exclusive focus of the feminist movement on gender was ultimately disrupted by feminists accepting that they shared political space with a proliferation of new social movements from the 1980s onwards (Fraser, 1997, p. 179). Increasingly, throughout the 1980s, according to Fraser, this sharing of political space became less of a parallel, side-to-side coexistence than a recognition that “all the various movements cut across one another” (1997, p. 179).

10. The Human Rights Act came into force in 2000 in Britain.

11. The Audit Commission's findings in this area was that most local authorities reviewed policies on a piecemeal basis; in the health sector the picture was worse, with little monitoring of performance in this area; in police authorities there is evidence of a more positive response; however, probation and fire services followed a similar pattern to local authorities (2003, p. 10).

12. According to Trend,

• radical democrats argue that traditional democracy has failed to deliver on its promises of equality and civic participation. They accuse liberal democracy in particular of being too willing to sacrifice the interests of diverse groups in the name of a broad consensus. Most importantly, radical democrats claim that democratic principles underlie critiques of capitalism and that the creation of an egalitarian society will entail extending these democratic principles into ever expanding areas of daily life: work, education, the home. (Trend, 1996a, pp. 2–3)

13. In Hegemony and Socialist Strategy Laclau and Mouffe's intention was to encourage the common recognition among different groups (for example, women, workers, blacks, gays, ecological, as well as other ‘new social movements’) that, despite their differences they all have a common concern: the extension of democracy (Mouffe, 1992a, pp. 378–379). The overall ambition of Laclau and Mouffe's project (and Mouffe's subsequent sole-authored work) was not merely the establishment of alliances between given interests “but of actually modifying the very identity of these forces” through first deconstructing the identities of these diverse groups in order to facilitate the process whereby several ‘new rights’ could be recognized (1992b, p. 236).

14. The impracticality or ‘theoretical’ nature of radical democracy has been suggested by numerous commentators. For example, according to Epstein, ‘radical democracy’ suggests grassroots politics, diversity, a playful political practice that is not bound by rigid structures but is continually in the process of transformation (1996, p. 128). For Trend, despite its commonsense appeal, radical democracy has yet to be implemented on any large scale. He adds: “the theoretical character of radical democracy has drawn fire from those who fault the program for lack of specificity. These critics accuse radical democracy of offering little more than a set of philosophical ideals, lacking any concrete explanation about its implementation in practical circumstances” (1996, p. 3).

15. See note 2.

16. 9/11 has been described as a global watershed moment, an event that ushered in a new world order, and new ways of governing, which have included the erosion and suspension of civil liberties and human rights on both sides of the Atlantic (Buck-Morss, 2003; Ignatieff, 2005; Gearty, 2005). 9/11 prompted a swift response in terms of anti-terrorism measures in both the USA and in the UK. Such emergency measures in the USA (the Mobilisation against Terrorism Act and the Patriot Act of 2001) resulted in the rounding up of 800 immigrants immediately after the attacks on New York and Washington. This number had increased to 1147 by November 2001. These laws allowed for the arbitrary detention without trial of suspected terrorists and greatly increased the powers of the FBI to gather intelligence and also to withhold information. All these measures were justified by concerns over national security during the post 9/11 “state of emergency” (Fekete, 2002, p. 103). It was not until 13 November 2001 that the then home secretary David Blunkett declared Britain to be in a state of public emergency because of the events of 9/11. The legislation that was to be proposed in the UK during this state of emergency followed only 12 months after the passing into law of the controversial Terrorism Act 2000, which could include other forms of protest, for example anti-globalization protest, within its rather wide definition of ‘terrorism’ (Hyland, 2001, p. 4). The 2000 Act was defended by the government on the grounds that, once in place, it would protect the lives and security of British people. However, after the 9/11 attacks the government claimed that the provisions in the Terrorism Act were not enough and, as a result, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was introduced. This legislation followed the example of the USA's emergency anti-terrorism laws, especially provisions allowing the detention without trial of suspected terrorists. This was achieved through the derogation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which outlaws arbitrary detention and imprisonment. The British state now has the power to arbitrarily arrest and hold anyone on suspicion of terrorist activity (irrespective of whether it has been carried out) and to deport them from the country, as well as powers to seize assets and personal materials which they believe may be related to terrorist activities (Hyland, 2001, p. 4). Subsequent provisions in the UK introduced by Home Secretary Charles Clark in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 have further extended the state's powers through the adoption of control orders which include the option of the Home Secretary placing ‘terror suspects’ under house arrest.

17. In the immediate aftermath of the July 2005 bombings in London the government immediately began to overhaul human rights law. Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that “the rules of the game are changing” to reflect the Britain's changing attitude to freedom of speech (in Brown & Woolf, 2005). New legislation is planned that will change the grounds of deportation to include ‘fomenting terrorism’, ‘justifying or glorifying terrorism’ and ‘advocating violence in support of beliefs’. At the same time these acts will become offences (anywhere, not only in the UK) under new anti-terrorism legislation. Asylum and immigration legislation will also be tightened so that individuals who have participated in terrorism ‘or have anything to do with terrorism anywhere’ will automatically be refused asylum in Britain. At the same time the government wants to extend powers to strip citizenship or naturalization rights from those engaged in extremism (Brown & Woolf, 2005). Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, (in Woolf, 2005) has warned the government that knee-jerk ‘being seen to be doing something’ political responses such as these could result in people being stripped of their basic rights and freedoms all in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’. Chakrabarti called for balance in the “emotional moments” following the bombings in July. She agreed that counter-terrorism must guard against risk, but that this should not include “risk to our way of life”. In order to avoid the latter, according to Chakrabarti, we need to keep “in place the fundamental freedoms that make Britain different from the authoritarian societies the terrorists want to create” (in Woolf, 2005).