2. Memorandum from the 1990 Trust
INTRODUCTION
The 1990 Trust welcomes the opportunity given
by the JCHR to report on steps taken by the UK government to implement
recommendations from the CERD during their consideration of the
17th periodic State report in August 2003. Our submission will
discuss progress made by the Government on the points raised in
the Concluding Observations—Concerns and Recommendations,
and will briefly highlight the 1990 Trust's view as to measures
taken by the Government to implement the recommendations and what
we believe is the current position with regards to race relations
since the CERD review.
During 2003 the 1990 Trust worked extensively
with more than 20 NGOs from around the UK to pull together a joint
shadow report to the CERD. The joint submission was and continues
to be part of the 1990 Trust's work to establish the principle
that racism is a violation of human rights. The shadow
report was influenced by the impact of 11 September, the rise
of the far right, the negative reporting of immigration and asylum
issues, new legislation, and the impact of the 2001 disturbances
in the North of England. Throughout the submission we addressed
four key areas of concern: social exclusion; the criminal justice
system; racial attack and harassment; and immigration and asylum
policy.
The CERD shadow report was orally presented
to 18 Committee members by the 1990 Trust and 14 other representatives
drawn from the coalition of organisations who drafted the shadow
report at a reception in Geneva. Our oral submission was well
received and it should be noted that several of our recommendations
were adopted by the CERD Committee in its Concluding Observations.
The 1990 Trust recognises that this type of
collaborative work is an important step forward for future working
and to this end we have recently pulled together a group of organisations
with expertise from across the equalities network as well as anti-acist
and civil liberties organisations to form the human rights Consortium.
In the future the Consortium will monitor the UK Government's
adherence to international treaties and will make recommendations
to the JCHR. However, as the Consortium has only just been established
the 1990 Trust has taken the opportunity to respond directly to
the JCHR on it views on the current position.
CONCERNS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Paragraph 11
The 1990 Trust notes with regret that the UK
Government maintains its position on the non-inclusion of the
full substance of the Convention within domestic law. We are further
concerned that the Government continues to refuse to incorporate
Article 14 of the Convention which permits the individual right
of petition to the UN CERD Committee. We note that during a recent
government review of core human rights treaties, the result was,
that for the first time the Government accepted an individual
right of petition under the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This is a major
step forward for the Government and we therefore urge the Government
to seriously consider the same right of petition under Article
14 of CERD.
That the JCHR encourages the Government to incorporate
CERD fully into domestic law and to make a declaration under Article
14 which allows the individual the right to petition the Committee.
Paragraph 12
The Government recognises the negative impact
of racism and has done much to combat the effects through legislation,
however groups such as the BNP are able to spout their racist
literature under the right of freedom of expression. The 1990
Trust do not consider the spouting of racist comments and xenophobic
literature as a human right under the guise of freedom of expression.
We view this as exploitation of the Convention articles for their
own political gains, instead of protecting the rights of the individual
from racism, for which the human rights treaties were designed
to do. We are therefore disappointed that the Government continues
to interpret Article 4 in this restrictive way.
That the JCHR encourages the Government to give
further attention to legislation that bans the dissemination of
racist literature.
Paragraph 14
We were pleased with the CERD's recommendation
that the Government "develop education programmes that would
promote positive images of minority groups and asylum seekers,
as well as measures making the asylum procedure more equitable,
efficient and unbiased".
We are disappointed to report that the portrayal
of asylum seekers has worsened. Since this recommendation we have
witnessed the further isolation and stigmatisation of vulnerable
people at a time when careful consideration to their personal
and already traumatic circumstance should be paramount instead
of introducing a raft of draconian immigration policies. For example,
in November 2003 the government released its proposals for its
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment and Claimants) Bill. The Bill
introduced electronic tagging of asylum seekers, gave immigration
officers more powers of arrest, allowed withdrawal of asylum support
from families who did not leave the country within two weeks of
their asylum appeal being denied, and removed some of the rights
of appeal.
These measures added to the indignity and further
suggests the criminality of the of the asylum seeker as in the
UK, the only individuals to be tagged, are those who are being
released early from serving a prison sentence.
In addition, the government is keen to introduce
ID Cards, which is claimed will provide the necessary proof for
those entitled to access public services such as healthcare, and
the entitlement to social security benefits. The government claims
that the ID Card will limit illegal immigration and illegal working.
However, we believe that the policy is a knee-jerk reaction to
the perceived threat of terrorism and will not have the desired
effect of stopping terrorism or illegal immigration. As we have
seen, Spain has ID Cards and the presence of the Card did nothing
to prevent the Madrid bombings.
It is perceived that the concept of ID Cards
is racist, an infringement of human rights, and that the conception
and implementation will be governed on the basis of race.
We urge the JCHR to encourage the Government
to take action to limit the hardship faced by asylum seekers.
That the Government ensures that future policy
initiatives do not further stigmatise the asylum seeker and cause
further financial hardship and destitution.
That the Government implement measures that would
highlight positive aspects of immigration.
That the Government immediately reviews its policy
of introducing ID Cards.
Paragraph 15
In October 2003 the government announced its
intention to create a single Commission for Equality and Human
Rights (CEHR). The 1990 Trust views the proposed establishment
of a single equalities body as a non-starter and believes that
a hierarchy of rights will be created unless there is harmonisation
of the existing equalities legislation into a single equalities
act.
That the JCHR encourages the Government to re-think
its objections to the equalising of current equalities legislation
in to a Single Equalities Act.
Paragraph 16
The Race Relations Amendment Act (RRAA) makes
it unlawful to discriminate in immigration control. However Section
19D of the RRAA allows immigration officers to lawfully discriminate
on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity or national origin where
this is authorised by a government Minister.
The 1990 Trust is still greatly concerned that
with the current climate of antagonism and distrust towards asylum
seekers, that the Government has not yet considered repealing
or reformulating Section 19D of the RRAA.
That the JCHR encourages the Government to consider
repealing or reformulating Section 19D of the RRAA.
Paragraph 17
At present 12 Muslim foreign nationals and a
number of British Muslims are imprisoned in Belmarsh and Woodhill
prisons under anti-terrorist legislation. The UK is the only country
to have derogated from Article 5 of the European Convention of
Human Rights, which guarantees no detention without charge or
trial.
A letter from the detainees in Belmarsh
We were arrested in December 2001 and taken
straight to Belmarsh prison. We know that the police in this country
have enormous powers to investigate suspected terrorists. Why
did no one ever speak to us? Why were we never asked a single
question before being locked up as terrorists? We have never had
a trial. We were found guilty without one. We are imprisoned indefinitely
and probably forever. We have no idea why. We have not been told
what the evidence is against us. We are here. Speak to us. Listen
to us. Tell us what you think and why. If you did, you would no
longer believe we were a threat to this country. You would think
perhaps that there was not the emergency you have imagined here.
Everyone is giving their opinion about us. Why not think of coming
to us first, rather than locking us up and never speaking to us?
The Forgotten Detainees, Belmarsh prison,
The Guardian, 26 February 2004
Internment powers have been used exclusively
against Muslims and have created a process whereby the three-stage
process of criminal sanction to which all others are entitled—arrest,
trial and detention—has effectively had the element of trial
removed. The Government has attempted to justify this by making
internment a part of the immigration process. However, the message
internment gives, is that non-British Muslims do not enjoy the
same rights as the rest of the population.
That the Government re-thinks its position of
detention without trial and ensures that due process of law is
carried out.
Paragraph 19
Stop and Search has historically been disproportionate
in its application towards Black communities. However, more recently,
stop and searches under the anti-terrorism legislation have dramatically
increased for Asian communities, in excess of 400% across England
and Wales, and by 488% in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)
area. This is a major problem and basically amounts to religious
profiling. Respondents stopped under the Terrorism Act are unlikely
to complain due to the sensitivity on the war on terrorism and
the resulting increase of Islamophobia.
Two years ago the Government introduced community
safety officers, whose role it is to patrol the streets and tackle
low level anti-social behaviour. The serious organised crime and
police bill has provision to allow the community safety officer
the power to search suspects for "dangerous items".
We are deeply concerned that this move has been proposed. With
the dramatic increase in stop and search, we believe that this
is the wrong approach to tackling anti-social behaviour.
Progress on giving a record of the stop and
search has been slow, although in London since the middle of November
2004 implementation has occurred. The procedure of recording the
stop and search across the UK, however, is not expected to be
fully implemented until 2005. The police are not supportive of
the process and complain about the added bureaucracy so there
remains the questioning of the validity and effectiveness of the
recording of stop and search.
That the JCHR encourages the Government to ensure
that police forces across the UK fully implement recommendations
61-63 of the Lawrence Inquiry Report.
That the JCHR encourages the Government to reconsider
introducing the additional search powers to the community safety
officers.
That the JCHR urges the Government to carry out
research into the alarmingly high rise of stop and search under
anti terrorism legislation.
Paragraph 20
We welcome the inclusion of the new law aimed
at outlawing religious discrimination in goods and services. This
will go some way to protecting the human rights for those who
experience religious discrimination.
We urge the JCHR to encourage the Government
to take action to ensure that there is effective enforcement powers
attached to the legislation.
Paragraph 21
In October 2003 the Government announced its
intention to create a single Commission for Equality and Human
Rights (CEHR). Whilst we support the human rights element of the
proposed new commission we are of the view that there should be
a separate human rights commission with adequate enforcement powers
and resources.
The Government views its proposed new commission
as a vehicle to promote human rights but stops short of giving
the body proper enforcement powers in the form of an independent
Human Rights Commission (HRC). The 1990 Trust views the proposed
establishment of a single equalities body as a non-starter and
believes that a hierarchy of rights will be created unless there
is harmonisation of the existing legislation.
In addition we believe that any human rights
body must be based on the 1991 Paris principles. This provides
for independence that is guaranteed by statute, autonomy from
government, a mandate based on universal human rights and standards,
adequate powers of investigation and sufficient resources. Northern
Ireland has already established its own independent human rights
commission and Scotland will also follow suit. The non-establishment
of an independent human rights commission in England and Wales
will result in further unequal legislative protection.
That the JCHR encourages the Government to re-think
its position on establishing an independent Commission for Human
Rights.
Paragraph 25
In 1960 the British government handed over its
colony, Diego Garcia, the biggest of the Chagos islands to US
military, and moved its inhabitants off the island. Many of the
islanders ended up in the Seychelles and Mauritius. Since their
exile from their homeland the Chagos islanders have suffered severe
hardship, some have committed suicide, unemployment has been widespread
and for all this upheaval have received only £3,000 compensation
from the British government.
In 2000 the islanders won a high court decision
that ruled that their expulsion from Diego Garcia was illegal.
Within hours of that victory the Foreign Office ruled that the
islanders would not be permitted to return to the island.
Last June the Government invoked the archaic
royal prerogative so that they could crush the victory of the
judgement in 2000, and a decree was subsequently issued banning
the islanders from ever returning to Diego Garcia.
Some of the islanders recently moved to the
UK after complaining of discrimination and settled in West Sussex.
Although the islanders are British citizens they cannot claim
state benefits until they can acquire "habitual residence".
This has resulted in the financial burden falling on the local
council. The responsibility of the islanders must fall on the
Government and not the local council.
That the Government takes immediate steps to
compensate the islanders for their loss.
That the Government takes immediate action to
ensure that the islanders who have arrived in the UK fall under
the Government's care and not the local authority.
Paragraph 27
We are concerned that the Government continues
to refuse to incorporate Article 14 of the Convention, which permits
the individual right of petition to the UN CERD Committee. We
note that during a recent government review of core human rights
treaties, the result was, that for the first time the Government
accepted an individual right of petition under the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW). This is a major step forward for the Government and we
therefore urge the Government to seriously consider the same right
of petition under Article 14 of CERD.
That the JCHR encourages the Government to make
a declaration under Article 14 of CERD, which allows the individual
the right to petition the Committee.
Paragraph 28
We regret that the Government still has yet
to draft a document incorporating the recommendations from the
Durban Programme of Action.
Since the Durban Conference in 2001 the Government
put together a document which was presented to a follow up Conference
in Manchester in 2002. We were disappointed that the document
was little more than a list of current government initiatives
and was noticeably void of any of the Durban Programme of Actions,
whether governmental or NGO. More recently, the home office consulted
on its Strength in Diversity policy. There was no mention of the
WCAR, and yet now the Home Office is suggesting that the Strength
in Diversity policy will form part of their National Action Plan
Against Racism (NAPAR). This is unacceptable, as SID document
did not consult on any of the recommendations from the Durban
Programme of Action.
That the JCHR encourages the Government to implement
a cross-departmental approach to establishing a NAPAR.
30 November 2004
| 
