England Civil Society Submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

The Runnymede Trust recently submitted a report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). This is not the first time they have done this. The Trust described itself as:

‘Intelligence for a Multi-ethnic Britain Runnymede is the UK’s leading independent thinktank on race equality and race relations. Through high quality research and thought leadership, we:

• Identify barriers to race equality and good race relations;

• Provide evidence to support action for social change;

• Influence policy at all levels.’

The Preface to the report set the tone, which was that of anti-English race war politics. Ethnic minorities were presented as victims in need of a globalist assistance. It should be noted that the report had been written to provide a ‘civil society perspective’ of ‘the situation of race and racism in England’. The Runnymede Trust had consulted ‘with over 150 civil society organisations (CSOs) working to promote race equality and human rights [and had] received over 50 written submissions from institutions, CSOs, academics and other individuals in response to the call for evidence for this report’. This is a list of anti-English vested interests.

The Preface stated:

‘The Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 demonstrated the urgent need to address glaring racial disparities in the enjoyment of economic, civil and political rights. In England, these protests were set against the backdrop of the Windrush scandal in 2018 and came in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, which disproportionately impacted BME groups. These urgent developments in racial equality have all arisen over the past five years since the last UK periodic report to CERD.’

The Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 stemmed from the murder in the USA of George Floyd. Although it is true that there are those in England keen to ape the US experience (with the toppling of statues and allegations of systemic and structural racisms etc), the George Floyd murder has nothing to do with England, and England’s immigration history is relatively recent and has nothing to do with slavery. The immigrant communities in England are here through their own choice.

The Preface continued to assert that ‘racism is systemic in England and impacts BME groups’ enjoyment of rights’. This spanned ‘legislation, institutional practices and society’s customs’ which meant that ‘BME groups are consistently more likely to live in poverty, to be in low-paid precarious work and to die of COVID-19 [and that] disparities facing BME groups in England are sustained across the areas of health, housing, the criminal justice system, education, employment, immigration and political participation’.

The Preface took exception to the ‘government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, which concluded that Britain was not “deliberately rigged” against BME people’, a conclusion which, for the Runnymede Trust, ‘misrepresents the scale and complexity of the issues and stands in stark contrast to the evidence that we have received from CSOs and race equality organisations about the experiences facing BME people in England today’.

An analysis of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report is here. Of use is that it defines what is meant by systemic and structural racism. Systemic racism applies to ‘interconnected organisations, or wider society’, which allegedly ‘exhibit racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours’. Structural racism stems from an alleged ‘legacy of historic racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours’ that continue to influence ‘organisations and societies’.

The Preface stated that the Runnymede Trust was ‘particularly alarmed’ at a variety of pieces of legislation planned by the government, including the Electoral Integrity Bill and the ‘government’s New Immigration Plan’ all of which posed ‘a threat to the rights of BME groups’. Furthermore:

‘This report finds the government in breach of numerous articles of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and that the government has failed to uphold and protect BME communities’ enjoyment of economic, civil, social and political rights. Our report offers important recommendations for the government to demonstrate commitment to fulfilling its equality and human rights obligations to BME groups in England, which we hope CERD will endorse.’

In a section titled ‘Definition of Discrimination’, the Runnymede Trust attacked the report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities which had said that ‘institutional racism is no longer a valid or useful explanation for the various forms of inequality, discrimination, disproportionate disadvantage, restriction or exclusion experienced daily by BME groups’. For the Runnymede Trust this was ‘very worrying in the light of the government’s acknowledgement of the existence of institutional racism in its report to CERD in 2016, CERD’s own findings, and the work of important government-commissioned reports and reviews on issues of racial equality’. Also:

‘The UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent released a statement shortly after the Commission published its findings, stating: “it is stunning to read a report on race and ethnicity that repackages racist tropes and stereotypes into fact, twisting data and misapplying statistics and studies”. The government has not rejected the findings of this Commission, despite calls to do so from leading CSOs as well as from the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent. It has instead signalled its intention to build on its research.’

Consequently, the Runnymede Trust recommended:

‘• The UK government must urgently review its approach to equalities and ensure that its laws and policies fully comply with the definition of discrimination under ICERD Article 1.

• The UK government must urgently develop and implement a strategy to eliminate racial discrimination and advance race equality across all policy areas based on wide, open-ended, comprehensive consultation with CSOs and communities.’

The Runnymede Trust lauded The Equality Act (2010) which had ‘consolidated pre-existing anti-discrimination legislation’ and highlighted that:

‘In 2016, CERD requested that the “State party reconsider its position so that the Convention can be more readily invoked in the domestic courts”. ICERD is still not incorporated into English domestic law nor does a right of individual petition arise from any breach of the Convention. While English courts will consider ICERD, there is no statutory requirement to do so. NGOs again recommend, as we did in our 2016 Shadow Report, that the government should introduce legislation requiring courts to consider provisions of ICERD whenever such provisions may be relevant to any questions arising in proceedings.’

Needless to say, the Runnymede Trust was fully in favour of the Human Rights Act, which was under government review, and the manner in which that Act acted as a ‘guarantee of ECHR rights in the UK and the role of UK courts in upholding those rights’.

Membership of the EU entails EU laws having priority over national laws in member countries – although there is naturally some tussling over this. Other treaties do not have that provision. On leaving the EU, the UK recovered national sovereignty. There is no such thing as international law, only treaty provisions between sovereign countries, and those treaty provisions are not legally enforceable by the courts in preference to national laws – although the judges and lawyers are trying to accumulate the power to do this.

The Runnymede Trust in its report demanded that the UN, its agencies and other global institutions set out to acquire the power to overrule national lawmaking, with judges and lawyers interpreting such legal powers to suit themselves – a lawyers’ dictatorship. The Runnymede Trust is anti-democratic.

The Runnymede Trust complained of the Media’s coverage of Islam, and that in 2018: ‘an analysis of over 200,000 newspaper articles mentioning Islam or Muslims found “Islam” and “terror” mentioned together in more than one-third’ (one wonders why that might be). Consequently:

‘In the context of rising hate crime against Muslims over the past five years, we are concerned that misrepresentative reporting of Muslims and Islam has embedded far-right tropes and conspiracy theories in the public consciousness. For example:

• over half of the public (56 per cent) agree that ‘Islam poses a serious threat to Western civilisation’

• 32 per cent believe that there are “no-go areas in Britain where Sharia law dominates and non-Muslims cannot enter”

• 35 per cent of people think “Islam is generally a threat to the British way of life”’

The Runnymede Trust therefore recommended: ‘The UK government, with the EHRC, should open discussions with representatives of the print, broadcasting and digital media about the harm caused to an individual by negative or hostile media comment or portrayal of a racial or religious group of which that individual is, or is perceived to be, a member, with a view to agreeing measures for media organisations to adopt to prevent such harm.’

Once again, the Runnymede Trust betrayed its anti-democratic contempt for the English. It did not even consider that the views critical of Islam might be well-founded, or that ordinary people are allowed to have views deemed politically incorrect. Instead, the response was to demand that politically-correct vested interests should come together to ensure only favourable views of Islam are published.

Boringly, the Runnymede Trust alleged that the Brexit referendum had led to a rise in ‘hate crime’. There had allegedly been a failure to ‘address social fractures in the wake of the referendum’. This was accompanied with the usual whinging about the UK government’s immigration policies and treatment of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. The report wanted all those immigrants detained to be set loose, and criticised the government proposed reforms: ‘We are extremely concerned about the discriminatory impact of this two-tiered approach, and we echo the concerns of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that the proposals will undermine international cooperation to support refugees and risk breaching international rights commitments.’ The report therefore recommended: ‘The UK government should immediately discontinue its current plans for reform of the asylum system and start again following meaningful consultation with refugee and asylum organisations and immigration law practitioners in order to develop an asylum system that fully meets the aims and obligations to which the UK is committed under the 1951 Refugee Convention.’

Yet again, the response of the Runnymede Trust to something it dislikes was to demand that politically-correct vested interests should come together to form a plan to impose their views on everyone else. The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees is antiquated, has been corrupted, and should be consigned to the dustbin. England is densely populated and naturally an emigrant country, not an immigrant one. Mass immigration is not in English interests – not that the Runnymede Trust even acknowledged that those interests even exist.

The Runnymede Trust was very critical of the government Prevent programme – intended to prevent terrorist radicalisation – and, ‘as an urgent priority’, wanted a ‘truly independent review’ of the scheme and also: ‘The UK government should urgently commission research to identify the factors which have caused the marked increase in far-right activity in England, and on the basis of the findings develop a clear strategy to prevent further growth.’

The term ‘far-right activity’ should be noted. As cultural Marxists, the Runnymede Trust’s definition of ‘far-right’ can be taken as being somewhat broader than most would consider accurate, and the Trust is intolerant of ‘activity’ – not terrorism. Activity includes standing in elections, holding public meetings, general campaigning etc. These are all legal and a part of the democratic process, and yet the Runnymede Trust is determined to exploit the Prevent programme to ‘prevent further growth’ of them.

The Runnymede Trust complained of the ‘disparities in pay, employment and unemployment’ which had allegedly worsened: ‘Data from the Runnymede Trust in 2020 showed that BME groups were more likely to have low incomes due to lower wages, higher unemployment rates, higher rates of part-time working and receiving relatively low levels of benefits, particularly following the introduction of the ‘benefit cap’ in 2010.’

Teaching and schools were a particular focus. Apparently, the Leftie teachers were too White. The Runnymede Trust wanted more ethnic minority teachers and recommended:

‘• The UK government must review Initial Teacher Education and make whatever changes are necessary so that it prepares trainee teachers to teach in multiracial settings with an appreciation of issues of race and racism.

• The UK government must consult with community groups, schools and teaching unions to develop and implement a strategy to increase the number of BME entrants to the teaching profession and to attract, encourage and support more BME educators into senior positions. Full use should be made of the positive action provisions in the Equality Act 2010 Sections 158 and 159.’

This presumes that England is racist, and the Runnymede Trust advocated ethnic cleansing to replace English teachers with immigrant ones. There was further a demand for changes in the curriculum:

‘In its 2016 Concluding Observations, CERD recommended that the UK government “ensure that the school curricula across its jurisdiction contain a balanced account of the history of the British Empire and colonialism, including slavery and other grave human rights violations.” Key independent reports, reviews and inquiries commissioned by the government on racial inequality in the UK have called for urgent curriculum reform to include more teaching of race, migration and empire. The Windrush Lessons Learned Review (2020), found that the Windrush scandal in 2018 was able to happen in part due to a “poor understanding of Britain’s colonial history, the history of inward and outward migration, and the history of Black Britons”. Today, public attitudes in the UK support teaching that explicitly addresses racial injustice and Black history. However the Chief Inspector of Schools, the Secretary of State for Education and the Schools Minister have rejected calls for change.’

Also: ‘The UK government must immediately implement CERD’s 2016 recommendation to “ensure that the school curricula contain a balanced account of the history of the British Empire and colonialism, including slavery and other grave human rights violations”.’

This is pure Frankfurt School (in particular Habermas), in that what was proposed is that both English and immigrant children should be subjected to Marxist propaganda and be taught to hate England. The assumption is that the English are bad people and the British Empire was also bad. This is race war politics. The assumption is that there is ‘racial injustice’ of which non-Whites are victims, and that what is needed is a campaign for racial justice – ie a communist revolution.

The Runnymede Trust further complained about housing:

‘BME groups are disproportionately likely to face homelessness, poor housing conditions and overcrowded accommodation. A recent survey indicated that 56 per cent of Black people and 49 per cent of Asian people were living in unfit, unsafe or unaffordable privately rented housing compared with 33 per cent of white people. The inequalities in housing conditions are likely to arise from income and wealth disparities between white and some BME groups, as well as significantly higher levels of unemployment and experiences of discrimination when accessing accommodation. Black and Asian people are “almost five times more likely to experience discrimination when looking for a safe, secure and affordable home”.’

Also:

‘Alongside this, there are stark disparities in rates of overcrowded housing for some BME groups. Almost a quarter of Bangladeshi households in England have fewer bedrooms than needed, in comparison with just 2 per cent of white households. Similarly, 18 per cent of Pakistani households are overcrowded and 16 per cent of Black African households. During the COVID-19 crisis, overcrowded households were particularly vulnerable to the virus as it was difficult to effectively isolate from others.’

The Runnymede Trust therefore recommended:

‘• The UK government should immediately take action to tackle the disproportionate number of BME communities impacted by overcrowding.

• The UK government should ensure that the Local Housing Allowance rate, which calculates the rate of housing benefit for tenants with private landlords, reflects real market rents and enable tenants to afford safe, secure housing suitable to their needs.

• The UK government should act to meet the urgent need for safe, secure, affordable housing and to cut social housing waiting lists by building social housing.’

The calls for more ‘affordable housing’ is a cliché. Where is the money to come from? Examples of the scale of the problem were highlighted here and here. It has been clearly stated that the Tory Government is determined to flood England with millions more immigrants without making any provision for those immigrants at all – including housing. A housing shortage is inevitable, not least because the Government cannot afford to meet those costs. The settlement of millions of EU immigrants is an example of the scale of the disaster (see here).

The Runnymede Trust believed that the EHRC had insufficient powers to advance the rights of ethnic minorities and had not been able to bring enough legal cases of discrimination. Therefore it was recommended: ‘The UK government should, in consultation with the EHRC, CSOs and discrimination and human rights law practitioners and having due regard to the Paris Principles, identify what steps it could most usefully take to ensure that the EHRC can use its powers effectively to combat the racism and race discrimination outlined in this report, and take those steps.’ In other words, the Runnymede Trust wanted to see a ratcheting up of the Inquisition.

The Runnymede Trust report is openly hostile to England and the English. The tone of the report is morbidly critical of England. It is openly globalist. Again and again, the report demands that politically-correct vested interests dictate state policy. Again and again, the report demands that globalist bodies dictate what might or might not be allowed. Ethnic minority interests and grievances are promoted – English interests are completely ignored.

The report is anti-democratic and an act of race war politics.