The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report

The recent report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which Boris Johnson set up following the BLM protests, has caused outrage among race zealots and self-appointed experts. The report was deemed to be insufficiently politically correct.

It is fair to say that the report contained some original thinking and tried to rebut the more extreme fringes. However, it is limited in that it is the product of the liberal wing of multiculturalism (and political correctness) as opposed to the communist wing. The brouhaha is a spat between the different multiculturalist wings.

The report’s remit to deal with alleged inequalities is fundamentally flawed. Communists believe in equality. In reality, there will always be inequalities. Some people will be more gifted, have a more wealthy background, more supportive friends and family, be more lucky, be harder working, make lifestyle choices etc that ultimately lead to them being better off. The only way this can be prevented is to hold people back. The politics of envy was the source of much bloodshed in the 20^th century. More than 100million people died in the name of communism.

The report breaks down the history of Third World immigration into the UK as being in three parts: first, the ‘heroic’ period when the immigrants faced a hostile response from the English; second, the ‘rebel’ generation who openly fought, sometimes physically, against the perceived oppression; now the report urges a new ‘participation’ period where the UK is described as being more open.

The report complains: ‘Too often ‘racism’ is the catch-all explanation, and can be simply implicitly accepted rather than explicitly examined.’ Further:

‘We found that most of the disparities we examined, which some attribute to racial discrimination, often do not have their origins in racism. There is much evidence to suggest, for example, that different experiences of family life and structure can explain many disparities in education outcomes and crime. Early years experiences, including stability and security at home, matters to children more than anything else. There are many different family structures that can provide a happy childhood, including millions of single parents doing a loving and effective job in difficult circumstances. It is clear, however, that there continues to be a need for more explicit public policy promotion of parental and family support. We reject both the stigmatisation of single mothers and the turning of a blind eye to the impact of family breakdown on the life chances of children.’

This is all good stuff.

The report sets out its understanding of the different aspects of racism:

1. Explained racial disparities: this term should be used when there are persistent ethnic differential outcomes that can demonstrably be shown to be as a result of other factors such as geography, class or sex.

2. Unexplained racial disparities: persistent differential outcomes for ethnic groups with no conclusive evidence about the causes. This applies to situations where a disparate outcome is identified, but there is no evidence as to what is causing it.

3. Institutional racism: applicable to an institution that is racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours in a single institution.

4. Systemic racism: this applies to interconnected organisations, or wider society, which exhibit racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours.

5. Structural racism: to describe a legacy of historic racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours that continue to shape organisations and societies today.

Of these, it is the fifth category that is already causing, and will yet cause far more, trouble. The communist wing of political correctness/multiculturalism has been pushing hard to promote this aspect, and will not relent. They are using it to demand reparations.

Although the report seeks to involve ‘people of goodwill’, it still supports those who were not of goodwill. It referred to ‘snowy white peaks’, which might be considered offensive to the English, and recommends more money for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to be ‘ring-fenced’ to enable it to ‘use its compliance, enforcement and litigation powers to challenge policies or practices that either cause significant and unjust racial disadvantage, or arise from racial discrimination’ – which is most unhelpful. What is needed is an end to the Inquisition, not more funding to prosecute it. Likewise, boringly, the report takes issue with ‘the complex issue of online abuse’.

The report endorses the Macpherson report. However, it condemns the misuse of the term ‘institutional racism’ ‘to describe any circumstances in which differences in outcomes between racial and ethnic groups exist in an institution, without evidence to support such claims’.

The report points out that terms such as ‘White privilege’ only encourages ‘the perception that being an ethnic minority in the UK is to be treated unfairly by default’, and that such is ‘counterproductive and divisive’. Alarmingly, the report reveals figures showing that ‘76% of Black people believe there is ‘White privilege’ compared with 59% of all ethnic minorities and 29% of White people. Almost as many White people are unfamiliar with the term (21%)’. This means that there is trouble coming.

The report recommends a process of indoctrination. It states that the Commonwealth and former colonies have ‘historically been “defined” by their connection to the UK, but equally have played their role in defining “Britishness” today. The telling of the story of Modern Britain has already begun in many schools and initiatives across the UK’. Therefore:

‘In order to develop a sense of citizenship and to support integration and aspiration amongst all ethnic communities, we believe that pupils need to be exposed to the rich variety of British culture and the influences that have shaped it, ranging from the influence of classical civilisations, the European Enlightenment, the inflows and outflows of the British Empire, and the stream of new arrivals in the post-war period to the present day. There have been many calls for pupils to have a greater opportunity to learn about the Commonwealth contribution to the World Wars and the building of the post-war NHS, through to the significance of events such as the Bristol Bus Boycott in 1963 which shaped race relations legislation in the United Kingdom.’

It is notable that the report advocates integration and not assimilation, and further does not recognise that the British Empire no longer exists. The former colonies are now independent countries and yet the report still treats the UK as if it were subsumed in the British Empire and subject to the opinions of the former subjects. This paradox particularly affects England where most of the Third World immigrants settle (the ethnic minority populations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales being less than 1% of the total). We have a situation where the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish have a vote on how they govern themselves, and also a vote on how the UK is governed. The immigrants have a vote in their countries of origin and a vote in how the UK is governed. The English have no vote in how England is governed, and only have a vote in the governance of the UK. This is a democratic outrage.

There needs to be justice for the English.

The report misses the fact that the scale of immigration into the UK has sent the country well past the problems of integration or assimilation. The English will be reduced to being a minority in England in the 21^st century on current trends. England is being colonized.

While the report rightly points out that the demands for representation (in the police, say) based on the proportion of the total population, are wrong when it is the age groups that count. It is wrong to demand 15% representation for ethnic minorities based on 15% of the total population being non-White, when that includes a vastly higher proportion of schoolchildren (who are not eligible to join the police, for example).

But the ongoing mass immigration and the scale of it means that however the representation is calculated, it must entail the steady ethnic cleansing of the English from England’s institutions. That is a recipe for conflict.

Nor is there much to be gained by ladling out more subsidies to promote the report’s recommendations, if those subsidies are being used to counteract other subsidies being lavished on the communist wing of political correctness/multiculturalism and the bodies they have hijacked. What is needed is the de-funding of those politically-correct bodies.

It is very easy to print money and dish out subsidies. It is always more difficult to make cuts to stop wasteful expenditure. Vested interests start squealing loudly. The foreign aid budget being a prime example. The Government has pledged to cut it by around £4billion, and there is a Tory backbench revolt. Rebel Tory MPs are moved to a state of deep distress at the plight of little children in the Third World, you see.

Foreign aid is highly relevant to the report and the hostile response it provoked.

For example, one of the loudest of the race war zealots in the UK is a certain Kehinde Andrews, who is a favourite on television. He is described as: ‘Associate Professor in Sociology at the School of Social Sciences at Birmingham City University and developed the Europe’s first Black Studies undergraduate degree. He is also director of the Centre of Critical Research, founder of the Harambee Organization of Black Unity, and co-chair of the Black Studies Association.’ In other words he is a communist, and is funded as a part of the university sector. No doubt he receives other monies for his writing and research projects as well. In addition, he is the recipient of yet more Government funding – from the foreign aid budget! Kehinde Andrews himself explained:

‘Another form of creative accounting in the UK aid budget is the dispersal of £1.5billion over five years into the university sector. Announced as part of the comprehensive spending review of the coalition government in 2015, the Global Challenges Research Fund aims to “harness the expertise of the UK’s world-leading researchers” in the cause of saving the underdeveloped world. I work in the sector so I do not want to totally undermine the validity of my profession, but the idea of transferring £1.5billion of a budget meant to save lives to academics is obscene. This is even more the case when we dig into how this money is being allocated.

I first found out about it in a meeting at work where it was revealed that as part of our core research funding the university had been given a slice of the development budget without even having to request it. The university higher-ups then managed to retroactively find some activity that we could pass off as “development” focused. In this meeting we were discussing how we could find projects to justify keeping or grant from the fund.’

I have previously posted on the danger posed by critical race theory here, and also previously posted on how the foreign aid budget was being used to fund race zealots here.

What is needed is not more subsidies to counteract other subsidies, but a de-Marxification programme, as called for in point 7 of the Turbo Brexit agenda (see here):

‘There should be a determined de-Marxification programme to remove the ideology of political correctness from society. Those promoting political correctness should have their access to public monies cut. Political correctness should cease to be the basis of morality and patriotism should be quietly engendered.’