No 10 race report authors struck out at ‘deeply personal’ criticisms

The authors of the government’s controversial racial variation report have actually responded to the prevalent criticism of its findings, stating “deeply individual attacks” by politicians and other public figures are “irresponsible and dangerous”.

The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities stated its conclusions had been misrepresented, with some portraying them as “racism deniers, slavery apologists or even worse”.

It mentioned a tweet from a Labour MP who posted a picture of a Ku Klux Klan member in reaction to a headline that said the commission found “no evidence of institutional racism” on Wednesday. Clive Lewis had captioned the image: “Move along. Nothing to see here. #RaceReport.”

The politician later clarified: “To be crystal clear this image represents structural bigotry. So we’re clear.”

Published completely on Wednesday, the report stated its findings presented “a brand-new race program for the nation” and concluded the “claim the country is still institutionally racist is not borne out by the evidence”. It was rapidly condemned by advocates, MPs and trade unions.

Among the significant criticisms was that the commission’s chairman, Dr Tony Sewell, composed in his foreword there was a brand-new story to be outlined the “servant period” not just “about earnings and suffering”, however about how “culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain”.

David Olusoga, the historian and broadcaster, has actually ended up being the current to question the findings, implicating the authors of offering the impression they would choose “history to be swept under the carpet” in an article for the Guardian.

The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities said that to portray them as “racism deniers, slavery apologists or even worse is unacceptable”. In a prolonged statement, it said: “Unfortunately, nevertheless, sometimes reasonable and robust difference with the commission’s work has tipped into misrepresentation.

” This misstatement risks undermining the purpose of the report– understanding and resolving the causes of inequality in the UK– and any of the favorable work that results from it. We have actually never said that bigotry does not exist in society or in organizations. We state the contrary: bigotry is real and we need to do more to tackle it.

” That is why our extremely first recommendation to the federal government is to challenge racist and prejudiced action and increase funding to the EHRC to pursue examinations. We declare the Macpherson meaning of institutional racism, though we did not find definitive proof that it exists in the locations we took a look at.”

The commission’s statement included: “The idea that the commission would minimize the atrocities of slavery is as ridiculous as it stinks to every one people. The report merely states that in the face of the inhumanity of slavery, African people protected their humanity and culture. The commission’s suggestion for federal government to create inclusive curriculum resources has to do with teaching these histories which often do not get the attention they deserve.

” The deeply individual attacks on many of us by politicians and other public figures are careless and unsafe. For example, one MP provided commissioners as members of the KKK.”

Among the criticism that the research received was that the Windrush scandal was raised simply two times in the 258 pages.

Halima Begum, president of the Runnymede Trust, said the report attempted to reference racism as a historic matter, in spite of the current proof. “The hostile environment still operates and victims of the Windrush scandal still do not have justice,” she said.

Doreen Lawrence, whose boy, Stephen, was killed in a racist attack in 1993, said that the report ran the risk of “giving the green light to racists”.

The Guardian reported on Thursday that leading academics cited in the report said they were not correctly consulted and declared they were never charged to produce research study specifically for the commission.

The commission notes it requested brand-new research study from a number of sources, including from Dr Veena Raleigh and Shilpa Ross of the King’s Fund. But a spokesperson for the independent thinktank stated this was not “strictly real”.

Two other academics, Dr Ria Ivandic and Prof Tom Kirchmaier from the London School of Economics, said they were not commissioned to do new research study for the report, regardless of being listed as such. They had just taken part in a one-hour scholastic conversation on policing.

Stephen Bourne, a historian, said that he was “fooled” by No 10 to participate in a conversation without being told about the commission or its work.

Author SI Martin, a black history professional who was also pointed out as a stakeholder, said there are “issues that my name would be connected to such a shameful document and used in such a way as veneer to give some sort of respectability to the report”. He claims he did not have any contact with the commission.

Black Young Professionals (BYP) Network is also mentioned as one of the report’s stakeholders, however a spokesperson said: “The Commission on Race and Ethnic Variations report’s ‘findings’ implies that it is ethnic minorities’ own fault for absence of progression, that disparities are due to social class and this is unconditionally incorrect.”

Please follow and like us:

Check Also

SNP manifesto: Nicola Sturgeon prepares NHS boost and income tax freeze

The Scottish National celebration has actually committed to a ₤ 2.5 bn boost to frontline …