- people are not blind to colour in a colour conscious society
- racism affects black and white people both but differently
a campaigning national organisation - promoting the principle of 'different but equal'


The HCJ shares its analysis of socio-political and economic situations with voters to help them to make well informed democratic choices. 
Copyright © 2005-2021 HCJ all pages
One disregarded equality commission after another
sense of being inclusive, exclusive, subjective continues

Considering the commonality of premise, purpose and deployment between the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), no surprise that EHRC tends to stand equally discredited.

The CRE was established by the Race Relations Act 1976, under James Callaghan's Labour government - first Chairman was former Conservative MP David Lane, who in 1986 was assigned to wash out Brent’s equality plans under Development Programme for Racial Equality (DPRE) – sort of role like the Labour leader Keir Starmer’s ‘recent purge against Corbyn and rest of Labour left.’

In theory, the public service providers and elected representatives should have the capacity and political responsibility to make choices and respond to the needs and demands of the communities they serve fairly and in non-discriminatory manner.

The mainstream providers and elected representatives should be able to protect the rights of all citizens and ensure to improve the quality of their lives, based on the principle of different but equal.

However, the reality is that of uniformity of approach based on established norms and expertise. Consequently, 'professionals' throughout the caring services, including the government and political establishments, while 'celebrating' diversity, argue that variety creates 'anomalies'.

It is this perception that defines the premise of provisions, legislation and elected representation to cater for specific racial or other needs of the groups of people. The race relations legislation strengthened this and created, through race relations/equality quangos like the CRE (and now EHRC), a structural mechanism of control and containment of the ‘diversity’s’ aspirations and expectations using the age old strategy of 'divide and rule'.

So much so that the CRE throughout its existence, and now EHRC, failed to address why inequalities or identify which community interests and welfare they are safeguarding or even to present a working definition of racism in the British context.

Chairman Trevor Phillips, appointed by David Blunkett, was the last one to lock the CRE shop and open its successor, the EHRC, and so the CRE's collusive practices overshadowed EHRC from its inception.

“Following a series of scandals in recent years, the legitimacy of the Equality and Human Rights Commission lies in tatters — few people now have confidence in the statutory body to regulate equality law” the Electronic Intifada observes.  The commission's history tends to confirm this!
Some of the first set of EHRC Commissioners resigned towards the end of their first term, while others did not seek a second term.

Prior to David Isaac's appointment as chair of the Commission, two parliamentary committees warned that there was a potential conflict of interest because his legal firm carries out “significant work for the government”, after he accepted that his annual legal income of over £500,000 would dwarf the £50,000 he would earn from the EHRC. While Christian Concern called for his appointment to be blocked, it was welcomed by The Jewish Chronicle.

In March 2017, the EHRC was criticised by campaigners, including Lord Ouseley and Peter Herbert, for allegedly targeting BAME staff for compulsory redundancies and for failing to appoint BAME personnel to senior positions. The campaigners said that, out of 12 staff selected for redundancy, only two were white British, while eight were from a BAME background, four were Muslim, and six were disabled. Campaigners also said that there were no visible minorities among the senior management team, after the only black director was selected for redundancy, and that all two of the remaining BAME workers were on the bottom three pay grades.

In July 2020, Newsweek reported that two BAME former commissioners at the EHRC, Baroness Meral Hussein-Ece and Lord Simon Woolley, said they were not reappointed to their roles in November 2012 because they were "too loud and vocal" about issues of race.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) first asked the EHRC to investigate Islamophobia in the Conservative Party in May 2019. It received no reply and made a second request in November 2019 and again received no reply. In March 2020, the MCB submitted a dossier including 300 supposed cases of prejudiced or discriminatory language against Muslims within the Conservative Party. On 12 May, the EHRC announced that it would not be investigating the Conservative Party for racism.

However, in May 2019, after submissions by the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), the EHRC launched a formal investigation under section 20 of the Equality Act 2006 into whether Labour had "unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish": specifically, whether "unlawful acts have been committed by the party and/or its employees and/or its agents, and; whether the party has responded to complaints of unlawful acts in a lawful, efficient and effective manner”.

Draft findings of the EHRC investigation were passed to the Labour Party in July 2020 which Labour leadership accepted at face value probably because Keir Starmer is trying to subvert the Labour Party into his own image - anti-Corbyn.

On 29 October 2020, the EHRC published its report about ‘antisemitism’ in the Labour Party.

Considering the seemingly collusive history of the commissions, it is not surprising to know about serious gaps in the EHRC Labour specific investigative work and reporting.

The professional analysis of EHRC report by Ammar Kazmi, a graduate in Law, unpicking the legally flawed in the ‘Labour antisemitism’ report,  makes it difficult to trust the report and gives more reasons to suspect pre-determined outcomes to enable Keir Starmer’s recent purge against Corbyn and rest of Labour left.

“So, despite being a statutory body, there are ample reasons to be concerned about the EHRC — which is increasingly viewed as a politically motivated quango — and to not accept its findings or authority at face value” alerts Mr Kazmi.

In setting the reasons for his analysis, Mr Kazmi said “The McCarthyite political atmosphere surrounding the EHRC Report — exemplified in Jeremy Corbyn’s now-rescinded suspension and ongoing withdrawal of the Labour whip — has meant that there has been little in-depth scrutiny about the legal validity of the EHRC’s findings.”

Mr Kazmi says his submissions centre on the EHRC’s “legal flaws in general, and the findings of unlawful acts in particular — the central premise being that there was no basis in law on which to make any findings of unlawful indirect discrimination or harassment against the Party. I submit that the EHRC has erred in law through its: dismissal of vital evidence; conclusory legal analysis; politicised approach to defining Judeophobia; misuse of case law; and inability to meet the appropriate legal tests for its findings.”

“The Party itself likely did not seek to challenge the EHRC Report ahead of publication. Had the Party leadership done so, it could be argued that there would never have been any findings of unlawful acts. It will undoubtedly be of concern to many Party members that a rigorous defence was probably never made on the Party’s behalf due to political reasons, despite such a route being available” Mr Kazmi observes.

Some other points from Mr Kazmi’s analysis include:

‘The failure to consider the Leaked Report is an obvious example of the EHRC’s politicised approach to evidence gathering, which substantiates the argument that the EHRC had a predetermined, central narrative guiding its Report. I submit that the EHRC approached its investigation with a closed mind — simply turning a blind eye to whatever did not suit its narrative — whilst contorting any ‘evidence’ (however tenuous) towards it. This closely reflects both the Labour Party’s and the media’s approach to the ‘Labour antisemitism crisis’. Labour MPs, senior officials, and even many of those deemed to be on the left-wing of the Party, have for five years barely sought to resist even the most spurious allegations aimed at purging Corbyn allies from the Party.’

‘The fallout from the leak occupied multiple news cycles, whilst unredacted details about the Party’s complaint processes were made available for all to see. Most shockingly, numerous private WhatsApp messages exchanged between senior former Party staff were revealed to contain repeated examples of intense factionalism, obstruction, and potentially racism. Party staff were revealed to contain repeated examples of intense factionalism, obstruction, and potentially racism.’

‘The Leaked Report also seemed to indicate that the Party’s former general secretary Iain McNicol — as well as former staff in the Governance and Legal Unit — may, until mid-2018, have purposely sat on Judeophobia allegations in order to damage Jeremy Corbyn’s reputation.’

In view of all this, readers could decide about the credibility of the EHRC as well as what and for who it really stands for, and how Labour party politics have been influenced? 13/12/2020