This new race relations bill was introduced into the Commons by the Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. He noted that there had been a great deal of change since the first race relations legislation a decade earlier, most notably that a much larger proportion of ‘coloured’ people were now born in Britain, and thus could no longer be described as immigrants. He believed as an essential principle that ‘racial minorities were entitled to full and equal treatment’, and that ‘racial discrimination was morally repugnant to a civilised and democratic society’.
However he also warned that there had to be ‘a clear limit to the amount of immigration which this country can absorb, and that it is in the interests of the racial minorities themselves to maintain a strict control over immigration’. Successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, would shamelessly and consistently continue to ignore this warning, sometimes spectacularly so.
The Home Secretary acknowledged that legislation alone was insufficient to address the problem of racial disadvantage and that ‘a wide range of administrative and voluntary measures were needed in order to give practical effect to the objectives of the law, and to combat discrimination and encourage equal opportunity’. In practice the commitment to equal opportunity was soon overtaken by the drive to achieve equality of outcome, regardless of how this agenda might alienate and discriminate against the majority white population.
Mr Jenkins acknowledged that during the past decade ‘despite all our efforts’ the end result was ‘the inability of the existing legislation to deal with widespread patterns of discrimination, especially in employment and housing’, or to address ‘a lack of confidence among minority groups in the utility of the law’. The new legislation would close some loopholes which still allowed discrimination ‘in an unacceptable way’. Thus private social clubs would no longer be allowed to operate a colour bar or to refuse membership on racial grounds. The law on incitement to racial hatred would also be strengthened.
Also included for the first time was the establishment of a new Race Relations Commission. Its principal functions included working towards the elimination of discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and good relations between different racial groups and to keep the working of the legislation under review. It was also given a major strategic role ‘in enforcing the law in the public interest, and to identify and deal with discriminatory practices by industries, firms or institutions’. The Commission would have the power to bring legal proceedings against those who persistently violate the law, to conduct investigations and research, to advise the Government and take action to educate and persuade public opinion.
So it is clear that the Commission was provided with wide ranging powers and responsibilities to promote the interests of minority racial groups at the expense of the white majority, and whose cause moreover would be reinforced by making the inevitable accusations of racism and discrimination to give greater weight to their complaints. As Enoch Powell observed in his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech this would provide ‘the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur with the power to pillory citizens for their private actions'.
A Conservative MP made the pertinent point that ‘the Commission will be able to help those who make accusations. What we have not been told, but should like to hear, is what redress there will be for those against whom false accusations are made.’ The Home Secretary agreed that ‘people should not be subject to malicious or frivolous complaints’ explaining that ‘a complainant has either to get the assistance of the new Commission, in which case he has to go through quite an important sieve, or he has to take his own responsibility for bringing an action before an industrial tribunal or a county court. So there is a considerable disincentive to people to indulge in frivolous or pointless complaints’.
The shadow Home Secretary William Whitelaw responded on behalf of the Conservative opposition. He agreed that it was necessary to encourage good race relations and confirmed that his party was ‘completely committed to the principle of non-discrimination’, but added that any race relations policy ‘had to operate against a background of public confidence’. He shared the expressed view of the Home Secretary that if the legislation was to work there would need to be a ‘policy of strict control of immigration’ since continued immigration on a ‘substantial scale’ would destroy any race relations policy.
Mr Whitelaw expressed concern about the inclusion of social clubs in the legislation which ‘represents a completely revolutionary attitude to the private life of the citizen. Clubs have been held in law to be an extension of the home and an area which should be exempt from Government interference’, adding that ‘insisting on legislation in an area where it is quite inappropriate, will stir up resentment and antagonism’. On the subject of incitement to racial hatred he believed that ‘the Government will be seen to be taking dangerously arbitrary powers, which have more than a hint of censorship about them’.
In support of the legislation a Labour MP declared that’ race discrimination and race prejudice are still widespread. Consequently there is a risk of ethnic communities becoming permanently alienated. What is needed, above everything else, is a clear and demonstrable Government commitment to equal rights’. However, the intention of the legislation was not to provide equal rights which already existed, but to create machinery in which racial minorities could intimidate the majority white population through accusations of discrimination and racism.
Enoch Powell, by then an Ulster Unionist MP, declared that he would vote against the legislation because ‘it would not in its practical application contribute to the achievement of racial harmony’. He warned that the proposals were irrelevant to the real problems and dangers facing the country, and went on to catalogue the huge increase in ethnic births that had taken place in certain town and cities. He pointed out that this increase in the ethnic population was leading to irreversible segregation, which had not arisen because of discrimination, but by human nature and the ‘mass and size of the original movement itself’. He shared the view that ‘bad social practices could not be remedied’ by the legislation adding that ‘in some respects they will flourish in an atmosphere of resentment’ and would be ‘counter-productive because the creation of new rights creates new grievances. The search for new grievance is eternal. There is no limit to the grievances which can be found by those who are determined to find them’.
A Labour MP responded to Mr Powell by claiming that the legislation would only give rights to people who need them, since the mass of the population does not suffer discrimination, unlike a certain section which is at a grave disadvantage and so requires protection because of the actions of a very small and prejudiced minority. Several Conservative MPs thought that a balance had to be struck between ‘avoiding discrimination on the basis of colour’ whilst ensuring that ‘there should be the strictest control over new immigration’. In practice this balance never happened since governments would repeatedly capitulate to ever more strident calls for greater measures against perceived discrimination, but condemn as racist those seeking to curb immigration.
A Conservative MP declared that ‘Parliament should be wary about the racial hatred clause extensions. Free speech must be preserved at all times. Parliament should be paramount in preserving free speech. However unpalatable or distasteful free speech may be at certain times to enlightened opinion, we must always allow it’. This was a timely warning which successive governments would ignore, leading to the current suppression of free speech under the guise of so called ‘hate crimes’.
A prominent Liberal MP considered that the proposals did not go far enough. He suggested that the Government should ‘by the use of their contracting role, ensure that there is no discrimination among the firms with which they deal, and by monitoring more carefully the composition of their own staff, the Civil Service. The Government should set an example in this field, and local authorities should do more in this respect’. In time such measures would not only be introduced but extended to cover many private firms.
The Conservative MP Ronald Bell in a detailed speech made some pertinent points. He believed that the use of the law in this context was wrong, and although he personally always tried to be ‘fair, courteous and kind to all’, he nevertheless discriminates ‘between everyone I meet upon every ground that I can detect. I think that everybody does so, and it is right that they do. Discrimination is not merely the supreme human quality; it is the very principle of life itself’. He continued ‘a heavy responsibility lies upon anyone who proposes to use the law to declare that people must disregard certain things which they believe they perceive’, condemning such laws as being ‘against the very spirit of the human race’. Mr Bell noted that ‘compulsion is so attractive and so quick. It saves all the bother of persuasion. It is the invariable objective of every pressure group. Once we start on the process of using the law to mould minds, we are embarking upon something that is a total abuse of the coercive processes which a society accepts for some of its necessary purposes’.
On practical grounds he opposed the proposed legislation as it widened the range of discrimination that would result in a more oppressive legal system. He condemned the ‘vicious severity of the civil procedure’ that was being proposed, pointing out the reason why this course has been taken ‘since on a civil basis it is not necessary to obtain proof beyond all reasonable doubt, it is necessary only to establish the balance of probability’. He highlighted the financial imbalance between the parties ‘because of the awarding of costs a defendant hardly ever dares to contest the matter in court, whereas the complainants have behind them the inexhaustible resources of the Crown’. With regard to the proposal to strengthen the powers against incitement to racial hatred Mr Bell denounced this as it would eliminate ‘the need for intent altogether. It strikes it right out in this restriction of freedom of speech’.
Another Conservative MP raised the issue of immigration. He believed that ‘ordinary English people wish to keep this country, which they know and love, basically as a place to which they feel they belong. Fundamentally, they do not wish it to change either its character or its cohesion. In other words, they wish to retain their identity’. He considered that this was now threatened since although ‘we have always absorbed small numbers of immigrants, the immensity of coloured immigration that this country has received during the past 25 years is an entirely new phenomenon. He observed that ‘immigration has completely altered the face of certain parts of this country and created foreign enclaves in our midst. It has brought into this country alien people whose religion, customs and habits are quite different from ours. In this way it has fundamentally altered the character of this country’. The MP declared that ‘no government has the right to carry out such a fundamental act without the most specific consent of the people. Successive Governments are gradually depriving English people of their birthright, and in time, if this procedure is not stopped, the local population will be swamped’. It is refreshing to know that Conservative MPs once held robust views such as these, coupled with a willingness to speak the truth about the facts with honesty and clarity.
Alex Lyons, Home Office Minister of State, concluded the debate. He claimed that ‘the 1968 Act succeeded in eliminating overt discrimination. We now have to do something about discrimination which is indirect, latent or concealed. We have decided not just to change the general powers of the Race Relations Board but to create a completely new structure which will have a completely new role’. Unlike the previous two parliamentary debates on this subject in 1965 and 1968, when the Conservatives voted against the proposed legislation, this time they abstained. Despite the near unanimous opposition of Conservative MPs whenever this kind of legislation was introduced, these race laws were never repealed or reversed when Conservative governments were in power.
No comments:
Post a Comment