Today, along with millions of others, I have listened to the news that two of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence have finally been convicted of his death, more than 18 years after the unprovoked racist attack in south-east London.
Stephen Lawrence’s murder has brought about some fundamental changes in our understanding, reaction to, and management of racism in our society.
Firstly, the Macpherson Inquiry into the handling of the initial investigation by the Metropolitan Police shone a spotlight on how prejudice can thrive in groups and how people in professional roles can turn a judicious blind eye when something is not particularly important to them. The term “institutional racism” used in the report of the Macpherson Inquiry has subsequently become a well recognised, if somewhat miss-used, term in today’s vernacular.
Secondly, the Race Equality Duty, was introduced in 2001 in direct response to the findings of the Macpherson Inquiry. Leading the introduction of these new legal duties on the public sector, Jack Straw indicated that his ambition was for public sector bodies such as the police to become the leading light on taking proactive, positive steps to foster good relations between different groups and tackle discrimination.
Thirdly, Recommendation 11 of the Macpherson Inquiry amplified the responsibility of race relations legislation, and in particular the responsibility of all police officers to uphold their legal duties. The fact that Chief Police Officers can be held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers relevant to the legislation is just one of the reasons that police forces and constabularies take issues of racism so much more seriously now than previously.
Fourthly, Stephen Lawrence’s murder played a significant role in the ending the double jeopardy principle, whereby no one could be tried twice for the same crime. The abolition of this legal principle in 2005 meant that one of Stephen’s murderers could be successfully tried again.
So the death of Stephen Lawrence has brought about some fundamental changes in the way that racism is dealt with in this country. However, I realise with some resignation it is not Stephen’s death that has brought about these changes. It is not even the fact that the attack was racially motivated that brought about these changes. In fact, the thing that ensured Stephen’s murder did not simply go recorded as an unsolved crime was just how stupendously badly the Metropolitan Police bungled the initial investigation, combined with the tenacity of Stephen’s mother and other supporters.
So can individuals make a difference in tackling issues as big as racism? Without a doubt. I also strongly believe organisations can, and do, have a significant impact on cultural change, including on issues as significant as tackling racism in society. Hopefully your organisation will be doing this in a positive, proactive way, and not in the negative mishandling impact that the Met Police had.
In April 2000, Nick Griffin shared his vision with a group of white nationalists in the US: “perhaps one day, by being rather more subtle, we’ll get ourselves into a position where we control the British broadcasting media”. Tonight, Griffin is due to appear as a panellist on BBC’s Question Time. So, has he achieved his vision?
There is no doubt that since his conviction for inciting racial hatred in 1998, Griffin’s tactics have changed. He talks about using “saleable” words to win British votes, such as “security” and “identity” rather than “racial purity”. He takes every opportunity to insist that the BNP is not a racist party. But Griffin’s insistence that the party is not racist does not make it so. Even on its own website there is an ongoing debate amongst BNP members about whether they are members of a racist party of not. One member comments “I don't like what Muslims (sic) believe in, practice or preach. I don't want them in our country and I certainly don't want them as a neighbour.” Another states “What is of interest to us, though, is whether THE BNP is racist - and it would help if this website, above all, was able to answer the question honestly. I think the answer must be yes…. I mean, if we're racist, we're racist. And I don't mean this in an unfriendly way at all...”
I prefer this level of honesty and would rather have a debate with someone who is willing to be open about what they believe in, rather than Griffin’s spun comments around racial purity, when in his own words, he is looking for British people to “change their mind and say ‘every last one of them must go’”.
What this level of honesty makes clear, though, is that whilst Griffin might be becoming more politically canny, the remainders of the BNP are still many steps behind him and it is no surprise that Griffin is the only spokesperson that the BNP is willing to put forward in front of the media.
So is it an atrocity for Griffin to be being a panel member on Question Time? No. Whilst he may be more polished in his spin of BNP values, at the heart of it, Griffin still represents a party of hatred, not a party of governance, as even a cursory look through their manifesto makes clear. I do believe in the freedom of speech, even for odious people like Griffin. I also believe that people need to hear what Griffin and his party stand for so that they fully appreciate just how racist the BNP actually is and whether they really want these people to take decisions on their behalf. After all, who knows which groups of society they could focus on next?
Here we are in the final run-up to the US election. And what a marathon it's been. We've had the primaries, the conventions, How To Vote guides on YouTube, high profile advertising in racing video games and an infomercial; now it's all down to the voting next week.
Barack Obama's strong lead in the polls over the Republican candidate John McCain continues to grow. This healthy lead remains despite press speculation that American voters will falter at the polling booths and decide that a first black president is just a step too far. The Republican leader John McCain, however, thinks this is unlikely. As he said in a recent Larry King interview, "Look, there is racism in America. We all know that...but I am totally convinced that 99 and forty-four-one-hundredths percent of Americans are going to make the decision based on who is best to lead this country". Let's hope they don't have to do the math on that one....
Regardless of the outcome of next week's election, it's fair to say that in the US, much as in the UK, overt, traditional forms of racism are becoming increasingly taboo, to the point that we are now looking at a popular black Senator. It's taken time though - 1870 saw the first black congressman to be seated in the House of Representatives. Even more surprising, perhaps, is that the UK was more than 20 years behind the US in electing its first ethnic minority MP, Dadabhai Naoroji, in 1892. Even today, with only 15 of our 605 MPs being from a minority background, we still find ourselves playing catch-up. Perhaps some may argue that this is simply due to numbers - the US after all has a higher proportion of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. But given that over here in the UK we still struggle to vote for black dancers in Strictly Come Dancing and black singers in I'd Do Anything, I'm not going to hold my breath. Perhaps the 2008 US elections will be another opportunity for the US to lead the UK in breaking new ground.
Feed