RACISM

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
 

A teenage science student has been banned from applying for a training programme with the Environment Agency because she is white and English. The recruitment agency handling the scheme told Abigail Howarth, 18, that there was no point in her submitting an application because of her ethnic background. But she could have applied if she had been white and Welsh, Scottish or Irish. Abigail, who wanted to join the Agency's flood management programme, saw an advert in a local newspaper offering positions in the Anglia region where she lives, complete with a £13,000-a-year tax-free grant.

It made no mention of the ban on white English applicants, merely noting that candidates from ethnic minorities, such as "Asian, Indian' and "White Other, e.g. Irish, Welsh, Scottish', were encouraged to put themselves forward. Abigail emailed PATH National Ltd, the company handling applications and asked, "Am I correct in assuming that as I am English (White) I need not apply as the preference is for the minorities you have listed, or can I apply anyway?"

Three days later, PATH recruitment officer, Bola Odusi, replied, "Thank you for your enquiry unfortunately the traineeship opportunity is targeted towards the ethnic minority group to address their under representations in the professions under the Race Relations Act amended 2000." Such a policy may breach Race Relations legislation as employers must prove ethnic groups are under-represented before using positive discrimination strategies.

The Environment Agency admitted it had 'no evidence that white Welsh, Scottish or Irish workers were under-represented' in the Anglia region. PATH National's organisational development manager, Mary McDowell, said, "The "White Welsh", "White Irish" and "White Scottish" is a technicality in law, if they are a minority, they are entitled to places on these schemes, they are not part of the majority group, which is "White English". The "White English" in this area are the majority group and hence could not apply."

The Environment Agency says 387 of its 12,000 workers claim BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) status. A spokesman added, "The Commission for Racial Equality has confirmed we are acting legally." A CRE spokeswoman said, "The Commission will be checking with the Environment Agency to clarify the current situation regarding their positive action initiatives. Positive action can only be used to encourage or train particular under-represented groups." (Source: Daily Mail, Aug/07)

A Rastafarian binman was stunned after bosses banned him from wearing a St George’s Cross bandana, fearing it was racist. Matt Carter used the headscarf to keep his long dreadlocks away from machinery and had been sporting the patriotic look for the last seven months but Barbados-born Matt, who moved to Britain eight years ago, said he was given a dressing-down after council bosses received complaints.

Matt, of Burnley, Lancs, said, “I always used to wear the bandana and no one ever said anything to me about it until complaints were made. I received a verbal warning and was told the St George’s Cross was not allowed to be seen on any clothing we wear because it could be considered offensive and racist. I still need to wear a bandana so I’m wearing a skull and crossbones one now. It’s to keep my hair away from the machine when I’m working.”

Matt, who has worked for Pendle council for five years, was told he was breaching a uniform code. A spokesman said, “Matt knows cleansing staff have a uniform and there are clear rules about what they can wear. We’ve made it clear they are not allowed to put stickers or flags on bin wagons or wear clothing which shows support for a certain team, group or country. We can’t make one rule for one person and one for another. Uniforms help make it clear to Pendle people who our workers are.” (Source: The Sun, Jul/07)

Chris Brown is being investigated by police for driving around in his Land Rover with a gollywog fixed to the front bumper. A neighbour reported him for racist behaviour and two officers called round to his home while he was out, took photos of the car and seized the soft toy. Chris said, "I was told the police had been taking pictures of my Land Rover and had also removed the toy from the vehicle. I rang the police and said that I had been told two police officers had stolen a toy from my vehicle."

He added, "The officer then said he had been instructed to take it off, as someone had complained that it offended them. I find it strange that the police can remove items from your vehicle without contacting you. The police officer told me that he needs to talk to me about the toy. I understand they are considering a public order offence against me."

A spokesman for Staffordshire Police said, "We are investigating a complaint from a member of the community regarding an object which has been attached to a vehicle which has caused offence and distress to a local resident. Officers have visited both parties involved and the item has been seized while the investigation continues. This incident has been reported to us as a racist incident and the local neighbourhood policing team are currently investigating the complaint."

Chief Inspector Martin Evans, who is responsible for partnerships and neighbourhood policing in the North Staffordshire Division added, "Any incident believed to be of a racist nature is taken very seriously. We are member of PARINS (Partnership Against Racist Incidents in North Staffordshire) whose work is focused on the need to increase the reporting of racist incidents."

He added, "We are committed to serving all members of our community and we work to ensure that everyone can live without the fear caused by racist acts. Incidents like this are rare, particularly incidents like this which attract the attention of the media, however it is vital that all members of our community feel confident to report such incidents to the police." (Source: Daily Mail, May/07)

School chiefs are under fire for banning pupils from wearing crosses in class while allowing the jewel­lery of other faiths. Christian groups and politicians condemned the education bosses and accused them of “double standards”. The officials have told headteachers to ban jewellery except in “exceptional circumstances” when schools need to be “sensitive” towards other faiths. The “exceptions” include lockets worn by Muslims and Hindu bracelets.

But even Muslim leaders have joined the condemnation, arguing that all religious groups, including Christians, should be treated the same. A spokesman for the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship said, “We have had numerous examples recently of the rights of some faith groups being tolerated while the rights of others, generally Christians, are not. Where rights are in competition, some rights win out. So we have a situation where gay rights trump Christian rights and in some areas, Muslim rights seem paramount.”

The Muslim Council of Britain’s education spokesman Tahir Alam said all faiths should be treated the same way. He added, “I support my Christian colleagues on this point. If these items are important to children and have religious significance for them, there should be no issue at all about that.” A document issued by the Muslim Council this year said taweez amulets have religious significance for those who wear them and should not be considered as jewellery. It said schools should allow the symbols, which contain verses from the Koran, to be worn discreetly.

The Croydon school guidance says the religious items that can be worn are: Rakhi, a cotton bracelet worn by Hindus; kara, a metal bracelet put on the arms of Sikh children when they are young and is impossible to remove; and taweez, religious lockets worn by some Muslim pupils on a string around the neck, arm or stomach. The Muslim item is not regarded as compulsory by followers of the faith, in the same way that crucifixes and crosses are not required to be worn by Christians.

Guidance recently from the Department for Education on school uniform policy reminds head­teachers to be sensitive and considerate towards the culture, race and religion of their pupils. It gives them the right to ban Muslim girls from wearing full-face veils following a High Court decision in favour of a Buckinghamshire school which refused a 12-year-old pupil permission to wear one.

Croydon council said that the guidelines issued by its advisory committee for religious education did not mention Christianity because “it is not compulsory to wear a cross … it is a personal preference and can be taken off”. It said that while the taweez was “not a compulsory item in all branches of Islam, some branches feel that it is, which is why it appears in the guidance”. A spokesman for Croydon council said that the “purely advisory” guidance was a “working document” that was being updated and was likely to change. (Source: Daily Express, May/07)

<<< Prev