THE PAREKH REPORT [13]

‘5.4 ... Anti-black racism is different, in terms of its historical and economic origins, and in its contemporary manifestations, stereotypes and effects, from anti-Asian racism. Both are different from, to cite three further significant examples, anti-Irish, anti-Gypsy and anti-Jewish racism. European societies, it is sometimes said, are multi-racist societies ...

5.5 ... [“West-East racism”] draws attention to one of the most serious forms of cultural hostility in modern Europe - anti-Muslim racism. But of course so simple an idea can all too readily lead to unhelpful simplifications. One major objection to it, for example, is that it neglects forms of racism directed against people within Europe, for example anti-Irish racism and antisemitism.

5.6 ... Jews see themselves historically as an oppressed group. However, Jews in Britain today face comparatively little discrimination; the number of antisemitic incidents is small; the impact of antisemitic propaganda is marginal; and antisemitism has ceased to be socially acceptable. Moreover, countervailing forces have strengthened. These include the adoption of legislation making race hatred unlawful, growing awareness of the Holocaust, greater acceptance of pluralism and many decades of successful assimilation - the wisdom of which, however, many in the Jewish community now question. Yet not all Jews recognise the improvements. In 1995, 40 per cent of Jews believed that antisemitism was worse than it had been five years earlier, despite the fact that the evidence of declining antisemitism came from data collected by the body that formally monitors such issues on behalf of the community, the Community Security Trust. In view of antisemitism’s murderous consequences in the past, Jewish sensitivity is entirely understandable. Since the Jewish community is long-established, is often seen as part of the white establishment, suffers no colour racism and is often held up as a model of successful assimilation, relations between it and other groups targeted by racism are rather complex. Nevertheless, in policies designed to deal with racism, antisemitism must be included - it remains an integral part of the ideological armoury of racist individuals and groups and has been called “a light sleeper”. It would be perverse, however, not to acknowledge that, however deeply wounding and painful expressions of antisemitism are in Britain today, the racism experienced by Asian, black, Gypsy and Irish communities demands primary attention.

5.7 Anti-Irish racism has many of the features to be found in most racisms: a history of colonisation; the establishment of plantation agriculture to provide primary commodities for the metropolis; the use of indentured labour; migration to the metropolis to furnish manpower (which in the case of the Irish began more than 100 years before the migrations from outside Europe); negative stereotypes about difference and inferiority; discrimination in the criminal justice system and in the provision of jobs and accommodation; and widespread experience of social exclusion. However, anti-Irish racism has been twinned in British history, at least since the mid-16th century, with anti-Catholicism, and frequently for this reason has not been adequately recognised. Until recently, it has largely been ignored by organisations promoting race equality, for since the Irish are perceived as white it is not readily imagined that they might be victims of racism rather than perpetrators. Supported tacitly by academics and other specialists, policy-makers have espoused and propagated “the myth of homogeneity” - the false belief that the population of Britain consists essentially of one large majority or mainstream (“white people”) and an array of various minorities. “Non-white” and “ethnic” in the mental picture are synonymous.

5.8 Anti-Muslim racism has been a feature of European culture at least since the Crusades, but it has taken different forms at different times. In modern Britain its manifestations include discrimination in recruitment and employment practices; high levels of attacks on mosques and on people wearing Muslim religious dress; widespread negative stereotypes in all sections of the press, including the broadsheets as well as the tabloids; bureaucratic obstruction or inertia in response to Muslim requests for greater cultural sensitivity in education and healthcare; objections and delays in planning permissions to build mosques; and non-recognition of Muslims by the law of the land, since discrimination on grounds of religion or belief is not unlawful. Furthermore, many or most anti-racist organisations and campaigns appear indifferent to the distinctive features of anti-Muslim racism and to distinctive Muslim concerns about cultural sensitivity ...

5.9 The essential point to stress is that over the centuries all racisms have had - and continue to have - two separate but intertwining strands. One uses physical or biologically derived signs as a way of recognising difference - skin colour, hair, features, body type, and so on. The other uses cultural features, such as ways of life, customs, language, religion and dress. The two strands usually appear together, but they combine in distinct ways, with one or other prominent at different times and in different contexts. Jews were vilified in medieval times because they were believed to be the murderers of Christ, and because they practised a strict but alien code of dietary law and social behaviour. But they also came to be represented as physically different - with hooked nose, ringlets and a swarthy complexion. In the antisemitic iconography of Nazi Germany they were consistently portrayed as subhuman. Similarly, Gypsies have been discriminated against because of both their nomadic lifestyle and their “non-Caucasian” physical appearance. Most Muslims are recognised by physical features as well as by their culture and religion, and the biological and cultural strands in anti-Muslim racism are often impossible to disentangle. In the 19th century the Irish, who had always been regarded by the British as less civilised, were racialised - represented in the press and popular cartoons as ape-like, a race apart. This tradition continued in the mainstream press into the 20th century. As well as Jews, Gypsies and the Irish within Europe, the targets of racism over the centuries have included peoples and civilisations beyond Europe’s boundaries, including, of course, the colonised peoples.

5.10 Race, as is now widely acknowledged, is a social and political construct, not a biological or genetic fact. It cannot be used scientifically to account for the wide range of differences among peoples ... This does not mean that racism is a myth, for although it does not have a scientific basis it does create social and political realities - those things that men and women believe to be true, it is often said, are true in their consequences; that is, they have real effects. Groups are characterised exclusively in terms of what makes them different, and differences are reduced to a few simple either/or distinctions - a fixed set of oppositions between “us” and “them”, those who belong and those who do not. Difference and inferiority become all but synonymous. Individuals are then seen and judged in terms of the group differences, and “we” have the right to exclude “them” from access to scarce material and cultural resources. Racism, in short, involves (a) stereotypes about difference and inferiority and (b) the use of power to exclude, discriminate or subjugate. It has existed and continues to exist in all societies. Chinese and Indian attitudes to outsiders, and African attitudes to Asians, and so on, show its influence. Here, we concentrate on European racism.

5.13 The image of the African was influenced less by direct knowledge of Africa and more by the wider context of the slave trade. It was based on contact with the sellers of slaves and with the slaves themselves. Though varied in their detail, these views entailed “one universal assumption” - that African skin colour, hair texture and facial features were associated with both the African way of life and the status of slavery. Once this assumption was made, prejudices about class, race and culture blended with a long-standing iconography in European Christian thought, and imagery that counterpoised the goodness of white (the light) against the degradation and evil represented by black and darkness. In the face of the growing anti-slavery movement, racialised ideas of African slaves and slavery became more systematically codified. By the 18th century this general view of the physical differences and cultural inferiority of the African, and the negative social, cultural and cognitive meanings associated with black skin, represented the common-sense opinion of the great majority of the slave-owning planter class and their supporters, as also of scholars and thinkers ...

5.14 In the 18th century European trade enclaves began to develop on a more systematic colonising basis in the East ... At both scholarly and popular levels, a set of stereotyped views of how and why the peoples of the Orient were different and inferior developed. These were based on a set of unbridgeable oppositions between East and West - “and never the twain shall meet”, as Kipling infamously put it. As in relation to Africa and the New World, physical characteristics played an important part in alerting Westerners to oriental difference. But there was a much stronger emphasis on cultural difference within the various types of anti-Asian racism - the East/West divide was delineated primarily by divergences in social customs, sexual mores, social etiquette, family culture, religion, language, dress, cuisine and the rituals of the life cycle. Scholars contrasted the development of modern civilisation in the West with the backward and tradition-dominated East, an opposition that persists to this day. Where African men were stigmatised as violent and sexually aggressive, and the women as openly promiscuous, oriental men were seen as feminine, wily and devious, and the women seductive. But the two strands of racism - the biological and cultural - continued to interweave ...

5.15 The success of the anti-slavery movements in the 19th century represented something of a high point in efforts to contest extreme racist opinion. However, after the middle of the century a new and more virulent form of racism began to emerge in Europe ... It claimed scientific respectability for the idea that human beings belonged to distinct and separate species. Each race was seen as a self-reproducing group whose characteristics were fixed for ever with its own distinctive “blood” and “stock”. A scientific basis was similarly claimed for the principle of arranging races into a hierarchy, and physical and anatomical differences were measured so that groups could be mapped on a neo-Darwinian evolutionary tree, from primitive to civilised ...

5.16 These theories were closely aligned with increased European nationalism and with the rising competition between the European nation-states for a monopoly of markets, raw materials, colonial possessions and world supremacy. Scientific racism spanned the period of high imperialism and two world wars - racial sentiments were valuable supports for military mobilisation and essential ingredients of jingoism. This race-based nationalism interacted with a race-based imperialism. In Britain, for example, the Empire was frequently celebrated as the achievement of “an imperial race”. The revival of rabid antisemitism, leading to the pogroms against Jews in central and eastern Europe and Hitler’s Final Solution, was the product of this pan-European trend.

5.17 Racism exacerbates, and is exacerbated by, sexism - they reinforce each other in vicious circles and spirals, and intertwine to the extent that it is impossible to disentangle them. Racism involves believing “races” are essentially distinct from each other, as a matter of nature. Similarly, sexism involves seeing all differences between women and men as fixed in nature rather than primarily constructed by culture. In both racism and sexism the dominant group holds much the same self/other stereotypes. The self (the male, the white person) is seen as rational, reliable, consistent, mature, capable, strong. The other is perceived and treated as emotional, untrustworthy, feckless, childish, wayward - a threat if not kept under strict control.

5.18 Sexual rivalries in sexist and patriarchal contexts exacerbate fears and fantasies among white people about supposed sexuality, promiscuity and fecundity of people believed to be racially different. Racist stereotypes are then strengthened, particularly those that hold black and Asian people to be closer to nature, unreason and instinct, lacking in integrity and trustworthiness, and needing to be kept under control. White men perceive Asian men as effeminate. Stand-offs between white male police officers and black youths on the street, or between white male teachers and black pupils in secondary schools, are imbued with a combination of sexual rivalry and racism. In all communities such stereotypes and tensions increase the oppression of women and the policing of sexuality. In racist contexts, white people see black and Asian people not only as sexually threatening but also as exotic, mysterious and exciting. The exoticisation and sexualisation of “non-Western” people is a frequent theme in modern advertising. It has the appearance of being non-racist, perhaps, since at least a black or Asian person is visible in a high-profile way. In fact, however, such imagery may reflect and reinforce both racism and sexism.

5.32 ...discriminatory behaviour can create, and not just be the consequence of, prejudiced ideas and beliefs. Police officers, like everybody else, are socialised into particular ways of behaving; only subsequently do they imbibe from their professional culture the range of negative stereotypes and beliefs which they use to explain what they do. Similar dynamics occur in many other occupational and professional settings, as well - for example, in the education system.

5.33 Similarly, a set of power relationships ... can generate the very beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that then act to reinforce them. It cannot be stressed too strongly that all racisms have in common that they arose and developed, and are nowadays maintained, in the context of unequal power relations. “Slavery was not born of racism”, runs a well-known dictum. “Rather, racism was the consequence of slavery”. The unequal power relations between police officers and members of the public, teachers and pupils, health professionals and patients, employers and employees, and so on, are fertile ground for a wide range of prejudices and negative stereotypes, particularly at times of stress and conflict.

5.34 The term “institutional racism”, then, refers to a range of phenomena, not all of which may be present in any one situation, and not all of which are obvious. It focuses not only on the processes of an organisation but also on its output - the benefits or penalties which customers, clients, service users and members of the public get from it, and the extent to which, as a result, it causes more inequality or less in its surrounding environment.

5.35 Racism awareness training was developed in the United States in the 1970s and was fairly widespread in Britain in the 1980s. It was then largely dropped. The Stephen Lawrence report brought it back into prominence, with seven separate recommendations concerning its use. The term “awareness” is problematic, for the aims of training must embrace understanding, skills and practical action, not just awareness ... training should address the two main strands of racism - cultural and biological - and should take account of its roots in imperialism, anti-Muslim hostility and the slave trade, and in often strident opposition to immigration ... it should focus on the interacting components of institutional racism ... and should therefore address the practical actions that participants need to take in their own personal spheres of responsibility.

Box 5.2 Interacting components of institutional racism

Indirect discrimination
Members of black and Asian communities do not receive their fair share of the benefits and resources available from an organisation, and do not receive a professional, responsive and high-quality service. They do, however, receive more than their fair share of penalties and disadvantages.

Employment practices
Members of black, Asian and Irish communities are not recruited to the extent that could reasonably be expected, or, having been recruited, receive less than their fair share of promotion, training and career development opportunities.

Occupational culture
Racist arguments, stereotypes and assumptions go unchallenged in everyday conversation and affect how the organisation treats members of the public. There is cynicism about so-called political correctness, and little or no emphasis on reducing inequalities and valuing diversity. Muslim, black, Asian and Irish staff feel that they do not really belong in the culture of the workplace, for their world-views, cultures and experiences of racism are not acknowledged.

Staffing structure
Senior management positions are disproportionately held be white people.

Lack of positive action
Few or no efforts have been made to recruit Asian and black people to senior positions or to involve them in major decision -making.

Management and leadership
The task of addressing institutional racism is not regarded as a high priority for leaders and managers, either personally or professionally, and is seldom or never considered in mainstream decision-making.

Professional expertise
Few members of an organisation’s staff have skills in intercultural understanding and communication, and in handling and defusing situations of actual or potential conflict and tension.

Training
Few staff have received relevant high-quality training. They do not understand the concept of institutional racism, and do not know what they themselves can do to address it.

Consultation
Organisations do not listen to, let alone seek out, the views and perceptions of black and Asian people.

Lack of information
Organisations do not systematically examine the impact of their policies and practices in order to judge whether or not they have a negative impact on Asian and black communities.’

The fifth chapter of the Parekh Report is entitled ‘Dealing with Racisms’. Needless to say, with a title such as that, the Parekh commissioners really went to town.

With their condemnation of European societies as ‘multi-racist’ societies, and their obsession with supposed anti-Irish racism, the Parekh Report launches into a diatribe against the English.

The English Rights Campaign will deal immediately with the contents of paragraph 5.16. The paragraph refers to nationalism, imperialism and jingoism, and concludes in saying: ‘In Britain, for example, the Empire was frequently celebrated as the achievement of “an imperial race”. The revival of rabid antisemitism, leading to the pogroms against Jews in central and eastern Europe and Hitler’s Final Solution, was the product of this pan-European trend’.

That is a particularly vile lie. Hitler’s Final Solution was not a result of any ‘pan-European trend’. It was the result of Nazi ideology. That ideology had nothing to do with British imperial jingoism. Europe was consumed by World War II in resisting Hitler in which many millions of people died. World War II bankrupted Britain.

To try and attribute blame to the British for the Final Solution, when even Nazi Germany’s allies would never have initiated such a pogrom of their own volition, and when this country and its people made huge sacrifices to defeat Hitler, is contemptible.

Once again, such a lying allegation merely demonstrates that the politically correct are in the business of stirring up anti-British/English hatred and are even prepared to exploit The Holocaust to that end.

In this chapter, the Parekh commissioners reveal their Anglophobia almost to the point of being unhinged. The extent of the misrepresentations and venom is plain to see.

Those who thought racism was racism are in for a shock. Apparently there are all kinds of racisms. European countries ‘it is sometimes said’ [note the objectivity] are ‘multi-racist’.

Here and there such terms as ‘it is sometimes said’, or ‘it is often said’, or ‘as is now widely acknowledged’ etc creep in to assert allegations as fact. But who is supposedly saying such things? Such people are not identified.

The fact is that it is the Parekh commissioners themselves who are peddling such allegations.

The report concentrates on antisemitism and is comprehensively misleading [in addition to paragraph 5.16 dealt with above]. The report alleges that antisemitism has lessened due to the ‘growing awareness of the Holocaust’. It is simple commonsense that those who lived through World War II were rather more aware of the Holocaust than today’s younger generations - or the Parekh commissioners. The attempts by the politically correct to exploit The Holocaust have not played any part in any lessening of antisemitism.

The reference to the ‘antisemitic iconography of Nazi Germany’ as being an example of racism, is as offensive is it is misleading. Nazi ideology was uniquely vile and murderous, and is not in any way representative of British culture.

The report further attributes the lessening of antisemitism due to successful assimilation ‘the wisdom of which, however, many in the Jewish community now question’. Again, this allegation is not evidenced. It is just a bald assertion. Again, this demonstrates that the report [and those who wrote it] is opposed to assimilation in principle.

So desperate is the report to inflate the extent of antisemitism that it refers to one survey taken in 1995 in which 40% of Jews thought that antisemitism had increased. Yet the report does not address the fact that the growing Muslim community in Britain is bound to increase the level of antisemitism given that community’s inherent antisemitism.

It is wholly disingenuous to attribute the antisemitism of Muslims to the English.

Then there are the Irish.

The report is obsessed with the Irish and continually seeks to promote the idea that the Irish are another racial group who are victims of British racism. In paragraph 5.7 the report rattles on about plantation agriculture, discrimination etc. The report ignores the fact that Ireland was actually an integral part of the UK until Eire split away. The report also ignores the hatred against the British generally among the Northern Ireland Catholics and the IRA terrorist campaign.

Instead the report attacks ‘the myth of homogeneity’ - and it is this which betrays the motive. The report is using the old tactic of divide and rule. The report’s intention is to create division within the indigenous British in order to deny that the British - and in particular the English - ever were a homogenous nation at all.

The allegations of anti-Irish racism are rubbish. They should be dismissed out of hand as nothing more than the typical race war politics of the politically correct.

The report goes back as far as the Crusades in order to establish its allegation of anti-Muslim racism. It cites planning delays for mosques, a lack of ‘cultural sensitivity’ [ie giving Muslims special treatment], and ‘non-recognition of Muslims by the law of the land’ as being evidence of racism.

The assertion that race is ‘a social and political construct’ is pure Marxism. It is this logic which is the driving force of political correctness. It is a key part of Marxist ideology [it should not be forgotten that Marx described himself as a communist and co-wrote the Communist Manifesto, see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 27 April 2005] that the proletariat suffer from a sense of ‘false consciousness’. That the capitalist system sustains itself by the ideology advanced by a society’s ‘superstructure’ [the government, the police, the media, the army, the judges etc]. And that therefore the culture of a society is determined by the capitalist system and the ruling class, which in turn are influenced by history.

Consequently, Marxists believe that the desire of, say, women to be housewives is not an inherent aspect of being female or a mother, but a product of the oppressive capitalist and patriarchal culture of society. That if the upbringing of females encouraged them to be engineers instead of mothers, then they would be the same as men.

Likewise, any desire to stop mass immigration is racism and the product of the culture of society.

This is why the politically correct wish to ban Thomas the Tank Engine and gollywogs etc. There is method in their madness!

And they mean it. They sincerely believe that if they can alter the culture of society, by controlling the media, the police, the army etc [ie the superstructure] then they will be able to alter the views of the ordinary people.

The assertion that ‘difference and inferiority’ as being ‘synonymous’ renders any distinction of nationality and immigration control as racist. Once again, the definition of racist is altered so as to include almost anything and almost anyone [provided they are white].

In order to promote the concept of white racism against Africans, the report dredges itself back to a Marxist version of 18th century history and the slave trade - a favourite topic for the politically correct. It omits to mention that the Africans and Asians were the biggest dealers in slavery and that it was the British who stamped it out.

The slave trade offers the politically correct the opportunity to condemn the whole of British, if not Western, society as racist, which is why they attach so much importance to it. If, as they assert, the views of ordinary people are determined by the culture of society, which in turn is determined by a country’s history - then the fact of the slave trade several centuries ago means that British society is racist.

That people might be able to make up their own minds, or that society might reflect the opinions of the people, or that the Marxist interpretation of 18th century history might not be reliable or relevant, are issues that the Parekh Commissioners ignore.

Quite how the white members of the Parekh Commission, unlike all other white people, apparently, remain unaffected by the slave trade is not explained. Nor are the prejudices of the non-white Parekh Commissioners examined given the backwardness of the Third World where even suttee and cannibalism were common into the 19th century, and cannibalism was not even unknown in Africa in the 20th century and practised by some African dictators in modern times. The stoning of those who have committed adultery in many Muslim states, and the Indian caste system are practices which remain to this day.

Out of cultural sensitivity, the English Rights Campaign will refrain from speculating on such issues.

The underlying ideology of the Parekh Commission is communism.

At paragraph 5.14, the report comments: ‘African men were stigmatised as violent and sexually aggressive, and the women as openly promiscuous, oriental men were seen as feminine, wily and devious, and the women seductive.’ These bald assertions are made by those who criticise others of stereotyping!

The comments about past attempts to understand and explain racial differences should be ignored. It is only understandable that those who encountered other races who were less developed should conduct such attempted explanations as to why that was so. It is juvenile for people today with the benefit of modern understanding and technology to condemn those of earlier centuries.

The report’s wild comments about sexism and racism [‘they reinforce each other in vicious circles and spirals, and intertwine to the extent that it is impossible to disentangle them’ etc] are hysterical and a good example of the demented mentality and communism of the Parekh Commission.

The assertions that the differences between men and women are ‘primarily constructed by culture’ again is communist, politically correct ideology. Girls are supposedly different to men because of the alleged sexism of Thomas the Tank Engine, for example, rather than anything more obvious.

The mind boggles.

Paragraph 5.18 is worth re-reading in order to marvel at its sheer lunacy. The lunacy of the paragraph is matched only by those who promoted it’s authors to such positions of influence [eg Trevor Phillips to the chairmanship of the so-called Commission for Racial Equality and now to the new Commission for Equalities and Human Rights superquango]. Paragraph 5.18 demonstrates the mentality of Labour and its cohorts.

It is no wonder that this country is now afflicted with ongoing Muslim terrorism.

The obsession with purported ‘unequal power relations’ is at the heart of communist ideology. In the past the communists would rant about the class system. Today, the neo-communists have fastened upon alleged racism, sexism etc, and minorities as the oppressed groups who they hope will rise up in revolution - rather than the proletariat. The allegations of the police being ‘socialised’ into alleged racist behaviour, or that ‘racism was the consequence of slavery’ is pure communist ideology. It is the attempt to convince the ethnic minorities that they are victims of a racist society and the victims of ‘institutional racism’.

Of course, to prevent such ‘socialisation’ and ‘institutional racism’ there is a need for political correctness to ensure that the values and opinions of ordinary people are vilified and condemned and that only the neo-communist view prevails.

It is telling that the report wallows in the concept of ‘institutional racism’. The term was the defining product of the MacPherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence. That the police failure to secure a conviction of the alleged murderers was due to ‘institutional racism’. The allegation was a cop out and noted as being so at the time. Nevertheless, it has been treated with more reverence that the Holy Bible. It is a term bandied around by all those seeking to establish their politically correct credentials.

However, we now know that the real reason for the police failure to obtain a conviction was not simply incompetence, or any alleged ‘institutional racism’, but because one of the officers was corrupt [and this has been openly stated in a television documentary] and was allegedly taking bribes to obstruct the investigation.

The whole charge of ‘institutional racism’ is rubbish. Yet not one of those on the MacPherson enquiry, who wrote the MacPherson report, has seen fit to apologise for the untruthfulness of their report or the consequent race war politics it unleashed - and that they intended it should unleash.

Shame on them.

The Parekh Report goes so far as to declare that the output - regardless of how that output was produced - of an organisation is enough to condemn that organisation as institutionally racist unless it affects all ‘equally’. Again, this is pure communism.

To combat such supposed ‘institutional racism’ the report asserts that there should be ‘racism awareness training’ [although it objects to the term ‘awareness’ as not going far enough] and that such ‘training’ [ie communist indoctrination] ‘should address the two main strands of racism - cultural and biological - and should take account of its roots in imperialism, anti-Muslim hostility and the slave trade, and in often strident opposition to immigration ... it should focus on the interacting components of institutional racism’.

According to the Parekh Report, even opposition to immigration is tantamount to ‘institutional racism’. The definition of ‘institutional racism’ and its purported roots are simply Anglophobia - a racial hatred of the English - and nothing more. It is an attempt to vilify those who do not positively support the Labour pogrom of anti-English ethnic cleansing and of turning the English into a racial minority in their own country as racist.

The Parekh Report is so obsessed with purported ‘institutional racism’ that it even sets out a special Box to identify the supposed ‘interacting components’.

Given that we now know that it was corruption and not supposed ‘institutional racism’ that was the likely cause of the failure to secure convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, one might be tempted to laugh at the Parekh Commissioners making fools of themselves. But this is no laughing matter. Britain has been plagued by allegations of supposed ‘institutional racism’. Those who have been peddling this untruth are unrepentant, remain in positions of authority, and intend to continue peddling their untruths and race war politics regardless.

The implied consequences of the report’s ‘analysis’ of the ‘interacting components of institutional racism’ are race quotas [even for the Irish], a condemnation of ‘cynicism about so-called political correctness’ as racist, multiculturalism and supposed ‘diversity’, mass immigration accompanied by anti-English ethnic cleansing and Anglophobia to ensure that the racial profile of any institution reflects the dilution of the English make up of England [eg that institutions may not have the same percentage of Polish people in senior management in proportion to the number of Polish immigrants who have recently entered the UK is therefore evidence of ‘institutional racism’], so-called positive discrimination [ie anti-English ethnic cleansing, as we are now witnessing in several police forces, for example], an obligation to accept that ‘institutional racism’ exists, training [ie neo-communist indoctrination] to ensure that staff ‘understand the concept of institutional racism’, and special treatment for ethnic minorities.

All of which is pure race war politics, and like all of communist ideology, is based on a pack of lies.