RACE WAR POLITICS
Below is an item from the Steadfast Trust concerning the issue of next census form and English ethnicity:
The ONS and the 2011 Census
Submitted by: Steadfast Trust correspondent, 8th Jan 09
The next census will be taken in 2011. Prior to a ‘Main Census’, a ‘Test Census’ is taken in order to asses the proposed format of the eventual main survey; the test census taken in 2007 had a tick box for people to record both their “National Identity” and “Ethnicity” as English. A person’s “National Identity” has no actual meaning in law and carries no legal status. In effect someone can record their Ethnicity as Pakistani and their National Identity as English. The important and relevant question in the census therefore concerns a person’s ethnicity. As explained in the article which follows, ethnicity gives “legal rights, benefits and privileges that are enjoyed by racial and ethnic groups” – there are no equivalent rights for one’s National Identity.
The Steadfast Trust attended the ONS (Office for National Statistics) road-shows which were set up to allow feedback on the proposed census. Despite not having a single objection from anyone present to the inclusion of the English Ethnicity tick box, for some reason the ONS decided that the 2011 main census would not carry that tick box and would instead only include the “National Identity” question. The English would in effect be included as and grouped under ‘White British’.
The census form is important as it is a means of gathering statistical information about the different groups that appear on it. It is also important because other ethnic monitoring forms, such as those you might fill out at work take their lead from this national census. If you are not on the census form it is unlikely that you will be on any other monitoring form. If you aren’t on any of these monitoring forms then you and your community are statistically invisible and as far as the Steadfast Trust is concerned it makes it all but impossible to gather statistical information on the main beneficiaries of our charity – the English! A charity whose beneficiaries are identified on the census and other monitoring forms are not disadvantaged in this way.
Simply having a “place name” English identity (rather than the benefits of an “ethnic identity”) is not tolerable as it leaves the Ethnic English open to discrimination. In effect the Ethnic English have a non-identity. Discrimination against the Ethnic English is a growing problem and this can’t be combated if those who are so discriminated aren’t identified in law. For instance if the Ethnic English are under-represented in employment and feel that this is down to discrimination against them because of their ethnicity it would be quite possible for an employer to point to a fellow worker who might be Hungarian, or Irish or Afro-Caribbean and say they are not being discriminatory as all these people could be identified as English. In other words, a person of any ethnicity could be identified as English if they so wish but still maintain protection under the law for their actual ethnicity – save for the Ethnic English themselves who are granted only a worthless National Identity! This inequality and lack of protection could apply to discrimination in employment, housing, health or education (and more).
Neither is it appropriate to be placed as ‘White British’. In England (or throughout Britain) the English have as much right to be properly recognised as everyone else. It could also raise problems in a devolved United Kingdom when, for instance, specific funding to counter under performance in education is awarded by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. White British does not specifically identify the English (even though the vast majority of White British statistically are English). Where the English suffer disproportionably to others who may be labelled as ‘White British’ – their lack of identification makes it near impossible to rectify this imbalance and discrimination; this is not a problem for any of the other groups that appear on the census form.
The article which follows first appeared in the latest edition of the Steadfast journal (- Steadfast is an independent pressure group and is not connected to the Steadfast Trust). We would urge you all to read Steadfast and especially the latest edition. There is also a petition that you can sign Here to register your protest at the omission of the English from the census form.
ONS & Institutional racism - Tony Linsell
In 2006 a press release from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggested that the 2011 census would provide a tick-box for those who wanted to record their identity as English. On the surface this seemed to be just what we wanted but on closer inspection it became apparent that the old ethnic identity question was to remain the same as in 2001 (front page Q.8) but a new question was to be introduced asking, ‘How would you describe your national identity?’ (front page Q.15) This new question is to replace the straightforward 2001 Census question, ‘What is your country of birth?’
National Identity?
It is believed that the national identity question was introduced under pressure from the Commission for Racial Equality and the political establishment who are eager to promote an inclusive English identity. In a nutshell, the new English national identity belongs to anyone who is a UK resident and wants to call themselves English. For example, members of the Bangladeshi community can record their ethnicity as Bangladeshi, and their national identity as English on the grounds that they live in England. Thus English national identity is little more than a place name identity. It is not an identity that gives the legal rights, benefits and privileges that are enjoyed by racial and ethnic groups.
Does it matter?
One of the very many consequences that flow from official non-recognition of the ethnic-English is that the formation of charities for the English is discouraged and the people who attempt to form them are treated by the Charity Commission as racists. In reality it is the Charity Commission that is hideously racist and discriminatory. One of the practical consequences of such institutionalised racism is that it prevents the registration of charities that specifically serve the needs and interests of the ethnic-English. Another consequence is that English communal organisations do not receive any form of state funding. This is in stark contrast with the many thousands of ethnic-specific charities and other communal organisations which annually share many millions of pounds of state funding. So, yes, it does matter.
Ethnic English
On behalf of Steadfast I wrote to the then Census Director, Ian Cope, and pointed out that the 2006 ONS press release was misleading because ‘national identity’ is not the same as ‘ethnic identity’. The proposed census form will leave the ethnic English statistically invisible.
Until the ethnic English have the same statistical information available to them as is available to other ethnic groups, our community will be hindered in its attempts to challenge and end the institutionalised and other forms of racism perpetuated against it. The immediate and most obvious form of institutionalised discrimination is the failure of the British state (UK) and its institutions and bodies to recognise the existence of the ethnic English and to collect information that will help that group fight the discrimination it is subject to on a daily basis.
Extract from a letter to Ian Cope,
Director Census England & Wales, 9th March 2006
Following long and detailed correspondence with Ian Cope we were relieved to see the proposed 2007 Test Census, which included an ethnic-English tick-box. (see front page Q.13)
Consultation
It was made clear to ONS in 2006 that on the matter of ethnicity and identity we wanted to be consulted in the same way that other ethnic groups are consulted. I went to an ONS Census road-show meeting in London 2006. Following that there were no invitations of any kind until 2008 when we were asked to complete a general survey form, which we did, and were given the opportunity to attend another census road show in November, which I did. The census roadshows are not consultation exercises; they are an opportunity for ONS to tell an audience what is being done and why it can’t be done differently.
Too good to be true
On my journey to the meeting I recalled snippets of various conversations over the past two years where there had been discussion of the 2011 census. The general belief amongst English Community activists was that the British ruling elite would not allow an ethnic-English tick-box to appear on the census form or on ethnic monitoring forms. The reason for this being that the British state is intent on promoting in England an inclusive British identity and an inclusive place-based English identity. Both are of course concocted but the education system and the broadcasting media relentlessly promote them. In view of this it was to be expected that there would be behind the scenes moves to get the English tick-box removed from the census form.
In addition to the state sponsored British identity with its British history, culture and institutions, there is an inclusive and very thin state sponsored Englishness – ‘whatever your ethnicity you can be English if you want to be.’ An essential part of this systematic campaign is to suggest that England is a nation. Progressives play with words by changing their meaning so as to suit their interests. If they can get people to believe that England is a nation they will get away with the idea that national identity is determined by where you live. In other words, if you live in England you are English. (see page 46)
It is a clever strategy but an obvious one to those who give any serious thought to the matter. But the great unwashed are easy to manipulate; they will tick an English tick-box on the census form and think they have registered something more significant than a ‘place identity’.
No Surprise
It was therefore no surprise to learn at the census roadshow meeting that the ethnic-English tick-box has been removed from the proposed census form, which is included in the White Paper presented to parliament in November 2008. The ONS has in effect gone back to giving us a White-British tick-box which does not make it possible for us to register our ethnicity. We are, as before, merged with Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, and other White people who regard themselves as British. (see front page Q16) In one respect it is worse than having the 2001 British tick-box because with that many people wrote in English under Other. The new tick-box labelling deters such deviancy.
Political? What us?!
Beth Moon, of the ONS, revealed in her presentation that the National Identity question had been introduced so that members of ethnic minorities could describe themselves as English – “We don’t want only White people to call themselves English.”
These sentiments conflict with other claims made on the day that ONS is non-political and concerned only with collecting and presenting statistics. Why in that case is the ONS making it its business to engage in social engineering – such aims and objectives are surely outside the official powers of ONS.
The job of the ONS is to act as an impartial observer and gatherer of statistics. It should not be a willing participant in the shaping of perceptions. It should not contrive to prevent members of probably the largest ethnic group in England from registering their ethnicity and thereby being denied the same rights, benefits and privileges that are so freely given to other ethnic groups.
Not enough room
Beth Moon also mentioned that the extent of the census form has to be limited and that it cannot include all the questions various groups would like included. There was obviously too little space to put in an English tick-box but enough room to put in a tick-boxes for Irish and for Gypsy or Irish Traveller. In any other country such obvious manipulation would be thought scandalous and insulting. Can you imagine an Irish census form that had an English tick-box but not an Irish tick-box? Only the half-witted English would allow such a thing.
I asked the meeting Chairman, Peter Benton, why, in view of the alleged shortage of space on the form, could room be found for an Irish tick-box and another for Gypsy and Irish Traveller. He replied, “They are discriminated against.” The clear racist implication, indeed the logic of this, is that the English discriminate against others but are not discriminated against. I pointed out that, for a start, the English suffer from massive institutionalised discrimination that hinders them in forming ethnic-specific charities and gaining state funding. The English are greatly under-represented in Law and Medical schools. This is not because there are not enough well-qualified English applicants but because the schools discriminate against them. I could have mentioned the training scheme run by the Environment Agency which invited applications from all ethnic groups, including Irish, Scottish and Welsh, but refused applications from the ethnic English. There are the English working class children who suffer from as many, if not more, social and educational disadvantages as any other ethnic group but they do not have the communal organisations to help them overcome their problems because institutions of the state such as the Charity Commission deny their existence. To assert an ethnic-English identity is to invite all sorts of challenges that are not directed at other ethnic groups.
When I complained to Peter Benton that the removal of the English tick-box greatly hindered us in detecting and challenging anti-English discrimination he replied that the new census form produced “a rich statistical environment from which more information than ever before will be gathered”. He said that the ethnic-English can be detected by cross-referencing the answers in Questions 15 and 16. Those who tick the first boxes in each question are ethnic-English.
One of the problems with this argument is that the instructions in Question 15 ask the respondent to tick all boxes that apply. It is therefore probable that many English people will tick both the English and British tick-boxes. Likewise, many of those who believe their ethnicity is British will tick both boxes. Even if the ONS cross-references each individual form they will not be able to accurately determine how many people are ethnic-English.
The big question is, will the ONS do the cross referencing for us and present the census data in a way that separately identifies, as best they can, the ethnic-English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and British? Or, will they simply lump all those ethnicities together under White-British? So, for example, will we be able to easily see the links between housing, education, health, etc. and the ethnic-English?
“The rich statistical environment” will make it difficult to clearly identify the ethnic English and the discrimination from which they suffer. If the instructions in Question 15 asked for just one box to be ticked, it would greatly improve the accuracy of a cross reference. The simple inclusion of an English tick-box would solve the problem and indicate a willingness to rectify past shortcomings.
Discrimination
At the Census roadshow I felt that had I been Black or Asian, or had been speaking for an Asian or Black ethnic group, my concerns would have been received more seriously and not treated in the dismissive way they were. ONS clearly has no intention to gather statistics helpful to the ethnic English – for us, the so-called consultation process has been a sham. But not it seems for Gypsies and Irish Travellers. The only consultation we have been involved in is when we forced it upon them. Other ethnic groups were invited to attend various meetings and treated with respect but we had to battle to make our views known. Ian Cope, who dealt with us fairly and with consideration, seemed to accept the validity of our case and an English tick-box was included on the 2007 Test Census. It was then decided to remove the tick-box but nobody thought it worthwhile to tell us or seek our view. Perhaps this is connected with the appointment in October 2007 of Glen Watson as the Director of the Census for England and Wales.
Institutionalised Racism
It is a classic symptom of individual and institutionalised racism that the guilty do not recognise or acknowledge that they are racist. This was clearly shown to the satisfaction of the state in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. The English are subject to a particularly virulent form of institutionalised racism which deems that they discriminate but are not discriminated against. Surely it is the task of those responsible for the census to put aside their preconceptions and provide a neutral service that allows the statistics speak for themselves.
Repent!
The underlying factor in anti-English discrimination throughout the British state is the failure of the ONS to gather the statistics that would identify discrimination. It is because we are not on census forms that we do not appear on so-called ethnic monitoring forms. It is due to the failings of the ONS that the ethnic-English are statistically invisible. It is due to the ONS that officially we do not exist and do not have the communal organisations or the funding or the statistics to identify, prove and challenge discrimination. It should be a priority of ONS to rectify that situation.
The struggle goes on
This matter is not finished. If the institutions of the British state will not treat us fairly and with respect we will have to turn to campaign action. There were people, like Len W, who refused to fill in the 2001 census form because they thought it unfair and insulting that there was no English tick-box. I suspect there will be a very much larger number of people who will tell the ONS what to do with their 2011 census form.
The ONS and the 2011 Census
Submitted by: Steadfast Trust correspondent, 8th Jan 09
The next census will be taken in 2011. Prior to a ‘Main Census’, a ‘Test Census’ is taken in order to asses the proposed format of the eventual main survey; the test census taken in 2007 had a tick box for people to record both their “National Identity” and “Ethnicity” as English. A person’s “National Identity” has no actual meaning in law and carries no legal status. In effect someone can record their Ethnicity as Pakistani and their National Identity as English. The important and relevant question in the census therefore concerns a person’s ethnicity. As explained in the article which follows, ethnicity gives “legal rights, benefits and privileges that are enjoyed by racial and ethnic groups” – there are no equivalent rights for one’s National Identity.
The Steadfast Trust attended the ONS (Office for National Statistics) road-shows which were set up to allow feedback on the proposed census. Despite not having a single objection from anyone present to the inclusion of the English Ethnicity tick box, for some reason the ONS decided that the 2011 main census would not carry that tick box and would instead only include the “National Identity” question. The English would in effect be included as and grouped under ‘White British’.
The census form is important as it is a means of gathering statistical information about the different groups that appear on it. It is also important because other ethnic monitoring forms, such as those you might fill out at work take their lead from this national census. If you are not on the census form it is unlikely that you will be on any other monitoring form. If you aren’t on any of these monitoring forms then you and your community are statistically invisible and as far as the Steadfast Trust is concerned it makes it all but impossible to gather statistical information on the main beneficiaries of our charity – the English! A charity whose beneficiaries are identified on the census and other monitoring forms are not disadvantaged in this way.
Simply having a “place name” English identity (rather than the benefits of an “ethnic identity”) is not tolerable as it leaves the Ethnic English open to discrimination. In effect the Ethnic English have a non-identity. Discrimination against the Ethnic English is a growing problem and this can’t be combated if those who are so discriminated aren’t identified in law. For instance if the Ethnic English are under-represented in employment and feel that this is down to discrimination against them because of their ethnicity it would be quite possible for an employer to point to a fellow worker who might be Hungarian, or Irish or Afro-Caribbean and say they are not being discriminatory as all these people could be identified as English. In other words, a person of any ethnicity could be identified as English if they so wish but still maintain protection under the law for their actual ethnicity – save for the Ethnic English themselves who are granted only a worthless National Identity! This inequality and lack of protection could apply to discrimination in employment, housing, health or education (and more).
Neither is it appropriate to be placed as ‘White British’. In England (or throughout Britain) the English have as much right to be properly recognised as everyone else. It could also raise problems in a devolved United Kingdom when, for instance, specific funding to counter under performance in education is awarded by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. White British does not specifically identify the English (even though the vast majority of White British statistically are English). Where the English suffer disproportionably to others who may be labelled as ‘White British’ – their lack of identification makes it near impossible to rectify this imbalance and discrimination; this is not a problem for any of the other groups that appear on the census form.
The article which follows first appeared in the latest edition of the Steadfast journal (- Steadfast is an independent pressure group and is not connected to the Steadfast Trust). We would urge you all to read Steadfast and especially the latest edition. There is also a petition that you can sign Here to register your protest at the omission of the English from the census form.
ONS & Institutional racism - Tony Linsell
In 2006 a press release from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggested that the 2011 census would provide a tick-box for those who wanted to record their identity as English. On the surface this seemed to be just what we wanted but on closer inspection it became apparent that the old ethnic identity question was to remain the same as in 2001 (front page Q.8) but a new question was to be introduced asking, ‘How would you describe your national identity?’ (front page Q.15) This new question is to replace the straightforward 2001 Census question, ‘What is your country of birth?’
National Identity?
It is believed that the national identity question was introduced under pressure from the Commission for Racial Equality and the political establishment who are eager to promote an inclusive English identity. In a nutshell, the new English national identity belongs to anyone who is a UK resident and wants to call themselves English. For example, members of the Bangladeshi community can record their ethnicity as Bangladeshi, and their national identity as English on the grounds that they live in England. Thus English national identity is little more than a place name identity. It is not an identity that gives the legal rights, benefits and privileges that are enjoyed by racial and ethnic groups.
Does it matter?
One of the very many consequences that flow from official non-recognition of the ethnic-English is that the formation of charities for the English is discouraged and the people who attempt to form them are treated by the Charity Commission as racists. In reality it is the Charity Commission that is hideously racist and discriminatory. One of the practical consequences of such institutionalised racism is that it prevents the registration of charities that specifically serve the needs and interests of the ethnic-English. Another consequence is that English communal organisations do not receive any form of state funding. This is in stark contrast with the many thousands of ethnic-specific charities and other communal organisations which annually share many millions of pounds of state funding. So, yes, it does matter.
Ethnic English
On behalf of Steadfast I wrote to the then Census Director, Ian Cope, and pointed out that the 2006 ONS press release was misleading because ‘national identity’ is not the same as ‘ethnic identity’. The proposed census form will leave the ethnic English statistically invisible.
Until the ethnic English have the same statistical information available to them as is available to other ethnic groups, our community will be hindered in its attempts to challenge and end the institutionalised and other forms of racism perpetuated against it. The immediate and most obvious form of institutionalised discrimination is the failure of the British state (UK) and its institutions and bodies to recognise the existence of the ethnic English and to collect information that will help that group fight the discrimination it is subject to on a daily basis.
Extract from a letter to Ian Cope,
Director Census England & Wales, 9th March 2006
Following long and detailed correspondence with Ian Cope we were relieved to see the proposed 2007 Test Census, which included an ethnic-English tick-box. (see front page Q.13)
Consultation
It was made clear to ONS in 2006 that on the matter of ethnicity and identity we wanted to be consulted in the same way that other ethnic groups are consulted. I went to an ONS Census road-show meeting in London 2006. Following that there were no invitations of any kind until 2008 when we were asked to complete a general survey form, which we did, and were given the opportunity to attend another census road show in November, which I did. The census roadshows are not consultation exercises; they are an opportunity for ONS to tell an audience what is being done and why it can’t be done differently.
Too good to be true
On my journey to the meeting I recalled snippets of various conversations over the past two years where there had been discussion of the 2011 census. The general belief amongst English Community activists was that the British ruling elite would not allow an ethnic-English tick-box to appear on the census form or on ethnic monitoring forms. The reason for this being that the British state is intent on promoting in England an inclusive British identity and an inclusive place-based English identity. Both are of course concocted but the education system and the broadcasting media relentlessly promote them. In view of this it was to be expected that there would be behind the scenes moves to get the English tick-box removed from the census form.
In addition to the state sponsored British identity with its British history, culture and institutions, there is an inclusive and very thin state sponsored Englishness – ‘whatever your ethnicity you can be English if you want to be.’ An essential part of this systematic campaign is to suggest that England is a nation. Progressives play with words by changing their meaning so as to suit their interests. If they can get people to believe that England is a nation they will get away with the idea that national identity is determined by where you live. In other words, if you live in England you are English. (see page 46)
It is a clever strategy but an obvious one to those who give any serious thought to the matter. But the great unwashed are easy to manipulate; they will tick an English tick-box on the census form and think they have registered something more significant than a ‘place identity’.
No Surprise
It was therefore no surprise to learn at the census roadshow meeting that the ethnic-English tick-box has been removed from the proposed census form, which is included in the White Paper presented to parliament in November 2008. The ONS has in effect gone back to giving us a White-British tick-box which does not make it possible for us to register our ethnicity. We are, as before, merged with Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, and other White people who regard themselves as British. (see front page Q16) In one respect it is worse than having the 2001 British tick-box because with that many people wrote in English under Other. The new tick-box labelling deters such deviancy.
Political? What us?!
Beth Moon, of the ONS, revealed in her presentation that the National Identity question had been introduced so that members of ethnic minorities could describe themselves as English – “We don’t want only White people to call themselves English.”
These sentiments conflict with other claims made on the day that ONS is non-political and concerned only with collecting and presenting statistics. Why in that case is the ONS making it its business to engage in social engineering – such aims and objectives are surely outside the official powers of ONS.
The job of the ONS is to act as an impartial observer and gatherer of statistics. It should not be a willing participant in the shaping of perceptions. It should not contrive to prevent members of probably the largest ethnic group in England from registering their ethnicity and thereby being denied the same rights, benefits and privileges that are so freely given to other ethnic groups.
Not enough room
Beth Moon also mentioned that the extent of the census form has to be limited and that it cannot include all the questions various groups would like included. There was obviously too little space to put in an English tick-box but enough room to put in a tick-boxes for Irish and for Gypsy or Irish Traveller. In any other country such obvious manipulation would be thought scandalous and insulting. Can you imagine an Irish census form that had an English tick-box but not an Irish tick-box? Only the half-witted English would allow such a thing.
I asked the meeting Chairman, Peter Benton, why, in view of the alleged shortage of space on the form, could room be found for an Irish tick-box and another for Gypsy and Irish Traveller. He replied, “They are discriminated against.” The clear racist implication, indeed the logic of this, is that the English discriminate against others but are not discriminated against. I pointed out that, for a start, the English suffer from massive institutionalised discrimination that hinders them in forming ethnic-specific charities and gaining state funding. The English are greatly under-represented in Law and Medical schools. This is not because there are not enough well-qualified English applicants but because the schools discriminate against them. I could have mentioned the training scheme run by the Environment Agency which invited applications from all ethnic groups, including Irish, Scottish and Welsh, but refused applications from the ethnic English. There are the English working class children who suffer from as many, if not more, social and educational disadvantages as any other ethnic group but they do not have the communal organisations to help them overcome their problems because institutions of the state such as the Charity Commission deny their existence. To assert an ethnic-English identity is to invite all sorts of challenges that are not directed at other ethnic groups.
When I complained to Peter Benton that the removal of the English tick-box greatly hindered us in detecting and challenging anti-English discrimination he replied that the new census form produced “a rich statistical environment from which more information than ever before will be gathered”. He said that the ethnic-English can be detected by cross-referencing the answers in Questions 15 and 16. Those who tick the first boxes in each question are ethnic-English.
One of the problems with this argument is that the instructions in Question 15 ask the respondent to tick all boxes that apply. It is therefore probable that many English people will tick both the English and British tick-boxes. Likewise, many of those who believe their ethnicity is British will tick both boxes. Even if the ONS cross-references each individual form they will not be able to accurately determine how many people are ethnic-English.
The big question is, will the ONS do the cross referencing for us and present the census data in a way that separately identifies, as best they can, the ethnic-English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and British? Or, will they simply lump all those ethnicities together under White-British? So, for example, will we be able to easily see the links between housing, education, health, etc. and the ethnic-English?
“The rich statistical environment” will make it difficult to clearly identify the ethnic English and the discrimination from which they suffer. If the instructions in Question 15 asked for just one box to be ticked, it would greatly improve the accuracy of a cross reference. The simple inclusion of an English tick-box would solve the problem and indicate a willingness to rectify past shortcomings.
Discrimination
At the Census roadshow I felt that had I been Black or Asian, or had been speaking for an Asian or Black ethnic group, my concerns would have been received more seriously and not treated in the dismissive way they were. ONS clearly has no intention to gather statistics helpful to the ethnic English – for us, the so-called consultation process has been a sham. But not it seems for Gypsies and Irish Travellers. The only consultation we have been involved in is when we forced it upon them. Other ethnic groups were invited to attend various meetings and treated with respect but we had to battle to make our views known. Ian Cope, who dealt with us fairly and with consideration, seemed to accept the validity of our case and an English tick-box was included on the 2007 Test Census. It was then decided to remove the tick-box but nobody thought it worthwhile to tell us or seek our view. Perhaps this is connected with the appointment in October 2007 of Glen Watson as the Director of the Census for England and Wales.
Institutionalised Racism
It is a classic symptom of individual and institutionalised racism that the guilty do not recognise or acknowledge that they are racist. This was clearly shown to the satisfaction of the state in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. The English are subject to a particularly virulent form of institutionalised racism which deems that they discriminate but are not discriminated against. Surely it is the task of those responsible for the census to put aside their preconceptions and provide a neutral service that allows the statistics speak for themselves.
Repent!
The underlying factor in anti-English discrimination throughout the British state is the failure of the ONS to gather the statistics that would identify discrimination. It is because we are not on census forms that we do not appear on so-called ethnic monitoring forms. It is due to the failings of the ONS that the ethnic-English are statistically invisible. It is due to the ONS that officially we do not exist and do not have the communal organisations or the funding or the statistics to identify, prove and challenge discrimination. It should be a priority of ONS to rectify that situation.
The struggle goes on
This matter is not finished. If the institutions of the British state will not treat us fairly and with respect we will have to turn to campaign action. There were people, like Len W, who refused to fill in the 2001 census form because they thought it unfair and insulting that there was no English tick-box. I suspect there will be a very much larger number of people who will tell the ONS what to do with their 2011 census form.
posted by erc @ 9:35 pm
<< Home