The Search for Common Ground

You can download the Greater London Authority (GLA) report, 'The Search for Common Ground" can now be downloaded by clicking here.

My research and writing can be found in chapter 2 of the report. I want to make sure that everyone is aware of my contribution as there have been 'political' problems with some parts of the report. The key findings of my chapter are shown below (reproduced from the Executive Summary):

Chapter 2: A normal week?

To explore the context and implications of representations of Islam and Muslims in the media, a study was made of the British press over the course of a week. The week beginning Monday 8 May 2006 was chosen at random about a month in advance. A count was made of every article mentioning ‘Islam’, ‘Muslims’, derivatives such as ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’, and words and phrases with an obvious association with Islam, for example ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shi’a’.

On the basis of these criteria, 352 articles were identified. They were categorised according to type of paper, whether they were about domestic or international affairs, whether the context was negative, positive or neutral, and whether the articles expressed a sense of threat or crisis. The principal findings included:

• There were substantial differences between daily newspapers with regard to how many articles mentioning Islam or Muslims they contained during the week in question. There were just over 50 articles in the Guardian, over 40 in The Times, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph and Independent, but less than 20 in the Sun, Mirror, Express and Star.

• Tabloids and broadsheets differed not only in the amount of coverage they provided but also in whether they focused on domestic or international affairs. Close to 60 per cent of articles in tabloids pertained to Britain and 40 per cent to the wider world. In the case of the broadsheets, however, the proportions were the other way round: 60 per cent were about the wider world, and 40 per cent about Britain.

• Of the 352 articles that referred to Islam and Muslims during the week in question, 91 per cent were judged to be negative in their associations. Only four per cent were judged to be positive, and five per cent were judged neutral.

• In 12 of the 19 papers studied during the week there were no positive associations.

• In the tabloids, 96 per cent of all articles were judged to be negative, compared with 89 per cent in the broadsheets. It is relevant to bear in mind in this connection that the combined circulation of the The search for common ground Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media xvii tabloids is about three times greater than that of the broadsheets (May 2007 figures).

• It was judged that almost half of the articles represented Islam as a threat. Of these, about a third pertained to Britain and two-thirds to the wider world.

• The overall picture presented in the media during the week in question was that on the world stage Islam is profoundly different from, and a serious threat to, the West; and that, within Britain, Muslims are different from – and a threat to – ‘us’.

Birmingham Post: Is home where the heart is - or is it just where you live?

Yesterday saw the Birmingham Post print the first of my regular column pieces. Just in case you're interested, it's published in the 'Agenda' section:

"Is home where the heart is - or is it just where you live?"

Questions about citizenship and belonging have never been more intense than they are today. 7/7, immigration, new equality legislation, citizenship tests and the burgeoning war on terror have all had an impact on what it seems we as a society thinks it means to say that you ‘belong’.

Being born in London, it’s interesting to see how my children – all born in the Midlands – unquestionably belong here. They also have a really strong emotional attachment to the place, something I admit I probably lack. Yet nonetheless, I like almost 80% of the population, according to the Government’s Citizenship Survey, feel as though I belong in my local area quite irrespective of whether I have that emotional attachment or not.

Almost unexplainably, my attachment remains with London: Bermondsey in particular. Towards the south-east of the Thames, Bermondsey connects to the City via Tower Bridge (the one an American never bought and never rebuilt in the Arizona desert). It is where I was born, lived and went to school: it’s also where many of family died. Home to the Tabard Inn, a la Geoffrey Chaucer’s ‘Canterbury Tales’ and regular haunt of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist and Little Dorrit (was there a ‘Big’ Dorrit?), Bermondsey today is a regeneration oasis of warehouse apartments and ‘Location, Location’ style residencies punctuated by the relics of my Bermondsey, the sprawling council estates that ooze poverty and deprivation. Despite it nearing twenty years since I last lived there, this is the Bermondsey that keeps my heart emotionally attached. My head though tells me that today’s Bermondsey is far from where I belong.

My head then tells me where is ‘home’. Given that I now live here, work here, my children go to school here and may even eventually die here (fingers crossed, later rather than sooner) the Midlands is where I belong. Given that I neither participate in anti-social behaviour nor do I have a penchant for criminal activity – yes, I am that boring – I guess I’m also a ‘good citizen’. All this whilst remaining a Londoner by definition.

To what extent then is an emotional attachment to elsewhere a barrier to belonging? And why do we worry so about people maintaining their identities or keeping a part of the heritage in their hearts? For me, whether the heart is attached to Mogadishu or Moseley, Kingston or Kingstanding, Warsaw or Weoley, Bermondsey or Bournville, it doesn’t stop your head from telling you where you belong. Yet in our quest for greater citizenship and belonging, we make unnecessary demands of those whose hearts may always be elsewhere: to ‘prove’ they belong, to ‘prove’ they are citizens, to ‘prove’ they are British.

For many who have an attachment outside the UK or maybe even just look as though they do - despite them being second, third or even fourth generation British-born - we make their experience difficult. Many will face interrogation and scrutiny, others unfounded mistrust and some even downright xenophobia in trying to make Britain their home. Irrespective of what their heads tell them therefore, it’s what we as a society tell them that will make the ultimate difference.

Due to the climate we currently live in, we don’t give people the opportunity to make this their home. Because of this many will never feel that they truly belong or that they can ever be citizens of a vibrant, diverse and dynamic Britain. And neither their hearts nor their heads will tell them anything different no matter how much we force-feed them messages to the contrary.

A Message to the CEHR

The 1st October sees the launch of the new Commission on Equalities and Human Rights (CEHR). This new body will bring together the work of the now defunct Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) to champion the cause to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people and protect human rights. Bringing together, for the first time, all of the various equalities strands – race, disability, gender, age, religion and belief, and sexual orientation – it will seek to take an active role in helping to achieve change to benefit some of the most vulnerable and least well represented people in our society.

Although we are optimistic about the potential for the new Commission to provide our country with opportunities to refresh our thinking and practice on issues of equality, there is evidence that the inequalities gap is widening and we fear that a unique opportunity to make a real difference will be lost. If it is, then so too will the chance to conscientiously address the discrimination and inequality that affect the everyday lives and experiences of those many British people that exist at the sharp end of society. Because of this, discrimination and inequality thus blights all our lives.

To ensure we do not lose this opportunity, we need to move away from the recent preoccupation with ‘identity’ and ‘single’ identity politics: a point made in the Commission on Integration & Cohesion report, Shared futures. The constant focus on ‘Muslims’, for example, has meant that the ‘problem’ of extremism has become something that is seen to be about ‘them’ rather than ‘us’. Not only does this hinder the need for society as a whole to take a shared responsibility for equalities issues, but it also creates misunderstandings and barriers between us. As regards extremism in particular, this preoccupation with identity also obscures, rather than illuminates: acts of terrorism are criminal acts, committed by individuals, quite irrespective of the ideology they allege to purport. For the CEHR, continuing to focus on identity rather than inequality will be both incongruent and counter-productive, weakening rather than strengthening the kind of social cohesion most of us – including the Government - want to see: one where who I am will make me more disadvantaged than who you are.

Transitions are never easy. The CEHR should lead the way, pre-empting the typical knee-jerk responses by identifying the commonalities that exist between us: our commonalities as human beings first and foremost. To be successful, it must address the ‘issues’: those current barriers that prevent all of us from being treated equally. These are not necessarily going to be the same ‘issues’ as before, so letting go of the past will be a major hurdle.

With the establishment of the CEHR, we look forward to the challenges ahead and the opportunity to work together to extend and strengthen our shared understanding of what it is to be a citizen of Britain in the 21st century. To do this, we must not allow the crucial debates to be lost: the stakes are too high and the potential rewards too great.

(This entry will form the basis of a press release from brap due 1 October 2007)

Beyond difference and towards community: a new approach to equalities

(This entry is a version of an article that will appear in the Birmingham Post within the next week)

Having watched the images of communities overcoming adversity as a result of the recent floods in Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire, you cannot help but empathise with the problems that the people living in those areas must have been facing. When events like this arise, many are quick to stress the sense of ‘community spirit’ that gets people through such times. In many ways this message can be reassuring, confirming to people that not only do communities still exist but that they are a positive influence and force for good in our rapidly changing society. Very few people would disagree with this. Yet if you look closely at the television images of those queuing for fresh water, you will see that the people themselves are widely diverse and different: a ‘community of communities’ maybe. Yet despite this vast diversity and difference, the same old sense of ‘community’ and what’s good about it appears to remain.

The dictionary definition of a ‘community’ is one where people live together in one place, sometimes with a sense of common ownership. In more recent years however, there has been a tendency to use the term ‘community’ to lump people together on the basis of their identity, stressing this aspect of the definition in preference of those merely living together in one place. This has meant that on far too many occasions, people are seen to be a community because of who or what they are rather than anything else. In doing so, the increasingly popular notion of community overlooks or even eradicates that necessary recognition of diversity and difference that vibrant and real communities – such as those overcoming adversity together in Gloucestershire or in today’s Birmingham - typically contain.

In terms of Birmingham, if we think that the people living together today are diverse, in the coming decade the city and its inhabitants will become ‘super-diverse’. To ensure that Birmingham as community therefore remains a force for good, ensuring that everyone is treated equally will become increasingly central to the city’s ongoing success.

If this is not achieved, then a lack of equality and the division of people into single identity communities could be easily used to not only identify but more worryingly single out and even scapegoat particular sections of society. This is far from being mere speculation, we only have to look back over recent months to see how events in Birmingham cause some to hold their breath in the hope that a concerted backlash against certain groups of people fail to materialise. For Birmingham as indeed elsewhere, this understanding of community can be problematic and can play into the hands of the mischief-makers who want to exploit the tensions and fractures that also clearly exist. When social and community challenges therefore arise, for many in society those challenges and ‘problems’ belong to ‘them’ rather than ‘us’. In doing so, not only do we see ‘them’ as being clearly different from ‘us’, but we also see ‘them’ presenting a challenge to ‘us’ in terms of ‘our’ values, way of life, culture and so on. Because of this, not all people in our community are treated equally.

This attitude and approach to understanding and identifying difference is sometimes reinforced both in politics and also by spokespeople for particular groups, or dare I say it, different ‘communities’. Take for instance the Government’s Preventing Extremism Together (PET) programme that is currently being rolled out across Birmingham in the form of projects (like raising awareness of Islam and training Imams). By funding ‘Muslim’ groups and ‘Muslim’ initiatives only, the programme runs the risk of inadvertently attributing the ‘problem’ of extremism to Muslim communities alone. In this way extremism – and more importantly preventing extremism – becomes something for most people in the city that is more about ‘them’ than it is about ‘us’.

With the emphasis being placed upon what Muslims should be doing, an opportunity is being squandered that might allow society as a whole to take a shared responsibility for ‘preventing extremism together’ through promoting common ownership of the problem. An approach that sees people and communities as having a ‘single identity’ alone was recently identified as problematic in the findings of the recent Commission on Integration & Cohesion’s report. Shared futures, as the report was titled, stressed the need to put an emphasis on articulating what binds communities together rather than the differences that might divide them. In prioritising a shared future over divided legacies, the report stressed that funding single identity groups or single issue projects can be regressive and divisive. Birmingham’s PET therefore seems to go against current thinking about what is good for communities.

In part, the approach to PET reflects the way Government and Local Authorities have sought to engage with black and minority ethnic (BME) communities in the past. This approach was known as ‘representation’ and was on many occasions highlighted as having serious flaws, Often used to advocate and lobby on behalf of the views and interests of those given the opportunity to ‘represent’, this has historically encouraged groups to play up their victimhood as well as their unique cultural or religious identities in a bid for more public funds or greater social influence. In a programme like PET, this can have a number of negative effects. Most significantly, divisions can be reinforced at the same time as encouraging some to believe that Muslims for example are getting preferential treatment. Consider for example the ‘grants for Muslims’ statistics used by the far-right in some of their campaign materials in certain areas of the outer city recently. Ultimately, such approaches can result in all people feeling that they are not being treated equally.

Because of this, few in society ‘buy-in’ to the challenges and problems we face in terms of ensuring all people are treated equally: few share that common ownership necessary to build a community. Yet as we saw in Gloucester, the consequences of the problems that impact upon communities affect us all, quite irrespective of what any of our differences may or may not be. The flood waters therefore failed to recognise ‘them’ and ‘us’ and so impacted upon the lives of white and black, young and old, male and female, Christian, Muslim, atheist and the not sure (as well as those who just don’t care!). Irrespective of who or what the people are that are queuing for fresh water, all that mattered was that everyone was treated equally. Whilst the challenges facing those in Birmingham may then have a different dynamic or focus, what really matters is that all are treated equally no matter what that challenge or situation might be.

Is it time then for a new approach to treating all people equally and by default, strengthening community?

As Director of Research and Policy at BRAP – a Birmingham based equalities and human rights charity – much of this is central to our day-to-day thinking. Because of this, we have been at the forefront of the shift towards a human rights based approach to equalities. Historically, equalities legislation in the UK has been largely driven in response to incidents that have had a nationwide resonance, for example the Brixton riots in 1981 and the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. This has typically led to some form of protection being afforded to particular groups, such as ethnic minorities for example. While this has helped to rightfully protect some people, others have not been able to benefit because they have not met a particular identity or ‘profile’, something that is entirely divisive. And even for those offered some form of protection, it has not always been the case that simply reducing discrimination has been enough to prevent ongoing inequalities.

This is where a human rights based approach to equalities offers some benefits over and above what we already have. Human rights are ‘inherent’, they don’t need to be earned or bought. So groups shouldn’t have to wait for a riot or for somebody to die in order to be afforded the protection they deserve. Also human rights are universal, and all people can have them irrespective of their identity. This approach disposes of the need for knee-jerk responses and may even go some way towards identifying the commonalities that exist between us: commonalities between us as human beings first and foremost.

The slow and albeit tentative shift towards a human rights approach to equalities will gain further momentum later this year with the formation of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) in October. For the first time in Britain, the various equalities strands covering ‘race’, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation as well as religion and belief will be brought together. By moving beyond the single identities that existing approaches have preferred – including PET – we can begin to address the ‘issues’ that stop us from feeling as though we are treated equally and that cause us to blame or scapegoat others as a result.

There remains a long way to go however, but if we want to build a community with a shared future, equalities and human rights might just be the unifier – the common ownership element – that our changing society needs. Building upon what informs our understanding of ‘community’ and what’s good about it might then be the first step in a new direction towards the goal of seeing everyone as ‘us’ in preference of others being ‘them’. To ensure that people see the value of treating everyone equally, those involved in driving equalities will need to effectively communicate what this might be and what a human rights based approach to equalities might look like for all. To do this, we must ensure that we not only speak out when certain groups are scapegoated or unnecessarily targeted but also when programmes such as the PET go against current sensibilities and flout potentially divisive lines. In doing this, community will go beyond being about what you are or on what basis you are lumped together, but more importantly about treating those we live together with equally and fairly irrespective of difference or diversity.

How to integrate and be cohesive in 6 easy lessons...

The Commission on Integration and Cohesion finally published the findings of its year-long consultation into community cohesion this week in the report entitled ‘Shared Futures’. The Commission was announced by Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 28 June 2006 and was established as a fixed term advisory body to consider how local areas can make the most of the benefits delivered by increasing diversity. It was also set up to consider how communities might respond to the tensions that increasing diversity can sometimes cause. Its remit was to develop practical approaches that build communities’ own capacity to prevent problems, including those caused by segregation and the dissemination of extremist ideologies.

Following its year-long consultation, the report amongst other things offered a ‘new’ definition of what an integrated and cohesive community might look like. Being particularly confused about what community cohesion is, I had hoped that this might provide some insight into this for me. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case and so given that community cohesion had been since the Bradford disturbances in 2001 widely employed politically as the ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ (I’ll leave you to better clarify what the ‘problem’ might be) what the ‘solution’ might look like remains quite unclear.

Nonetheless, the new definition (did we have an old one?) was set out as the following six easy definable steps:

“An integrated and cohesive community is one where:

1. There is a clearly defined and widely shared sense of the contribution of different individuals and different communities to a future vision for a neighbourhood, city, region or country

2. There is a strong sense of an individual’s rights and responsibilities when living in a particular place – people know what everyone expects of them, and what they can expect in turn

3. Those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities, access to services and treatment

4. There is a strong sense of trust in institutions locally to act fairly in arbitrating between different interests and for their role and justifications to be subject to public scrutiny

5. There is a strong recognition of the contribution of both those who have newly arrived and those who already have deep attachments to a particular place, with a focus on what they have in common

6. There are strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and other institutions within neighbourhoods”

Great stuff…or is it?

Maybe unsurprisingly, the definition seems to raise many more questions than it does provide answers not least in asking ‘how’ one might measure integration and cohesion? Without this measure, how do we know if we live in an integrated and cohesive community? How can we know when we need to do something, when we need to respond, and of course, when we can sit back on our laurels and say what a good job we’ve done?

Maybe then we should ask – given that the report doesn’t answer this - ‘who’ does the measuring and when will it start?

What is interesting is that in the new definition, it states that ‘a clearly defined’ sense of contribution will be required. Again, how exactly do you measure a ‘strong sense’ of something?

Similarly, the definition also says that there will need to be a ‘strong sense of an individual’s rights and responsibilities’. Is it a good idea to have such subjective statements in a definition that is being established to offer some clarity? If you adopt the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of a ‘definition’ it says that it is “a statement of the exact meaning of a word”…is that what’s on offer here?

To illustrate this point, wouldn’t the BNP say that had a strong sense of responsibility of the individual rights and responsibilities of the ‘aboriginal white communities’ (their words not mine) over and above everyone else in places such as Barking and Dagenham where they are already the official party of opposition in the council chambers?

The problem becomes compounded especially if you consider that the definition states that all in society are to ‘have similar life opportunities, access to services and treatment’. If this is the case, doesn’t this mean that there will need to be a concerted effort on behalf of the Government to address the deep-seated socio-economic inequalities that are evident across vast swathes of our society? If this is the case, then Government – both national and local - is going to be forced to address certain communities over and above others which then seems to go against previous markers of an integrated and cohesive community. The arguments about certain communities being privileged will therefore continue to exist.

And if local councils are going to be required to respond to certain communities in this way, how will that ‘strong sense of trust in institutions’ be any different from how they are now? Or should I say, before we had this ‘new definition’?

The definition therefore is a mish-mash of nice ideas but totally impractical and non-cohesive ones. Take for example how the definition suggests that there should be a ‘strong recognition of the contribution of both those who have newly arrived’. If this is so, local institutions including local government, the NHS, LEAs and so on, will all need to put in place special procedures and policies to ensure that the newly arrived can begin to make that ‘contribution’. Again though this will cause problems because it will merely reinforce the belief that certain communities are being privileged and so those that are newly arrived will continue to be perceived as being privileged.

And with this comes the crunch, the observation that in integrated and cohesive communities ‘strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and other institutions within neighbourhoods’ will exist. When schools are increasingly segregated, when newly arrived migrant workers are being thrown into jobs that local people refuse to do at the rates of pay being offered, when communities do not integrate because of the great disparities between their economic capacity to live together in equitable areas, what realistic chance does this definition offer? Is it merely idealistic and as such should be something society aspires to, or is it a blueprint for change? Given that its initial objective was to make the most of the benefits delivered by increasing diversity, consider the tensions it can sometimes cause and develop practical approaches to achieving this, it could be that ‘none of the above’ clearly applies especially when one of the ‘practical approaches’ was providing new migrants with ‘welcome packs’ that give such information as not spitting in the street and how to queue in the Post Office.

The report is therefore another high style, low substance policy document, one that has become so commonplace in the New Labour era. Constantly trying to locate the ‘solutions’ to the ‘problems’ have been one of the many pastimes undertaken by Blair’s regime. The problem for him though, is that despite putting forward the ‘solution’, rarely does it match or eradicate the ‘problem’.

In this broader landscape then, two additional points of interest emerge from the report. The first is that if as the report suggests it is at the local level where ‘problems’ are made and by consequence need to be solved, why are we forever being told that we need to be more ‘British’? Rather than a national British day a la Gordon Brown therefore, so let’s have national ‘local’ day where we all stress our local identities, Brummie, Geordie, Scouser and so on.

Second, where did multiculturalism go? Whilst most people will acknowledged that multiculturalism has been undergoing a long and painful terminal illness for some time now, it would be fair to assume that its actual passing – and laying to rest - did pass many by.

Given that ‘integrated and cohesive communities’ is then the new solution to the problem, I wonder if I missed that recommendation in the report for euthanasia to be legislated for at the national level? The reason I ask is because if, as would seem to be the case, integrated and cohesive communities is deemed to fail as dramatically as multiculturalism has, let’s hope that the Government can put an end o its misery sooner rather than later.

Is it too premature to offer my condolences to the Commission yet? Integration and cohesion RIP - surely a sentiment to bring us all together...