Race relations and role of law
Patrick Cosgrave replies to Louis Claiborne
I would be the last to argue that we in this country have nothing to learn from others, particularly so when the subject is race relations, and our tutor so distinguished 811 "American lawyer trained at the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States " as Louis Claiborne. But Mr Claiborne s views on 'Race relations and the role .ef law' in last week's Spectator are, despite being powerfully and persuasively argued' so muddled, inaccurate and (though 11°. doubt unintentionally) mischievous the they must be controverted; while at the same time it is advisable, in the interests of the future, to take issue with the con' sensus of liberal prejudice so compreher''' sively and accurately reflected in the tvtm books he was reviewing.
Basically it is Mr Claiborne's con' tention that anti-discriminatory race real'
tions legislation in this country is t0°feeble to ensure compliance with univer sally held ideas of human brotherhood. Race discrimination, he argues, can never be either removed or alleviated by 8 process of law in which the Race Relations Board — charged by Parliament with over' seeing legislative attempts to reduce diScrimination — cannot, for exaMPle' "compel the alleged discriminator t° appear before it, or to answer written questions, or to produce records." He de' plores both the failure of government t° put its weight behind the legislation in question by ensuring that the Law Officers of the Crown appear on behalf of the Board in discrimination cases and the confining of 'the full bite of the law' to the judicial process itself, that is, to judges. He criticises both the effectiveness Of enforcement procedures and the failure to create a law which will by " a few doses of strong medicine " deter the discriminator. And he urges us to attend to the American precedent of more extensive and schematic enforcement of the law in these matters. It is in no mean spirit that I suggest that, considering the state of race relations in the United States, Mr Claiborne has rather a cheek.
Under cover of writing about law and race relations, Mr Claiborne is writing about politics, and maintaining a prejudiced position. Even in politics, however, one ought to have a just understanding of the facts of the case, even if one decides to ignore them in reaching one's conclusion. Thus, when Mr Claiborne refers to he fact that the majority of the British Coloured population — in contrast to the American — is immigrant, and when he admits the fact that this presents special Problems, he is again jokingly dismissive In saying that these immigrants are commonly viewed as foreign," implying thereby that they are not so. But, as the essence of the American race problem is that their blacks are native, so the essence of ours is that our coloureds are foreign, and felt to be so.
Mr Dipak Nandy, the Director of the Runnymede Trust (the most scholarly and Objective of all the organisations now examining these problems), replying to Mr Powell's assertion that the net rather than the settlement figures — that is, the net excess of intake over departure — rePresented the true figures for immigration, stated that over a period, the net figures did represent a true general picture of imMigration. Over a period. The situation now is that the net figures show no sign of significant decline: over a period there has been no substantial falling-off in the rise of the coloured population through immigration. Nor does one look likely now.
These matters, of course, are of no concern to Mr Claiborne, first, because he is doctrinally prejudiced against the consequences of numbers, second, because he Persists in seeing the British problem in American terms which require the dismissal of immigration as a relevant factor, and which require an unremitting focus on the necessity to coerce those inclined to And difficulty in living with men of different colour and culture. That same Wilful steadfastness in a potentially disastrous prejudice is manifest in almost all Writing from the Institute of Race Relations. In the master-work of that body, E. J. B. Rose's Colour and Citizenship, a logical analysis of the immigration problem led inevitably to the conclusion that imMigration should be restricted by eliminating the quota system and allowing Vouchers only to specific individuals, for Specific jobs, in specific places, exactly as the government has now restricted immigration for settlement. But the conclusion was resisted, in several sentimental Passages, because of humanitarian or lib eral prejudice. The white victims of such prejudice are no friends to better race relations.
Even if one pardoned Mr Claiborne's error in this respect, as the product of a decent man's inability to appreciate the fact that all problems are not a reflection of the American experience, one can hardly pardon his dismissal of the Community Relations Commission — established in the 1968 Act — as a body bereft of legal powers, and, therefore, of 'little consequence. The Commission was established in order to further and develop inter-communal relations at local level.
It was the most practical and brilliant of the Labour government's ideas, and perhaps that government's most disastrous failure. Its failure was not, as Mr Claiborne would have it, because it was not a legally authoritative body, but because, in Mr Frank Cousins, it had a thoroughly incompetent first head. The then government saw, rightly, that one of the main sources of prejudice lay in the Labour and trade union movements, and hoped that a great trade union leader was the man to dissolve this prejudice. In the event, Mr Cousins could neither keep control over nor maintain cognisance of the work of either his central staff or their local affiliates. The facilities of the Commission were, and are being, taken over at local level by radical activists whose views and activities — a logical and rational extension of the benign liberalism of Mr Claiborne — excite both the prejudices of the native and the anxieties of the immigrant population; and whose objectives are a radical re-structuring of British society, rather than an amelioration of race relations.
Greater tolerance, greater humanity, between the races in this country depends on the generosity of the host population, and such generosity must be elicited by persuasion. Rightly, indeed, the British people will not be generous hosts unless they are persuaded that the coloured immigrant represents no threat to their identity and their culture. A substantial part of the duty of assimilation lies with the immigrant. Anyone who pretends otherwise is confusing the objective of better race relations with other pOlitical objectives. I have seen no surer prescription for racial violence than the recent comment of a distinguished immigrant, Mr Dilip Hiro, to the effect that the immigrant should not feel obliged to adapt to the British pattern. I believe that any immigrant who moves to this country by choice owes Britain loyalty and, in all crucial matters, obligation, devotion and, ultimately, cultural subjection. And I believe that, unless these facts are recognised and accepted, and unless the size of the problem is restrained, we will find ourselves in a situa tion parlous indeed. Only if we recognise the logical implications of the situation can we hope for ultimate harmony between races in this country: a black may be an Englishman, easily, but he must also be an Englishman first, These problems, unique and devastating as they are, remain beyond the comprehen sion of "an American lawyer trained at the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States."
Previous page
