R.ace Relations Act I have rather belatedly cau g ht sight of
Richard West's piece on 13 November: ,Calling a spade a spade. As the whole article 'ee.ms to be based on a rather fundamental Mistake it seems worth putting it right even 11°W. The Race Relations Act of 1976 does Make it illegal to print any information "al Could bring any ethnic group into disrtePute. What it does do is make it an offence 0 Publish or distribute 'written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting... in a case where having regard to all the circumstances, hatred is likely to be stirred up against any racial group in Great Britain by the matter or words in question.' It is inconceivable that this could be taken to mean that the identification of a person's race in a newspaper article was illegal or that the courts woulu 4ver interpret it in this way. It is possible that Mr West may have confused the new law with an NUJ initiative which seeks to discourage journalists from originating 'material designed to encourage discrimination on grounds of race, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation.' it would have been a fair question to ask where that initiative might not lead in time—no stories about black muggers or mums who prefer to stay at home? But before as seasoned a journalist as Mr West wrote off a much-needed new law as an ass, he should really have done a bit more homework to find out what sort of animal it was.
Tom Rees The Runnymede Trust,
62 Chandos Place, London WC2
Previous page
