|
Question 1
The size of the Arab Community in the UK is estimated at about 500,000; why is it that they are not included as a separate group in ethnic profiling questionnaires issued by both government and private bodies. Neither do the Office of Population Census include them as a separate group in the national census. British Arabs are finding it increasingly offensive to always be classed as ‘other’ or, as our new generation now have to reply ‘mixed other’.
Answer to Q1 We are committed to monitoring along the lines set out by the Cabinet Office, which reflects the 2001 Census categories. Some of the background to the ethnic group question that was adopted in the 2001 Census should be explained and the Office of National statistics (ONS) have provided the following information. The wording of any question included in a self-completion questionnaire must enable the particular information that is required to be readily collected. The form and wording of the question on ethnic group that was eventually included in the Census in England and wales was published in a Government White Paper in March 1999 and reflected a careful consideration of users’ requirements for information expressed over a lengthy period of consultation and of the response to census questions as determined by an extensive programme of small- and large-scale question testing, including a major test of all the census questions in April 1999. The prime purpose of the ethnic group question is to identify areas with high levels of ethnic minority groups, which would help provide services and monitor racial disadvantage and social exclusion throughout England and Wales. A major factor in considering the form of the question was to be able to collect data comparable with that obtained from the 1991 Census question (which itself was devised after a long period of question testing) – and to that end the 2001 Census question had thus to be as comparable as possible. Responses to the self-completion census question on ethnic group were entirely subjective and we issued no guidance on how individuals should have answered; thus there is no formal statistical definition of the term ‘Arab’ for Census purposes. There are, as yet, no firm plans in progress for how we will tackle the data collection of ethnicity or national identity in the next Census. However, the National Statistician is very keen that we start work on this early and that we do not become too constrained by what has gone before. ONS recognises that the current 2001 Census questions are not perfect and we would want seriously to consider some of the concerns that have arisen as a result of these including, for example, the desire by some to have an ‘Arab’ tick-box on the ethnicity question. We also recognise that ethnicity is an ever-changing concept and we want to reflect the contemporary nature of British society. However, a very important issue is always comparability over time, and this too has to be given serious consideration. ONS recognises that ethnicity is multifaceted and the current National Statistics practice is to collect as much information as possible on associated factors. For example, our Labour Force Survey has questions on national identity, ethnic group, religious affiliation, country of birth and nationality. It is also the National Statistician’s view that we should test the proposed questions for any 2001 Census questions (when they are determined) in a major survey, such as the LFS, before they are asked in the Census itself. In the meantime National Statistics guidelines on the measurement and collection of ethnicity data will be published on the ONS website in due course. They will reflect the need for a balance between the prime requirement for comparability with the 2001 Census while, at the same time, acknowledging the fact that classifications are never set in stone. ONS recognise that further research is needed to improve understanding of a range of related issues, such as language and religion. Once a firm decision to proceed with a census in 2001 has been made, arrangements will be put in place for consultation with a wide range of users on the form and content of the questions to be included, using similar criteria that were adopted in designing the 2001 Census. These were that: · there is a clearly demonstrated need for the information; · users’ requirements cannot adequately be met by information from other sources; · the questions should be shown, in tests, to have no significantly adverse effect on the Census as a whole, particularly the level of public response; and that · practicable questions can be devised to collect data that are sufficiently accurate to meet users’ requirements. Such consultation would be unlikely to start until later in 2004 or 2005. Any case made for including a separate ‘Arab’ category in any ethnic group question will be carefully assessed against these criteria. In the meantime, it may be helpful to know that write-in responses of ‘Arab’ from the 2001 Census were separately coded and ONS can provide details of counts of such response through commissioned output. Furthermore, it is likely that some details will be published in a forthcoming ONS Focus Report on Ethnicity and National Identity, which is planned for publication in Autumn 2004. Additionally the Census included a question on country of birth, and it may be that information from this could also be used to make an assessment of the size of the ‘Arab’ population in this country, although, of course, this will not identify persons born in this country of Arab parentage. back to the question Return to contents |
|
|
|
|
British media, with only a few exceptions, continues to show a very biased portrayal of Arabs. They are represented variously as fanatics, terrorists, white-slavers, lascivious oil sheikhs, illiterate Bedouins etc. Thousands of years of culture are completely ignored as is the presence of a large urban, educated population. My own country, Iraq (in better times) had equality of sexes in the medical, dental, engineering schools at a time when it was still rare in the UK. British Arabs try to give their children, who in the main feel no ambiguity in their dual culture, a semblance of their rich
heritage which is continuously abused by the media. Answer to Question 5 The Government shares your concern that misleading representations of minority groups, and Arabs in particular, are still seen in our media and that more positive representations would contribute not only to British Arabs’ feelings of security in this country but also to a more tolerant society which benefits us all. This need to ensure fair representation and to protect communities must at all times be balanced against the strong tradition of freedom of expression. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport have supplied the following information: Broadcasting The Government believes that because broadcasting is a powerful medium, it is important for social cohesion that it reflects the multicultural society of the United Kingdom. This aim is being taken forward by the cross industry initiative, the Cultural Diversity Network (CDN). The aim of the CDN is to modernise the portrayal of ethnic minorities in mainstream programming so that racial diversity on and behind screen reflects today’s multicultural Britain. It will do this by establishing targets, policies and timetables for full inclusion to be achieved in employment and professional services, casting and portrayal on screen, content creation and
development, programme production, distribution and promotion and in financing and training of ethnic minority individuals and the development of ethnic minority production companies. The following are members of the Network: Carlton Television, ITV Network Centre, the BBC, Channel 4, BSKYB, Channel 5, GMTV, United News and Media, Granada Media Group, ITN, trade organisations PACT and WFTV, the Independent Television Commission, the Film Council, Broadcast Standards Commission and British Screen Advisory Council (BSAC). The Communications Act also contains provisions placing a duty on OFCOM to take appropriate steps for promoting equality of opportunity and training, and for OFCOM to include appropriate conditions in broadcasting licenses, requiring licensees to make arrangements for promoting equality of opportunity. The Government considers that it is important that broadcasters have a diverse workforce, as we believe that a greater representation behind the screen will ultimately lead to better representation on our television screens. As you may be aware, under our current broadcasting arrangements responsibility for what is broadcast on television and radio, both in content and scheduling, rests with the broadcasters and the organisations which regulate broadcasting – the Governors of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission (ITC), the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority (S4C) and the Radio Authority. The Broadcasting Standards Commission also acts as a forum for public concern. They are all independent of the
Government and responsible for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting. It is important that the views of the public are brought to the attention of these bodies. A brochure ‘Complaints about television and radio programmes and advertisements’ available from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport explains the roles of the different regulatory bodies, and how you can contact them to let them know your concerns about television standards. DCMS can be contacted at enquiries@culture.gov.uk or 020 7211 6200. Press The Government believes that a free press is vital in a democracy, and it would not, therefore, seek to intervene in decisions about what a newspaper or magazine chooses to publish. Of course, with that freedom comes responsibility, and they are bound by the laws that bind us all, including, for example, the Race Relations Act 1976. They also choose to restrict their freedoms further by agreeing to abide by a Code of Standards, overseen by the Press Complaints Commission. The Code contains a clause which bans prejudicial or pejorative mention of a person’s race, colour, religion, etc. Full details on the Code are available from the Press Complaints Commission at 1 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JB or from their website at www.pcc.org.uk. The Commission will normally only deal with complaints from those directly involved in a story but, in exceptional circumstances, (if, for example, they feel that someone is unable to complain themselves) they act of their own volition to investigate a case, often prompted by a letter from a member of the public. Freedom of expression may mean that articles of which we do not approve and with which we do not agree will be published. It is important that we bear in mind that newspapers are private enterprises run only for their readers; readers should let newspapers know when they disagree with a particular story, or editorial slant. In this context, the Code also contains a clause stating that an opportunity to reply must be given to individuals or organisations when reasonably called for. back to the question Return to contents |
|
We would like to register our concern with the new policy that gives the Home Secretary the right to withdraw British passports from British subjects with dual nationality if they believe the person is a threat to national security. We believe this is a draconian measure and against basic human rights. It also takes away the sense of citizenship for people with dual nationality who will be treated differently. There must be the same law for all citizens and not a
separate law for people with dual nationality. If you break the law, you should be judged in the court under the law of the land rather than it being in the power of the Home Secretary to remove citizenship. Answer to Question 6 The Law · that the individual in the first place obtained our citizenship by deception; Deprivation cannot proceed on the second of these grounds if the effect would be to leave the person concerned without any nationality or citizenship. (Potential statelessness is not an obstacle to deprivation on the first ground mentioned above). Liability to deprivation is otherwise extended to all classes of British national, including those who are British by birth. A right of appeal against the decision to deprive lies initially to an adjudicator or, where it is necessary to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information, to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Appeals may from there proceed to the higher courts, but only with the permission of the relevant appellate body and only where a point of law is at issue. Deprivation of citizenship cannot take effect until all options for appeal have been exhausted. Human Rights The right to acquire a nationality which is proclaimed by Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not specific either as to the circumstances in which the right will exist or as to the State which should bear responsibility for ensuring that the right is respected. Because of this uncertainty the United Kingdom continues to maintain a reservation on the extent to which it agrees to be bound by that Convention. However, British nationality law is fully consistent with the UN
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The European Convention on Human Rights does not, in terms, proclaim any right to acquire or to retain a nationality. Nor, in our view, is it necessary that a person should be able to retain or acquire British nationality in order to avoid a breach of his or her ECHR rights. To the extent that ECHR Article 6 (2right to a fair trial”) is applicable in this context, we believe that its requirements are satisfied by the provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981 and elsewhere relating to appeals. There will, of course, be some cases where the deprivation of British nationality will result in loss of a previously-acquired right of abode in this country. The effect will therefore be to make the individual subject, once again, to United Kingdom immigration control, and raises the possibility that he or she might be deported or removed from the United Kingdom. Deportation or removal following deprivation of nationality would be a separate issue giving rise to a separate right of appeal. Human rights considerations would, of course, inform any decision on deportation or removal, and the affected individual would have the opportunity to raise these matters on appeal. Position of dual nationals The proviso about potential statelessness in relation to deprivation on the grounds of seriously prejudicial conduct reflects the United Kingdom’s international obligations. To withdraw citizenship for this reason, with the result that the person concerned was left without any nationality or citizenship, would be inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. It would also be inconsistent with Article 7 of the European Convention of
Nationality, which we hope to ratify in due course. International law places no such obstacle in the way of deprivation on the grounds that citizenship was obtained by fraud or the concealment of relevant information, arguably because in those circumstances citizenship should not have been acquired in the first place. We recognise, of course, that for most if not all actions that would give rise to liability to deprivation of citizenship there is provision in the criminal law for the application of a penal sanction. However, this country has a tradition, shared with others such a France, Spain and the USA, of providing in its law for deprivation of citizenship as an additional sanction against acts of treason and subversion. The purpose is not necessarily to punish the individual (although, inevitably, there is a
punitive effect). Rather, it is to afford a higher level of protection to the public (for example, by paving the way for deportation or detention under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) and/or, in the most serious cases, to convey public abhorrence at what the individual had done such as could not be adequately conveyed by any sanction provided for in the criminal law along. The Home Secretary gave notice on 4 April 2003 if his decision to deprive Abu Hamza of his British citizenship on the grounds that certain aspects of Mr Hamza’s conduct had been seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom. Mr Hamza’a appeal against that decision is now before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. It would not be appropriate to comment further whilst the appeal remains undetermined. We regard the deprivation of citizenship as a very serious step to be contemplated only in the most flagrant cases of deception or disloyalty. It will be reserved, as it has been in the past, for cases in which the individual’s actions were totally incompatible with the holding of British nationality. back to the question Return to contents |
|
Why are Arabs under-represented in the government and public service sector. Neither has a single member of the Arab community been appointed to the House of Lords. Considering their size, this places the Arab Community at a disadvantage in the public eye and gives the impression of being irrelevant and marginalized. It also alienates members of the Arab community and in particular the younger generation and deprives them of role models as well as hopes and aspirations to public office. When will the government rectify this by appointment members of the Arab Community to represent it in the House of Lords, particularly given that the Arabs represent about one in every 110 of the population? Answer to Question 7 A civil service that better represents our diverse and dynamic society is a more effective civil service. We recognise that some groups are under-represented and are keen to address this as well as ensuring that recruitment, retention and training policies are not discriminatory. A civil service recruitment outreach team organises a number of outreach programmes and events that develop under-represented groups’ understanding of the civil service and the career opportunities it can provide. Recognition of success and achievement within the Arab community is important and nominations for Honours from amongst all minority communities must be encouraged. We need similarly to encourage members of the Arab community to take opportunities to contribute to public life through public appointments. All public appointments are made on merit, are subject to open competition and applications are encouraged publicly via a diverse range of publications. Each applicant is judged against the same set of particular specifications for that appointment. An independent assessor takes part in all appointment panels to ensure a fair result. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments has responsibility for this policy. We understand that the current Commissioner is particularly involved in raising awareness of public appointments in order to promote diversity and has spoken publicly to Arab groups amongst others. Party membership of the House of Lords is a matter for the political parties. The appointment of crossbench peers is dealt with through an open process by an independent commission. This House of Lords Appointments Commission welcomes nominations from people who will broaden the expertise and experience of the House as well as reflect greater representation of the diversity of the people of the United Kingdom. The Commission is committed to independent and
fair assessment of nominations. Its recommendations will be made on individual merit and not on the basis of age, disability, gender, martial status, sexual orientation, background, race, colour, ethnic or national origin. Further details are at; www.lorsdappointments.gov.uk back to the question Return to contents |
|
|
|