Muslim pupils should be treated differently? February 26, 2007Posted by C.A.R.D in Arab, Britian, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discrimination, Islam, Islamic, Muslim, Muslim Council of Britain, National Association of Head Teachers, Racism, Racist, religious extremism, School, Schools, UK.
Muslim schoolchildren should be treated differently from other pupils, the country’s most prominent Islamic organisation has said.
They should have separate changing rooms for sports and swimming, single sex classes for sex education, prayer rooms and new rights to Islamic worship, and different uniform rules, the Muslim Council of Britain said.
Boys should be allowed to grow beards for religious reasons, said new guidelines for schools published by the council.
The call for special treatment for Muslim pupils comes at a time when Government efforts are concentrated on eliminating segregation and encouraging ‘British’ values to tackle religious extremism.
The National Association of Head Teachers dismissed the ideas as “completely undoable” and warned they ran against the grain of tolerance in schools.
In a paper offering guidance on the treatment of nearly 400,000 Muslim pupils in state schools, the council said some schools “have not been receptive of legitimate and reasonable requests made by Muslim parents and pupils in relation to their faith-based aspirations and concerns”.
UK teens jailed for cab driver’s racist murder February 21, 2007Posted by C.A.R.D in Asian Taxi Driver, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Hate Crime, London, Racism, Racist, Racist Taxi Attack, Tim Forber, UK, White gang attack.
LONDON – A gang of white teenagers were jailed for almost 80 years today for the racist murder of an Asian taxi driver beaten to death in Huddersfield last year.
Mohammad Parvaiz, a 41-year-old father of three, was killed last July after he responded to what he believed to be a routine request for a taxi. He suffered 23 separate injuries in the attack.
Christopher Murphy was given a minimum jail term of 25 years while the judge at Leeds Crown Court handed down a minimum 21-year sentence to Michael Hand.
Graeme Slavin and Steven Utley were jailed for a minimum of 17 years.
Police said the main motivation for the attack was revenge for an incident that had occurred a few weeks earlier when Murphy’s scooter had been damaged after a confrontation with a group of Asian youths.
Hoteliers chasing the pink tourist pound have joined criticism of a law outlawing discrimination against homosexuals.
The hotels, which cater for the thriving “exclusively gay” tourism market, say that they should be exempt from the Sexual Orientation Regulations as they will be forced to accept heterosexual guests.
Some say that a ban on “gay only” advertising could put them out of business.
There were also concerns that some heterosexual couples might be unhappy if they unwittingly booked into a gay hotel.
John Bellamy, who runs Hamilton Hall, in Bournemouth, described the new laws as “discrimination against gays”. He said: “We are a unique venue and we only admit gay and bisexual men. Under this law, we would go out of business. This so-called anti-discrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays.”
Another hotelier, Mark Hurst, co-owner of the exclusively gay Guyz hotel, in Blackpool, said that his gay clientele would feel uncomfortable mixing with straight customers.
The hotel had been catering for the gay market for the past 20 years, but only went “exclusive” last year because of customer demand.
He said: “It’s not all good news at all. I don’t welcome it one little bit. We intend to stay ‘men only’ exclusively for as long as we can.
“When we had a mixed environment, with gay, bi and heterosexual customers, people didn’t behave as they naturally would.
Britons face extradition for ‘thought crime’ on net January 30, 2007Posted by C.A.R.D in Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, EU, extradition, Freedom Association, Lord Filkin, Philip Duly, Racism, Racist, thought crime, UK.
As evil and deplorable as racism is, the UK must decide if it should make racism illegal under a new specialized law:
British citizens will be extradited for what critics have called a “thought crime” under a new European arrest warrant, the Government has conceded.
Campaigners fear they could even face trial for broadcasting “xenophobic or racist” remarks – such as denying the Holocaust – on an internet chatroom in another country.
The Government has undertaken that if such “offences” take place in Britain the perpetrators would not be extradited – but it will be for the courts to decide the location of the crime.
This opens up the prospect of a judge agreeing to extradite someone whose observations, though made in Britain, were broadcast exclusively in a country where they constitute a crime.
Legislation now before Parliament will make “xenophobia and racism” one of 32 crimes for which the European arrest warrant can be issued without the existing safeguard of dual criminality. This requires that an extraditable offence must also be a crime in the UK.
Alongside the arrest warrant, EU ministers are negotiating a new directive to establish a common set of offences to criminalise xenophobia and racism.
Countries such as Germany and Austria have crimes such as denying the Holocaust which have no equivalent in Britain. Under current laws, if a British citizen committed this offence in Germany and returned to the UK, he could not be extradited.
However, this will change when the arrest warrant becomes law next year. Lord Filkin, the Home Office minister, told MPs: “If someone went to Germany and stood up in Cologne market place and shouted the odds, denying the Holocaust, and then came back [to Britain], they would be subject to extradition under the European arrest warrant.”
Holocaust denial laws are in place in seven EU countries but they would be a big departure for Britain, where a risk of fomenting public disorder is needed before a thought becomes a crime.
School bans wearing crucifix: More discrimination against Christians January 14, 2007Posted by C.A.R.D in Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Cross, England, Muslim, Muslims, Religion, religious, UK, United Kingdom.
A school provoked fury last night by ordering a devout Catholic schoolgirl to remove her cross necklace because it posed a health and safety risk.Teachers demanded Samantha Devine remove her chain and tiny crucifix despite allowing Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear symbols of their religion.
Her family have vowed to fight the decision “all the way” claiming it discriminates against Christians.
The case mirrors the row which engulfed British Airways and forced the airline into an embarrassing climbdown after it threatened to sack an employee who insisted on wearing her cross at work.
In the latest clash, 13-year-old Samantha was left in tears after her form teacher told her she must remove her tiny half-inch crucifix and chain.
But her furious family yesterday pointed out the school – Robert Napier in Gillingham, Kent – allows Muslim pupils to wear headscarves and Sikh students to come to lessons with turbans and bangles.
Samantha even claims staff routinely fail to crack down on youngsters wearing non-religious jewellery, including large necklaces and earrings.
The Age Factor- how Age Discrimination laws will impact City law firms. December 13, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Age Discrimination, Card, Discriminate, Discrimination, retirement, UK.
Law firms are to change due to the impact of the most significant piece of employment law in 30 years, according to research commissioned by City law firms among senior and managing partners of the top 100 law firms in the UK.
The introduction of the new age discrimination act will mean that partner remuneration will become less dependent on experience and more related to partner performance. Partners of all ages could expect formal ejection from the partnership if their performance is not up to scratch.
The new age discrimination act should also result in more partners staying in law firms beyond their 50s unless a law firm can justify having a compulsory retirement age or can demonstrate inadequate performance. Firms which have paid insufficient attention to remuneration systems or retirement may find themselves at the wrong end of age discrimination claims.
The age discrimination act will usher in a harsher, more performance driven culture among these traditional bastions of gentility and will wreak a profound cultural change that will undermine the collegiate nature of partnerships, elevating performance and productivity above the more traditional values of experience and loyalty. (more…)
Mandatory retirement at 65 challenged in high court December 5, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in age, Age Discrimination, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, EU, racism and discrimination, Retire, UK.
A high court challenge this week to new age discrimination laws could force the government to scrap the mandatory retirement age of 65 and give employees the right to work on into their late 60s or even 70s.Heyday, Age Concern’s membership organisation, argues that in keeping the retirement age, the government has failed to properly implement the EU’s equal treatment directive by denying people over 65 the right to choose to go on working.
The rules, which came into force on October 1, ban discrimination at work on grounds of age. Nobody can be forced to retire under 65 without a good reason. But while workers may request to stay on and employers must consider their requests in good faith, there is nothing to stop bosses insisting on retirement at 65.
In a two-day hearing starting on Wednesday, Heyday will argue that the mandatory retirement age should be banned unless employers can justify it. “Heyday believes that by excluding people over 65 from protection the government has failed to implement the directive correctly, in breach of their obligations under European law,” said a spokesman. The high court could decide to refer the issue to the European court of justice in Luxembourg, where a similar case from Spain is awaiting judgment.
Christian students ‘facing discrimination’ November 25, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in anti-Christian, Card, Christian, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, freedom of expression, UK.
Christian students at many British universities are facing “considerable opposition and discrimination”, church leaders have claimed.
Bishops from the Anglican and Catholic churches say students’ rights of “freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of association” have been violated by student guilds who have changed their anti-discrimination provisions.
In a letter to The Times, which cites guilds at Exeter, Birmingham and Edinburgh as examples, they condemn the practice as “intolerant and unlawful” and call upon all Christian unions currently suspended by student associations to be “reinstated with full rights as a student society forthwith”.
The letter has been signed by numerous church officials, including the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, and The Right Rev Crispian Hollis, Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth and lead Bishop of Higher Education.
Other senior figures from groups such as the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship and the Christian Medical Fellowship have also added their signatures.
UK dentist was not victim of discrimination, judges rule November 14, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, dentist, Discrimination, UK.
A British dentist who was thwarted in his attempt to work in Bermuda in 2001 was not illegally discriminated against, Court of Appeal judges have ruled.
A five-year saga surrounding David Thompson was put before three high-ranking judges who were asked to decide whether the Bermuda Dental Board was operating a discriminatory regulation at odds with the Human Rights Act.
At the centre of the argument was the Board’s contention that only persons with Bermudian status or the spouses of people with Bermudian status be allowed to sit the qualifying examination to practise as a dentist on the Island.
This was at odds with the 1981 Human Rights Act, according to lawyer David Kesseram who represented Dr. Thompson.
Mr. Kesseram pointed out that the Human Rights Act barred discrimination on the grounds of “place of origin”.
However, putting forward the Bermuda Dental Board’s case Russell Zinn QC and Melvin Douglas countered that the Bermudian status stipulation did not discriminate on the grounds of place of origin because it was quite possible for a person to have Bermudian status even if they are born overseas, such as when at least one of their parents has Bermudian status.
Tory councillor fired for anti-immigrant poem November 6, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Asian, Britain, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, Racism, Racist, UK, White.
The Conservatives have suspended a councillor and would-be MP after an “utterly dreadful” poem about illegal immigrants was sent from her email account.The Liberal Democrats reported Ellenor Bland to the Commission for Racial Equality after obtaining a copy of the message. But Mrs Bland – who stood for parliament in Swansea East at the last election and was until yesterday an approved Conservative candidate – told the Guardian it was “lighthearted”.
Forwarded under the words Oh Yes! Ellie, it is titled Illegal Immigrants Poem and written in pidgin English. It describes a migrant coming to Britain to live on benefits before inviting friends from his home country to join him, buying up the area after white residents move out and “breeding” large families.
“Write to friends in motherland – Tell them ‘come fast as you can’. They come in turbans and Ford trucks. I buy big house with welfare bucks,” runs one verse.
“Soon we own the neighbourhood … We have hobby, it’s called breeding. Welfare pay for baby feeding.”
It concludes: “We think UK darn good place. Too darn good for the white man race! If they no like us, they can scram. Got lots of room in Pakistan!”
Beneath the poem appear the words “Please send this to every British taxpayer you know” and a cartoon of the white cliffs of Dover with the words “Piss off – we’re full!” scrawled across them.
Battle lines drawn over discrimination laws October 20, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Age Discrimination, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discrimination, EU, UK.
On October first discriminating against someone on the grounds of age in the workplace became unlawful. But already campaigners are trying to extend the legislation to cover other areas. The next battle will be over age discrimination in the provision of services.
What would this mean in practice? The term services is a bit of a catch-all. It can mean big things like healthcare provision, banking, housing or insurance. Alternatively it can mean small things.
For example, banning age discrimination in service provision could make it unlawful for doormen to deny entry to pubs, bars and nightclubs on the grounds of someone being too old to enter.
“We want a new age law to extend and cover many aspects of life not just the workplace,” Andrew Harrop, Age Concern policy officer, told BBC News.
“From access to healthcare, through insurance to denial of entry to gyms and clubs, this has to be all-encompassing – bringing it into line with race and sex laws.”
In its manifesto, the Labour government has committed itself to introduce a Single Equality Bill.
The idea of the Bill is to draw together legislation regarding sex, race and religious discrimination under one legal umbrella.
It is an opportunity to apply some spit and polish to the patchwork of current discrimination laws, and could offer the best opportunity to have extensive anti-age discrimination law adopted.
As if to confuse matters, last February the government introduced the Equality Bill. It set up a new commission, headed by Trevor Phillips, as a single point of contact to oversee existing anti-discrimination legislation.
A BBC investigation has revealed that cancer patients are facing unfair dismissal and discrimination at work, some have even been sacked after being refused time off for treatment.
A new law which came into force at the end of last year has given much stronger protection at work to people with serious illnesses like cancer.
But the Disability Rights Commission said 200 cancer patients had called its helpline this year complaining of problems at work.
The commission said these cases are the tip of the iceberg and many more seriously-ill patients are still unaware of their rights.
The Disability Discrimination Act, which came into force in December 2005, gives people with cancer and other serious diseases such as multiple sclerosis the right not to be treated unfairly at work because of their condition.
Profiling plan angers UK Muslims August 17, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Arab, Arabs & Muslims, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, England, Ethnic, Islam, Muslim, Muslims, religious, UK, United Kingdom.
The British government is considering a system of passenger profiling that includes checks on travelers’ ethnic or religious background, according to media reports.
The planned system of tougher airport checks would create a new offense of “traveling whilst Asian,” according to one of Britain’s most senior Muslim police officers.
Metropolitan Police Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei said intelligence could be used to examine travel history, how a ticket is purchased and frequency of travel, but added: “It becomes hugely problematic when it’s based on ethnicity, religion and country of origin. I don’t think there’s a stereotypical image of a terrorist.”
The Times newspaper reports that officials at the Department for Transport are considering a system of passenger profiling that would select people behaving suspiciously, who have an unusual travel pattern or have a certain ethnic or religious background.
Earlier we brought you the story about how the racist principal of affirmative action was applied to the freedom of speech by a U.S. court judgement. Now it appears that this idea is also being applied in the UK’s House of Lords, as they will decide what is “grossly offensive” based on: “the standards of an open and just multi-racial society” and “taking account of their context and all relevant circumstances.” As well as, they stated that “The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates.” Which seems very reminiscent of what the U.S. court said when restricting free speech based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. The story follows below:
A man who ranted and shouted in telephone calls to his MP should have been convicted for using racist terms that were “grossly offensive”. The offence is a necessary limitation on everyone’s right to freedom of expression, the House of Lords has ruled.
Save the Lebanese Civilians Petition July 25, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Arab, Arabs & Muslims, Beirut, Canada, Card, catastrophe, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, civilian, civilians, dead, Death, EU, France, Gaza, Germany, Israel, Isreal, Lebanese, Lebanon, Petition, Save, UK, USA.
To The Concerned Citizen of The World:
“Killing innocent civilians is NOT an act of self-defense. Destroying a sovereign nation is NOT a measured response.”
Lebanese civilians have been under the constant attack of the state of Israel for several days. The State of Israel, in disregard to international law and the Geneva Convention, is launching a maritime and air siege targeting the entire population of the country. Innocent civilians are being collectively punished in Lebanon by the state of Israel in deliberate acts of terrorism as described in Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.
The Lebanese people feel left out by the world that is turning a blind eye on the savagery of the Israeli state. Israel does not seem to be capable of approaching any problem outside the realm of the military power bestowed on it by the government of the United States of America and other western governments.
What Race are ‘Foreigners?’ July 21, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, court, Debbie Jones, England, Foreigners, HSBC, immigrant, Kilroy, Kilroy-Silk, London, offensive, Race, Racism, Racist, racist comment, Schembri, Silk, UK, What Race are Foreigners.
What race are ‘foreigners?’ In a very strange story courts have decided that the term ‘foreigners’ constitutes a race and is therefore racist:
HSBC in London has lost a case of racial discrimination after a Maltese staff member objected to a comment made by a manager to a colleague.