Abstract
Before the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) was amalgamated into a larger body in 2007, its former chair Julie Mellor once insisted that ‘Britain’s equality laws are a mess. Inconsistent and incomplete, they offer different levels of protection for different groups and none at all for others’ (The Guardian, 16 May 2002). In coming to this view she was not alone. A decade has passed and numerous more legislation has been introduced since Hepple, Coussey and Choudhury (2000) calculated that a comprehensive picture of Britain’s anti-discrimination architecture would need to consult at least thirty Acts, thirty-eight Statutory Instruments, eleven Codes of Practice and twelve European Commission (EC) Directives and Recommendations. It is unsurprising then to learn that a variety of commentators and public policy analysts long concerned with the welfare of Britain’s ethnic, racial and religious minorities have each argued that the broad development of anti-discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom has been inconsistent (Parekh, 1990; Modood, 1992, 1994; CBMI, 1997, 2004; CMEB, 2000). That this is acutely and disproportionately felt by British Muslims in the levels of protection they are afforded, is a complaint frequently made by an increasing number of Muslim organisations (UKACIA, 1993; MCB, 1997; FAIR, 2002; IHRC, 2004a).
It’s difficult to say that there was a point that it was ok; the last fifteen years have been quite turbulent with the development of Islamophobia being quite distinct in that period. Not that it hasn’t existed before but it has been recognised at a time of a general crisis of confidence in the current legislation
Arzu Merali, Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), (Interviewed by Meer, 12 June 2006)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Although Sikhs were recognised as an ethnic group in Panesar v. Nestle Co Ltd [1979] IRLR 64, the implications of this adjudication were given their fullest expression in the House of Lords ruling that accompanied Mandla v. Dowell Lee (1983) [2 AC 548]. In the former case it was deemed ‘justifiable’ within the meaning of section 1(1)(b)(ii) of the Race Relation Act (1976) that the Nestle Company should require Sikh applicants to shave their beards for reasons of work place hygiene, not withstanding that the proportion of Sikhs who could conscientiously comply with this requirement was considerably smaller than the proportion of non-Sikhs.
Although this is the most commonly held story of the inception of this legislation, according to Anthony Lester (who played a key role in drafting the original bill) it is equally true that ‘[w]hen the first Race Relations Act was enacted in 1965, with Sir Frank Soskice at the Home Office, it was done in part to an increase in racial anti-Semitism’ (Lester, Hansard, 9 November 2005). This is discussed further in the main text.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2010 Nasar Meer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meer, N. (2010). Muslims and Discrimination: Muslim-Consciousness in Re-Action?. In: Citizenship, Identity and the Politics of Multiculturalism. Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230281202_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230281202_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-36657-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-28120-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)