In the wake of the Southport stabbing incident, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) issued a sweeping critique of the UK government’s response. This response focused heavily on condemning what it saw as racially motivated public discourse and alleged "dangerous misinformation." However, CERD’s stance conspicuously neglected the safety concerns of indigenous British citizens, casting their valid fears as sources of intolerance.
CERD’s report highlighted the persistence of hate crimes, stating: *“The Committee expressed its concern about the persistence of hate crimes, hate speech, and xenophobic incidents on various platforms and by politicians and public figures… particularly concerned about recurring racist acts and violence against ethnic and ethno-religious minorities.”* In calling for action, the Committee urged the UK to enact strict measures against hate speech, and it emphasized the need for thorough investigations and penalties for racist hate crimes. However, CERD’s approach heavily prioritized addressing hate speech over addressing public safety concerns in British communities affected by the attack.
Prioritizing Political Correctness Over Indigenous British Safety
Ben Habib, a prominent commentator, questioned the silence of government authorities on the case. He argued that withholding critical information about the attack stirred public unrest, stating, *“If [the government] had made such declarations back in July, the riots… would not have taken place. The British people would have felt the protective blanket of the government around them.”* CERD’s call to curb “xenophobic rhetoric” and its dismissal of public concerns as “dangerous misinformation” only heightened local fears, contributing to a growing sense of mistrust and abandonment among the British public.
Silence on Indigenous British Voices
The UN’s failure to acknowledge indigenous British concerns has left many feeling marginalized. CERD raised concerns over policing practices, including racial profiling, stating that it was alarmed by *“the disproportionate impact of police stop-and-search practices… and the use of excessive and deadly force by law enforcement, all of which disproportionately affect people of African descent and other ethnic minorities.”* Yet this focus failed to address the need for police transparency and accountability to local British communities. CERD’s approach, prioritizing the prevention of "racial backlash," cast indigenous British perspectives as unimportant, neglecting their need for security and transparency.
Institutional Blindness Toward Indigenous British Rights
CERD’s insistence on protecting certain groups extends to its critique of the UK’s counter-terrorism policies. It voiced concerns that these policies, specifically the "Prevent" strategy, *“foster suspicion toward Muslim communities and disproportionately impact their rights.”* Yet CERD’s position failed to consider indigenous British citizens' right to express their concerns over local safety. The revelation that the Southport attacker possessed extremist materials only intensified the public’s frustration, as the government appeared to stigmatize protestors as “far-right extremists,” without acknowledging their legitimate fears.
Failure to Recognize Indigenous British Concerns as Legitimate
CERD’s report critiqued numerous aspects of the UK's system, including the criminal justice system, poverty, and social issues affecting ethnic minorities. It highlighted high poverty, unemployment, wage disparities, and overrepresentation in low-paid jobs among ethnic minorities, especially Gypsies, Roma, Travellers, people of African or Asian descent, migrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees.”* While these social inequalities are valid issues, CERD’s almost exclusive focus on minority issues underscores its selective approach, which inadvertently casts indigenous British voices as secondary in matters of social justice. Habib captured this sentiment, asking, *“Why didn’t [the government] put a protective blanket around the British people? Why is a protective blanket being put around government officials?”*
### Recommendations for an Inclusive Approach that Respects All Communities
To genuinely protect human rights, CERD must address these glaring omissions and ensure an approach that respects indigenous British perspectives alongside its other commitments. Habib’s demand for transparency only underscores this necessity:
Defend Indigenous British Rights to Transparency**: CERD should recognize that British citizens, like all indigenous groups, deserve transparency in matters of safety.
Balance Anti-Discrimination Efforts with Public Safety**: The anti-discrimination focus should coexist with British citizens' right to feel protected in their communities.
Recognize Indigenous British Voices as Integral**: Instead of viewing their concerns as disruptive, CERD should acknowledge the right of British citizens to voice their fears, especially concerning safety.
*Promote Dialogue, Not Suppression**: Rather than advocating suppression, CERD should foster open discourse that respects indigenous British concerns about safety and social unity.
Conclusion: An Institution in Need of Reflection
CERD’s handling of the Southport case shows an institution deeply focused on protecting certain communities but disconnected from the concerns of indigenous British citizens. Habib’s call for accountability underscores a critical need for CERD to adopt a balanced approach. To truly uphold human rights, CERD must bridge this gap, valuing rather than erasing indigenous British voices. Only by restoring this balance can the UN reaffirm its commitment to inclusive human rights for all communities, acknowledging the diverse concerns within the societies it seeks to protect.
Share this post