TREVOR PHILLIPS - EHRC CHIEF ACCUSED OF BEING RACIST & SEXIST

RACE EQUALITY & HUMAN RIGHTS CHIEF - RACIST & SEXIST?

Over the last decade Equality & Human Rights Commission (formerly known as CRE) and its various chiefs have been accused of being racist, see, Dr Deman v CRE & others. Mr. Trevor Phillips, a Tony's new crony was appointed CRE chief when his predecessor, Mr Gurbux Singh caused public embarrassment when he pleaded guilty to criminal offence for assaulting a police officer. Equality watchdog faces discrimination lawsuit from pregnant employee.

Case causes fresh embarrassment for Equality and Human Rights Commission boss Trevor Phillips Dr Deman v CRE, Trevor Phillips & Others

Trevor Phillips is already under pressure over internal disputes and allegations of financial irregularities. The government's equality watchdog, set up to combat all forms of prejudice at work, faces a sex discrimination lawsuit this week from a female member of its own staff.

The case is a fresh embarrassment for Trevor Phillips, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who is widely expected to be forced to step down when his contract ends in autumn following a string of internal disputes and allegations of financial irregularities. Several of his fellow commissioners have indicated they are likely to stand down if Phillips, who is close to several senior Zionist Labour politicians, including Lord Mandelson, is

reappointed for another term.

The sex discrimination case brought by Brid Johal, an aide to Phillips's political adviser Faz Hakim, is scheduled to be heard at an employment tribunal in south London this week. It is understood her case centres on allegations that she was not told of a promotion that came up while she was on maternity leave and was therefore unfairly treated compared to other staff.

A spokesman for the commission declined to comment in advance of the tribunal case but another source said it was braced for public embarrassment.

Hakim is expected to give evidence on Johal's behalf and the case risks exposing broader questions about the recruitment policies adopted by the commission, which is supposed to police other private and public bodies in rooting out discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion, sexuality, age and disability.

"There is something oddly old-fashioned going on in terms of plum jobs at the higher level," added the commission source.

Ministers are due to announce later this month whether Phillips will serve a second term and the controversy over the commission's appointments and staff management are thought to have counted against him.

Phillips faces a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) within the next few weeks which is expected to qualify its accounts, which the Observer recently disclosed they had refused to sign off.

The irregularities identified by the NAO are understood to centre on a handful of staff made redundant and paid off when the former race watchdog – the Commission for Racial Equality, which Phillips ran – was wound up, but then rehired by the successor body. Senior figures, including Phillips, are likely to face questioning in parliament over what happened.

Sources close to Phillips, however, said he did not want to quit the commission, adding: "This is a decision for government. But frankly Trevor is doing the job until someone tells him to stop doing it. There is no change as far as we are aware."

Ministers are now understood to be seeking a face-saving exit for Phillips which could see him transferred to another quango. The recent departure of Neil Kinnock from the British Council after his wife, Glenys, was made a minister, opened a possible vacancy but would mean a significant drop in salary for Phillips.

New row over equality chief's dual role

Trevor Phillips's firm rejects watchdog's demand to remove public-private 'conflict' from its website

Trevor Phillips, chair of the UK's equality watchdog, is at the centre of a

damaging stand-off between its lawyers and his business partner after concerns were raised that his private business activities expose him to a conflict of interest.

Phillips is a co-founder and 70% shareholder in the Equate Organisation, a specialist consultancy that gives paid advice on race issues. He stepped down as director last year after critics complained that his private business activities could compromise his public sector role.

But Equate's website still prominently displays a picture of Phillips. It claims: "Trevor is one of the leading experts on migration in Europe. He has, for over two decades, been advising private companies ... and remains one of the most widely listened-to advisers to government and public bodies in Europe. He is the Chair of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission."

Emails released to the Observer under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that Thelma Stober, the director of corporate law and governance at the EHRC, wrote to Equate in January asking it to drop all references to the commission from its website, a request the company has declined to carry out.

Stober told Charles Armitage, Phillips's business partner, that Equate's references to the commission "raises the issue of conflict of interest for Trevor and the commission. I raised this with Trevor prior to Christmas and he advised me to write to you as he was no longer a director of the company. I should be most grateful if urgent steps could be taken to amend the Equate website in accordance with Trevor undertaking [sic] and remove all reference to the commission please." In an email copied to Phillips, Armitage declined, replying: "It would be an admission of some kind of wrongdoing on Trevor's behalf, which I presume is not your intention." In response to Stober's suggestion that she would be happy to discuss the matter, Armitage replied: "Thank you for your offer, but I'm not sure how this would benefit the running of one of my companies."

The commission sought to clarify Phillips's role in December 2007, after work he did for Channel 4 was made public following the Big Brother race row, when several contestants ganged up on Shilpa Shetty, the Bollywood actress (see Bride &Prejudice at http://cemkumar.googlepgaes.com). "Mr Phillips should decide whether he wishes to be a management consultant or whether he wants to chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission," Michael Rubenstein, co-editor of Equal Opportunities Review, wrote last year.

Phillips has appeared acutely aware of the need to ensure that there was no blurring of the lines between his public and private roles. In an email to Armitage last year, he requested that references to a potential project involving the BBC, which was never realised, were taken off a website. Phillips wrote: "The problem is that I have sat in on discussion about the work we're doing on the BBC, and if we actually were working with the BBC I should have withdrawn; this makes it look as though I'm misleading the commission."

In a letter dated 21 December 2007, the commission wrote to Phillips, outlining his renegotiated contract "now that you will be working 3 and half days a week for the commission". The letter, marked "confidential", acknowledges "it is expected that up to six times a year, you will use the commission offices at 3 More London to host meetings exclusively associated with your interests outside commission business".

A commission spokeswoman said Equate had agreed to remove a weblink to the watchdog and it was happy for "matters of fact" to be published on the company's website. The EHRC recently came under fire after the National Audit Office refused to sign off its accounts. A number of senior staff, including its chief executive, Nicola Brewer, have left the organisation.

Phillips to head giant equality commission

Trevor Phillips, Britain's outspoken race relations chief, is set to be handed a powerful new role as the country's first official champion of women, gay people and other groups who suffer discrimination.

The head of the Commission for Racial Equality is poised to be named as the chairman of a new 'super-watchdog' that will also combat bias against a range of other people: ethnic minorities, the elderly and the disabled.

Phillips's pending appointment as leader of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) will see him given tough powers to stamp out discrimination and highlight 'problem areas' requiring tough action.

The move will be controversial. Phillips's critics claim he is too close to Tony Blair to run a politically neutral body, has not done enough to help ethnic minorities, and courts publicity by making 'grandstanding' interventions on sensitive issues such as racial segregation. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has accused Phillips of having moved so far in his views that he was 'pandering to the right' after the CRE chairman said the Notting Hill Carnival was not a triumph of multiculturalism.

Phillips, Blair's choice for the new post, is understood to have been picked from a shortlist that included Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights body Liberty, ex-union leader Margaret Prosser and Naaz Coker, chair of the British Refugee Council.

http://cemkumar.googlepages.com/, http://newsviews.blogspot.com/

CONDEMN CPI(M) ACTION AGAINST COM ACHHUTANANDAN

CPI(M) Politburo - Vinash Kale Viparit Buddhi

Expulsion of Kerala’s Chief Minister, Com Achutanandan from Poliburo (better known as VS) is yet another misfortune for the CPI(M) Leadership which lost touch with the reality on the ground. There is no Marxian theory which could justify the Politburo’s decision.

Accordig to Social Choice theory, in all but samllorgansiations, delegation of power takes place from many to few (known as agents). In a Parliamenatry Democracy, people make such choice by electing a member of Parliament or Legislature. Since the elected agents are answerable to people in their rerspective consituencies there is a mechanism, though not fool-proof, by which agents could be penalised by not being elected again or rewarded by relection. However, there is no mechnism, particularly within the Communist parties, which purported to represent tangile consciouness of working class, to correct itself, if the Party gets derailed or ideas themselves become material force and derailed the Party.

In China, Chairman Mao had enountered such problems in the Central Committee, in 1960s when his ideological position for leading the Country's Communist Party turned into a thin minority opinion. In his view, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party was out of realiyt on the ground and derailed. He went to his home town and with the assistance of a local Press union was able to publish his point of view, which was earlier rejected by the Central Committee. Mao's article was published as, "Bombard the HeadQuarter", which led to the Cultural Revolution and reorganisation of the Central Committee. Subsequently, Birtsh Journal of Socilogy published an article assessing Mao's contribution to dialectics, which most Easychair Oford/JNU educated Marxist cannot swallow because it posses great danger to their own existence. The author identified Mao's contribution in recognising the need and supervisory role of the masses over the Party. If this process is not completed, dialetics will remain incomplete and the communist parties strictly organised on the Stalinist principles would become caucus-run burecratic organiations and alienate themselves from the people. History of USSR and Eastern European Communist Parties shows that they lost complete touch with the people and in fact people turned against them. The situation of CPI(M) is even worst as Bueacracy has takenover even before it could enjoy the power at the Centre. Buddhdeb Bhattacharya behave like to bull agisn this own people in defence of a bourgeoise democratic revolution by acquiring land for Tatas rather then let the Tata’s acquiring by themselves.

Further, many individuals were inducted in the CPIM Politburo and Cnetral Committee who neither had any background or emerged from mass movement. Their experience was limited to a few hundreds students' politics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University’s upper middle class and/or elite class. It is an irony that fate of a vateran founder member of the CPI(M) and a mass leader, Com. Achhutanadnan has been sealed by an upper caste elite leadership. It appears no one is left within the Party to raise his voice let alone calling for "Bombard the Hedaquarter". The entire time of the Politburo and a vast members of the Central Committee goes in practcing bourgeoise democracy and playing a middleman trader’s role (in Nepal) and yet there is little tolerance for dissent or for inner democracy within CPI(M).

Earlier CPI (M) expelled Com. Nipen Chakraborty of Tripura & other senior leaders in WB who contributed to sustained trouble free Left Rule for decades with public mandate, Mr Abdullah Kutty, CPIM (MP) and then Com Somnath Chatterjee, Speaker. Surprisingly, CPI(M) accepted it own investigation into corruption charges against Vijayan. Moreover what we have been taught as a student of Marxism that communists do not hide their intentions. They owe transparency to the people. It is not simply a routine organisational matter when you are dealing about a comrade whom you had projected before them to repose faith in him. The credibility of the whole organisation is at stake. Even if one does not go by the bourgeoisie definition of corruption still the reasons and findings with supporting material including answers to Achutnandan's stand should be made public.

We believe the reasons for expulsion of veteran leaders like, Nipen Chakraborty, Somnath Chatterjee, Kerala MP, Mr Abdullah Kutty and Com Achuttanandan were less compelling than for removal of Com. Vijayan and Bhddhdeb Bhattacharya and JNU Mafia. The only hesitation appears to be that current a vast majority of the Politburo leadership does not appear to have emerged from mass movement. - “Vinash Kale Viparit Buddhi”.

BAREFOOT LAWYERS' TRAINING INSTITUTE

BAREFOOT LAWYERS' TRAINING INSTITUTE

49 Vivek Naga, Station Road, Jaipur 302006

Tel. 0141 2206139, email, aslsraj@gmail.com

Dear Friend,

As you know that we have established the Barefoot Lawyers Training Institute. Honourable Justice Smt. Gyan Sudha Mishra of Rajasthan High Court who is also the Chairperson of the State Legal Services Authority formally inaugurated the Institute on 14th May 2006. The purpose of this Institute is to develop a Socio-Legal Strategy of the Millennium to equip grassroots social workers with basic legal knowledge of practical value and at the same time to develop trust and confidence through their commitment, dedication and orientation towards people’s empowerment. To realize such a strategy we have to shift emphasis from Ivory Tower to real world approach to reflect expectations of the society at large and to realise the principle of ‘equality of arms’ in the administration of justice. You can very well understand that such an institution necessarily has to be completely free from any kind of power play, whether of any agency or Government authority and for such vocational Institution to survive it is vital to engage those who helped in creating them. Therefore, to eliminate dependency we have decided only to approach our well wishers, both individual and institutions for financial assistance. We have already organized four such training programmes where we had interactions with 120 participants from different organizations and different districts of the state. The Institute’s programmes have been highly successful and the participants found them very enlightening, encouraging and innovative. Now we plan to cover all the Hindi speaking states. The programmes are infact exercises for self-development and activation of thinking process. We are enclosing the concept note as well as the list of our Advisory Board along with this appeal.

We appeal to you to advance your financial support also according to your convenience. It will greatly strengthen our efforts and facilitate programme organization.

The cheques or the amount may be remitted in the name of ‘Academy For Socio Legal Studies, Jaipur.’

With regards,

Prem Krishna Sharma
Director
Academy For Socio Legal Studies Date: 1 June 2006

Members of the Advisory Board are.
Justice Shri V.S. Dave, Justice Shri Panachand Jain, Justice M. Shirimal, Smt. Aruna Roy, Dr. Sharda Jain, Sr. Advocate Colin Gonsalvis (HRLN Delhi), Sr. Advocate Mihar Desai (HRLN Mumbai), Sr. Advocate Mahesh Bora (Jodhpur), Prof. Suresh Deman (London), Shri Than Singh, Advocate Shri P.L. Mimroth (NCDHR), Shri V.S. Vyas, Shri Bhawani Shankar Kusum, Prof. Ganga Sahaya, Prof. Satish Shastri (Dean, Faculty of Law), Shri Ravi Hooja, Sr. Advocate S.R. Bajwa, Miss Parul Sharma (Stockholm), Smt. Nishat Hussain, Shri Radhakant Saxena and Prof. O. P. Mathur.

Greenwich: Mr Russell Brockett, Director, Found Gulity as Charged

The University of Greenwich, Mr Russell Brockett & Mr Ross Geddes were found guilty of Racial Discrimination and/or Victimisation by an Ashford Tribunal Chaired Porfessor Rideout of University College London. The AUT & NATFHE merged to form the University College Union (UCU) refused to provide support to Dr Deman erroneously believing that there were no prospects of success. However, the Ashford Tribunal found as follows:

“Mr Geddes was capable of making racist comments” ……In our view, the Applicant was on this occasion genuinely of the opinion that the remark was racist. We consider that we are entitled to infer racial discrimination in that instance.” [para 70].

“Whichever account of the words used is preferred, the remark is unquestionably a racist stereotype and Mr Geddes is revealed as someone capable of ethnic stereotype.”[para 91].

“…comment made in at the Staff Assessment Panel meeting of 23 June 1999, at which Mr Geddes described half the subject group as “brain dead” and the other half as “idle bastards”. Given the clear indication of racist attitudes entertained by Mr Geddes, we believe that the proper inference to draw is that this remark was capable of interpretation as a from of racial discrimination and that the Applicant did so interpret”.

As to Russell Brockett, Director of Personnel, the Tribunals found as follows:

“We consider, however, that a serious procedural irregularity has occurred, depriving the Applicant of the right to a fair hearing. ”[para 87].

“In order to attract the defence, both elements must be present, but in our view even if this were not so it would be impossible to say that in a number of cases the Applicant’s complaints were made in bad faith.” ….In our view, that the alleged trouble-maker was protected by section 2 of the Act and the disadvantage to him occasioned by Mr Brockett’s actions inevitably constitute example of victimisation.” [para 117]

“We have said Russell Brockett was acting in effect as prosecuting counsel and that it was for the Applicant to defend himself. That does not alter the fact however, that Brockett may have been motivated to take that position by his desire to get rid of the Applicant.” [para 123].

“In our view, the proper inference to draw from the facts is that Mr Brockett had decided, probably some time in June or July, that his duty to deal with the Applicant’s trouble-making, albeit trouble-making by the raising of allegations of racial discrimination, in seeking the dismissal of the Applicant.” [para 124].

However, despite the Tribunal's above findings no action has been taken against the Labour Party Racist mafia led by Baroness Blackstone.

Greenwich EO Claim & Sir William McPherson Report:

Further, the University of Greenwich had been in breach of his own Equal Opportunity commitments as exemplified in its EO report and in the THES, though clamour for factual substantiation:

“Black and ethnic minority constitute 7% of staff who have returned monitoring information. This figure is considerably lower than the percentage of ethnic minority students (28%). The ethnic diversity of staff is also considerably less than the diversity of the population of the London region (20.2%).”

The official response (in reference to Sir William McPherson’s inquiry into the racist murder of Steve Lawrence) to the University Court was discussed in a joint consultative group meeting of the NATFHE, AUT (on page 3 of the minutes). Mr Brockett, Director of Personnel, said, “there had been only a small number (2?) of complaints of racial harassment that required investigation.” Clearly, Mr Brockett’s claim is contrary to the evidence gathered by our volunteer as the following cases are registered in the Ashford Employment Tribunal against the University of Greenwich, case #51442/96, 47503/96, 2302552/97, 2305534/97, 1102038/97, 1102147/97, 1100918/98, 1101208/98, 1101486/98, 1101610/98, 1102044/98, 1101341/99, 11014699/99, 1101618/99 and since then Dr Nejad, Dr Mehdian, Dr Nissan and many other have made claims against the University of Greenwich but got no support from the unions. This does not include a number of cases, which were pursued through internal process, reported to the CRE and REC and swept under the rug. The Union leadership and the Attorney General has ignored the fact, that the Respondents like the Queen’s University of Belfast has paid millions in damages in the last couple of years and there are numerous pending applications against the respondents. We wonder why they do not burn midnight oil to bring changes in the Employment Act to bring proceeding against these serial Respondents?

In fact, the University failed to make progress in spite of its court’s resolution in March 1999,

“We suggest that the university conduct a survey among all staff to determine, more realistically, the extent of institutional racism and individual’s experience of it.”

Unfortunately, the Unions like NATFHE & AUT [UCU] did not make any comments in the meeting in spite of their outcry against institutional racism within their organisations and in the HE & FE sector for window dressing. In fact, they proactively represented the management although Mr. Deman was the member of both the unions.

The above statistics definitely refutes University’s claim on equal opportunity. In fact, in the opinions of many leaders of the ethnic community, the University of Greenwich is one of the worse employers located in the Racist Capital of Europe in the new millennium. In the above background the Greenwich Racial for Equality Council has included investigation of Institutional Racism at the University of Greenwich as a priority in their work programme 2000-2001 but abandoned it despite the findings of racial discrimination and victimisation [Enemy Within].

http://cemkumar.googlepgages.com
http://cemkumar.blogspot.com