Racism rife in Commons, says MP

[Marulus]

Racism rife in Commons, says MP

Dawn Butler, one of only two black women in the House, speaks out about the discrimination she has suffered from politicians of all parties

Amelia Hill and Jo Revill
The Observer
Sunday April 13 2008


Dawn Butler, the MP for Brent South. Photograph: Graham Turner


The House of Commons, held up as a beacon of democracy, has a 'dirty little secret', according to black MPs - its racism.

Dawn Butler, only the third black woman ever to have become an MP, said she faced such frequent racism from politicians of all parties that she had to 'pick her battles' to avoid being constantly in conflict with her colleagues. Disillusioned by what she has found, she is calling for a dedicated complaints department with the power to suspend politicians and send them on awareness training courses.

'I thought people in Parliament would be progressive. It is still a shock that they are not,' she said. 'Over the past 400-plus years, the only black people - and black women in particular - in Parliament have been there to cook and clean. For some politicians, it's still a shock to come face to face with a black women with any real power. Racism and sexism is Parliament's dirty little secret.'

She is backed by Diane Abbott, the only other black woman in the Commons, who said that she had suffered 20 years of prejudice. 'In the beginning, some of it was sheer ignorance. I remember being shocked when a Labour MP asked me once whether we celebrated Christmas in Jamaica,' said Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.
'It has not helped that the Labour party powers-that-be have always seen me as "uppity" but I have dealt with the racism and misogyny by reaching out to other black women.'

Butler, who won the Brent South seat in 2005 when she was 35, described how shocked she was by the attitude of a senior Conservative who challenged her right to have a drink on the Commons' Thameside terrace, a privilege reserved for MPs.

In an article written for the Fawcett Society's new collection of essays, Seeing Double: Race and Gender in Ethnic Minority Women's Lives, Butler describes how former Tory minister David Heathcote-Amory confronted her as she went to sit in the members' section on the terrace. 'He actually said to me: "What are you doing here? This is for members only."

'He then proceeded to ask me: "Are you a member?" And I said: "Yes I am, are you?" And he turned around and said to his colleague: "They're letting anybody in nowadays."

'This man could not equate the image he saw in front of him with that of an MP. It was quite upsetting for my team and so we had to take it further.'

In an interview with The Observer, Butler went on to describe how an official complaint she made was stonewalled. 'It's not as though Parliament has a human resources department that you can complain to and expect disciplinary action from,' Butler said. 'So after being told by the Tory chief whip and the Speaker of the House that there was nothing to be done about it, I had no choice but to let it drop.'

Heathcote-Amory, MP for Wells, rejected the allegation that his remarks to Butler in September 2006 were racist. 'It is quite absurd,' he said. 'What she is actually objecting to is that I didn't recognise her as a new MP. I simply asked her what she was doing at that end of the terrace, and they are quite sensitive about this kind of thing, they think that any kind of reprimand from anyone is racially motivated.' He agreed that there was a problem with too few black and minority ethnic MPs being elected.

'The trouble is that feminism has trumped everything. We are a bit obsessed with getting more women in and I think genuinely broad-based politics is one that takes people from every social and religious group. But we are exaggeratedly courteous to anyone with a different skin colour, so the idea that anything I have said is racist is absurd.'

But Butler has also described further incidents in which she claims to have suffered explicit racism from politicians, lobbyists and police who provide security at the Commons.

'I was using the members' lift in the middle of last year, when a number of politicians started talking about how cleaners and catering staff shouldn't be allowed to use that specific lift,' she recalled. 'It was obvious they were talking about me and so I started to drop hints that I was an MP.
'They didn't pick up on my hints and continued complaining in a loud voice. When we all got out of the lift, I ran along the corridor after the particular person who had been most involved, and tried to make them realise how rude it was to talk like that; it would have been rude even if I had been a cleaner or caterer,' she said.

Zohra Moosa, editor of the Fawcett Society book, said: 'With only two black women MPs and not a single Asian woman, Parliament has never once been representative of Britain. There is no excuse for an unrepresentative democracy in this day and age but, until we change the way our institutions work, we will never have the politicians we need.'

[source]

[Susi]

With black women in Parliament, it will never be representative of Britain.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Susi

With black women in Parliament, it will never be representative of Britain.

Anyway, and in any country, a Parliament hardly represents a people. Parliaments claim to represent people, nuance.

[orieleye]

Originally Posted by Marulus

'In the beginning, some of it was sheer ignorance. I remember being shocked when a Labour MP asked me once whether we celebrated Christmas in Jamaica,' said Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

He was probably thinking about Rastafarians, so it was hardly ignorance. A simple answer would have been, 'yes, we're mostly Christians'. Instead she was shocked and then harboured the grievance for years. No wonder there are only two of them in Westminster.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Susi

With black women in Parliament, it will never be representative of Britain.

Britain being a multiracial and multicultural state, I don't see how she will never be a representative for it?

[Der]

Originally Posted by Cenél nGabraín

Britain being a multiracial and multicultural state, I don't see how she will never be a representative for it?

Britain is much more than a multiracial and multicultural state, it’s a world view based on multiracial and multicultural cooperation that’s why the subjects of the Commonwealth are also considered "British".

A black or Indian woman in parliament could perfectly represent "britishness"

[Susi]

To me the first step of separating the union is to cleanse it from the multicultural and multiracial view. Britain (as in the Isles), as it was known many years ago ago wasn't full of blacks and indians. Should I also say that the assemblies and parliaments of Europe should be full of blacks and indians and so forth because otherwise they couldn't perfectly represent "Spanishness" or "Frenchness" and so forth? Or do neither of these nations have an imperial history either?

Most "subjects of the Commonwealth" are no longer considered British, in Canada, before 1947 they were given British citizenship, but afterwards, they were merely Canadian.

I know the situation of "Britain" is hardly ideal for us (I'm looking at you, the one with the name I dare not attempt to type because I don't feel like making four key strokes per accent ,-,). But to allow it to degenerate beyond repair dooms our attempts to get rid of it and still emerge relatively unscathed.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Susi

To me the first step of separating the union is to cleanse it from the multicultural and multiracial view. Britain (as in the Isles), as it was known many years ago ago wasn't full of blacks and indians. Should I also say that the assemblies and parliaments of Europe should be full of blacks and indians and so forth because otherwise they couldn't perfectly represent "Spanishness" or "Frenchness" and so forth? Or do neither of these nations have an imperial history either?

The main question is of how one sees the concept of Britain, whether it is a purely geographic reality, an island on which three nations - England, Scotland and Wales - coexist, and maybe tomorrow three independent states, or maybe something more, an ideology, or I don't know what.

Originally Posted by Susi

Most "subjects of the Commonwealth" are no longer considered British, in Canada, before 1947 they were given British citizenship, but afterwards, they were merely Canadian.

You are speaking of Caribbeans, Indians, Pakistanis etc. settling to Canada?

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Susi

To me the first step of separating the union is to cleanse it from the multicultural and multiracial view.

The very Union its self is multicultural and, (though it can be debated..) mutliracial. Scotland hasn't had the full impact of non-European immigration yet, so we need to get out fo the Union ASAP. Screw trying to "cleanse" Britain, the longer it stays together, the worse for us.

Britain (as in the Isles), as it was known many years ago ago wasn't full of blacks and indians. Should I also say that the assemblies and parliaments of Europe should be full of blacks and indians and so forth because otherwise they couldn't perfectly represent "Spanishness" or "Frenchness" and so forth? Or do neither of these nations have an imperial history either?

France and Spain are Nations however and not just states that are based on mutlicultural and, (again, can be debated..) mutliracial concepts.

Most "subjects of the Commonwealth" are no longer considered British, in Canada, before 1947 they were given British citizenship, but afterwards, they were merely Canadian.

And.. ?

I know the situation of "Britain" is hardly ideal for us (I'm looking at you, the one with the name I dare not attempt to type because I don't feel like making four key strokes per accent ,-,).

Don't use the accents I wont complain.

But to allow it to degenerate beyond repair dooms our attempts to get rid of it and still emerge relatively unscathed.

Like i've said, the sooner Scotland gets out of the Union, the better. We wont have to worry about non-Europeans as much as England, because they make up such a small percent of the population.

So, I don't think Scotland needs to worry about "cleansing" the UK to emerged as unscathed as possible, we just need to get out of it .

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Marulus

The main question is of how one sees the concept of Britain, whether it is a purely geographic reality, an island on which three nations - England, Scotland and Wales - coexist, and maybe tomorrow three independent states, or maybe somthing more, an ideology, or I don't know what.

Britain is an ideology as well, but I see things existing as the way they are for some time further at least.

You are speaking of Caribbeans, Indians, Pakistanis etc. settling to Canada?

No, basically anyone who was born in Canada before 1947 or became "Canadian" (which didn't exist) before 1947 became, by default, British. But after 1947, they became Canadian. I'm unsure what happened to the pre1947 crowd but perhaps their citizenship was transferred to Canadian.

Originally Posted by Cenél nGabraín

The very Union its self is multicultural and, (though it can be debated..) mutliracial. Scotland hasn't had the full impact of non-European immigration yet, so we need to get out fo the Union ASAP. Screw trying to "cleanse" Britain, the longer it stays together, the worse for us.

I understand your concerns. You're already foot-in-the-door, but it's a little mean not to give a sh*t about your neighbours. Once we're full of non-Europeans, they'll trickle over to you. ^^

It's worse for all of us, but I can't realistically see it breaking apart.

France and Spain are Nations however and not just states that are based on mutlicultural and, (again, can be debated..) mutliracial concepts.

Mmm, yes. But to me the idea of Britain as "multicultural" and "multiracial" is a much narrower idea of "multi". As in, the multiculturalism of the Isles. As in, Scots, Welsh, English, (Northern) Irish.

And.. ?

Was answering someone's question.

Don't use the accents I wont complain.

Thanks mate.

Like i've said, the sooner Scotland gets out of the Union, the better. We wont have to worry about non-Europeans as much as England, because they make up such a small percent of the population.

,-, I wish you'd care more about your neighbours. We don't have to always be in conflict. ,------, Sure, it's the state of things for some time, but can't we be friends? ^^

So, I don't think Scotland needs to worry about "cleansing" the UK to emerged as unscathed as possible, we just need to get out of it .

Remember that our lovely Union is run by a Scottish socialist elite.

[Delbáeth]

So! We should risk the Scottish Nation for England so as not to come off too "mean"?! .. No thanks .

YouTube - Billy Connolly - Evil Scotsman

Hate to break it to you, but i'm an evil Scotsman! .

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Marulus

The main question is of how one sees the concept of Britain, whether it is a purely geographic reality, an island on which three nations - England, Scotland and Wales - coexist, and maybe tomorrow three independent states, or maybe something more, an ideology, or I don't know what.

It can hardly be argued to be "purely" and exclusively a geopolitical/geographic reality. One can call them 3 unrelated nations as much as one pleases - but they are neighbors, and if anything, we can be certain that with geographical proximity comes cultural, and anyone from the outside would be kidding himself if he saw no cultural parallels, as in the extent seen typically with neighboring nations. This does not justify a complete cultural and geopolitical union, far from - but the fact that they are 3 nations does not justify complete isolationism either. It probably comes down to the will of the people, but as long as they are neighbors they will remain related to whatever extent, and will ultimately have to deal with each other.

[Delbáeth]

No one is trying to justify complete isolationism. The fact that you assume Nationaism equates isolationism is just..

Of course, when the peoples of the UK go their own ways, there will obviously remain close ties. But it isn't about isolationism anyway, it's about a peoples right to their own National Determination.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

It can hardly be argued to be "purely" and exclusively a geopolitical/geographic reality. One can call them 3 unrelated nations as much as one pleases - but they are neighbors, and if anything, we can be certain that with geographical proximity comes cultural, and anyone from the outside would be kidding himself if he saw no cultural parallels, as in the extent seen typically with neighboring nations. This does not justify a complete cultural and geopolitical union, far from - but the fact that they are 3 nations does not justify complete isolationism either. It probably comes down to the will of the people, but as long as they are neighbors they will remain related to whatever extent, and will ultimately have to deal with each other.

What is your point?

I certainly agree with Cenél nGabraín, Britain is a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic (racial) state, with a shameful imperialistic past, I don't see it how a black woman couldn't be British as it's not an ehtnic or national identity.

Cultural parrarels, in a way yes, they are neighbours anyway, but still, what does that proove? You could draw cultural parralels between nations in Yugoslavia as well, but that doesn't change the fact that Yugoslavia was an artificial and multi-ethnic state.

Who advocated complete isolationism?