http://www.acdauk.org.uk Email: [email protected] Patron: Miss Joanna Lumley Runnymede Trust Email: [email protected] 7 March 2021 Dear Sir/Madam Re: Caste based discrimination, hate and harassment 1. Please find the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance’s (ACDA) response to the Runnymede Trust’s call for evidence on the Government’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on behalf of civil society organisations. This submission by the ACDA, and our recommendations to UN’s CERD, are in respect of Caste Discrimination law and hate crime and hate speech. ACDA is supported by numerous Dalit organisations in the UK we work closely with. Amongst these are the Federation of Ambedkarites and Buddhist Organisations UK, Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha UK, and the Bhagwan Valmik Sabhas. 2. The ACDA was formed in 2008 to monitor and oppose Caste-based discrimination (CBD) in the UK and abroad. We are registered with the Charity Commission (Charity No: 1138012) and an organisation of unpaid volunteers. We support victims and those who suffer from CBD and challenge discriminatory practices in organisations. 3. We request that CERD, in line with its Concluding Observations on the twenty-first to twenty-third periodic reports of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on 26 August 2016 (paragraphs 7 and 8); and its prior recommendations on the issue, strongly recommends to the UK Government that it implements the law agreed by the UK Parliament on 23 April 2013 and implements Section 9(5) a of the Equality Act 2010 (EA2010). This would make Caste an aspect of Race as one of the protected characteristics. This clarity in the law will raise awareness of Caste-base discrimination (CBD) in employment, provision of services and education and prevent suffering of those who are subjected to CBD. 4. We request that CERD questions the UK Government’s continued stance that the it would rather monitor litigation in the UK courts that may test or support the Tirkey v Chandhok Employment Tribunal Judgment (September 2015) than provide the clarification in the law. 1 Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance (ACDA), c/o Dr R Chand, Garden City Surgery, 57-59 Station Rd, Letchworth, Herts, SG6 3BJ Charity Number – 1138012 http://www.acdauk.org.uk Email: [email protected] Patron: Miss Joanna Lumley The Tirkey Judgment highlighted the need for clarification of the law. ACDA’s assessment of the law needs to be implemented is set out in this submission. Furthermore, we have first-hand experience of CBD related legal cases that have been settled out of court with Non- Disclosure Agreements (NDA. These are preventing the monitoring of litigation that may not end up in the courts allowing Government NGOs to make an assessment of the scale of the problem. 5. CERD in its 2016 Concluding Observations also expressed serious concerns about the sharp increase in racist hate speech and hate crimes. We request that CERD calls on the UK Government to make specific, Caste-related hate speech and crimes within its Hate Crime laws. We have already called on the UK Government to include Caste as a factor in hate crimes and hate speeches. Our submission to them has been based on evidence of those who have lived experience of Caste domination, Caste-based discrimination and Caste-related hatred, threats, violence and abuse and how it affects communities here in Britain. 6. We are deeply disappointed the Government has not implemented section 9(5)a of the Equality Act 2010 despite an implementation timetable. Instead it carried out a flawed consultation exercise asking responders to choose between a legislative solution or case law on a piece of legislation that had already been passed by parliament. The process brushed aside the sovereignty of parliament. Our voices, and that of the victims and sufferers we represent, have fallen on deaf ears. 7. The Government has failed to implement the recommendations from UNCERD in relation to CBD in the UK. Instead it has disappointingly sought to repeal the power on Caste in the EA2010 arguing CBD can be dealt with under existing legislation covering ethnic origin. This is a direction that ACDA and some other organisations representing Dalit groups in the UK are opposed to and does not adequately cover all cases of caste-based discrimination. 8. In addition to the UN CERD’s calls for implementation of the law on CBD, the law is supported by: i. Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). In its response in July 2018 to the Government’s decision to repeal the law, the EHRC said “Victims of caste discrimination will continue to have limited legal protection by the government ruling out a change in the law and restricting the scope of protection to what can be interpreted through case law. The 2 Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance (ACDA), c/o Dr R Chand, Garden City Surgery, 57-59 Station Rd, Letchworth, Herts, SG6 3BJ Charity Number – 1138012 http://www.acdauk.org.uk Email: [email protected] Patron: Miss Joanna Lumley government has missed a crucial opportunity to improve legal clarity and has taken a step back by looking to repeal the duty to include caste as an aspect of race in the Equality Act 2010….”1. EHRC expert opinion and position on the issue is significant and the omission of this is worrying; ii. Dozens of organisations like the ACDA and others, in Britain who have been supporting sufferers of Caste discrimination and harassment and calling for legal protection for victims and clarity in the law; iii. The Joint Committee of Human Rights (JCHR). In June 2019, the Chair of JCHR, Harriet Harman wrote to Ms Penny Mordaunt, Minister for Women and Equalities, asking her to implement the caste discrimination law agreed in April 2013 (see attached) 9. Internationally, Twitter2 and YouTube3 and Facebook4 recognise in their guidance Caste hate speech as being unacceptable. Here in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service has recognised Caste as a factor in Honour-based Violence and Forced Marriage5. 10. The Shadow Justice Secretary, David Lammy published a review in 20176, into the treatment and outcomes of BAME individuals in the criminal justice system. This must now be implemented to ensure that people regardless of their racial background are treated equally. Recent figures show that 9 out of 10 children on remand in London are from a BAME background. It would appear that inherent bias already exists in the criminal justice system. The absence of Caste within the hate crime law would further disadvantage victims by compounding its effects. 11. The Government made the decision to repeal the law based on responses to its delayed 2017 public consultation (promised in July 2013). This was a flawed consultation that should have been about 1 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/caste-consultation-our-response- government-statement 2 https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy 3 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939?hl=en-GB 4 https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech 5 https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/honour-based-violence-and-forced-marriage 6 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/21/nine-out-of-10-children-on-remand-in-london- come-from-bame-background? CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other 3 Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance (ACDA), c/o Dr R Chand, Garden City Surgery, 57-59 Station Rd, Letchworth, Herts, SG6 3BJ Charity Number – 1138012 http://www.acdauk.org.uk Email: [email protected] Patron: Miss Joanna Lumley how best to implement the law as previously promised – not about whether to implement it. The Government said they wanted to consult the communities likely to be affected by the legislation. By that they didn’t mean just the Dalits who were the main sufferers of the discrimination. They meant the whole of the Hindu and Sikh communities who had been lobbying against the law using the argument, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that there was no Caste- based discrimination in the UK. By accepting the views of these groups, it is like the Government is saying, “We’re not going to introduce legislation on race discrimination because white or blue folk might object to it.” Or, “We’re not going to have legislation on gender because men didn’t like it.” But that’s what the UK Government did. Additionally, the limited legal protection and context the Tirkey judgement provides is brushed aside. When asked about a preferred option, a very significant majority - 2,879 – came out in support of implementation of the law in the consultation responses. Only 94 said they supported case law, and 4,722 said they didn’t know. 12. The Tirkey v Chandok Employment Appeal Tribunal December 2014 Judgment - may allow victims to pursue their legal cases under existing law. In our view, the Tirkey case provides only limited legal protection on ‘ethnic’ grounds and the principles of that specific case law could be overturned anytime. Furthermore, seeking redress on ‘ethnic origins’ makes it difficult to cover CBD because many people who have arrived and settled in Britain come from the same geographical region e.g. Punjab, Gujarat, and Maharashtra etc. India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan. These groups have several common languages (e.g. Punjabi, Marathi, Gujarati, Urdu); belong to a common religion; have similar eating habits; have common dress and similar colour of skin. To a non-South Asian employer or teacher, these groups look racially and culturally identical. But evidence shows some still face discrimination on the basis of Caste from each other. 13. Caste and CBD and harassment are social and cultural issues that cannot be ignored in the UK or by the law.