Bigotry: The Problems and the Solutions

As Britain becomes increasingly culturally diverse, the government is recognising the need for a more tolerant society. Often one hears the words, “Britain is multicultural but not tolerant” Whilst this remains a constant hindrance to Britain’s progress, there is a tendency for the government and wider society to tackle intolerance by adopting and adapting policies to clearly defined discriminated groups. In recent years, the Home Office has released a number of manuals to police forces, schools and employers on creating social acceptance of recognised communities and individuals. This is a prerequisite for the harmonized society that the government is attempting to construct, but it only scratches the surface. Whilst society may become more tolerant of certain social groupings, the problem of creating open-mindedness to differing beliefs, creeds, values and opinions is a result of ridding society of socially earmarked prejudices. But this assumption coupled with the survival of the age-old Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) attitude embedded in British behaviour has allowed bigotry to prevail.

Should one be concerned with what level of intolerance certain individuals feel if they themselves are not wronged by it? Should discriminated Asians, for example, care about prejudiced lesbians and gays?

The government aired their concerns over a potential culture of intolerance in Britain. What may begin as a dogmatic perception of single parents or co-habitating partners may develop into a chauvinistic attitude towards unconformity to the conventional and conservative married couple. Bigoted views may not affect one initially, but the potential domino effect of bigotry is a society lined with bias over slightest deviations of opinion.

When Jack Straw stated Muslim women in his Blackburn constituency should remove their veil while visiting his surgery there was outrage among Muslims and MPs alike. Straw defended his statement claiming that “…wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations difficult,” but Muslim representatives argued that Straw did not have the authority to ask Muslim women to adapt to unnecessary requirements. A month later, a legal advisor was told by a judge to remove her veil in a Stoke-on-Trent court. Such events have been described as blatant displays of bigotry and an infringement on the very basic of human rights.

In a speech in 2003, former Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart said, “In Britain we have a proud tradition of supporting free speech and allowing people to follow their own beliefs. The British way is to support religious freedom. The government’s duty to all its citizens is to give them the freedom to practise their own faith.” Certain traditions like the veil in the Muslim faith are part of one’s right to practise one’s faith. However if members of society are biased towards characteristics of one’s belief system that do not visibly impede their way of life then it is the party with the contested beliefs who will experience a violation of their rights. Human Rights organisations argue that such rights are our freedoms as individuals and society must unite to protect them or risk losing them. They also argue that if individuals cannot express their religious beliefs then right wing political parties should be prohibited from publicly stating their manifestos. Yet if Britain is to become a model country of tolerance then acceptance should transcend the borders of subjects such as religion and be universal.

Bigotry also acts as a catalyst for violence. The 1980s and 1990s saw Northern Ireland rife with violence based on intolerance of dissimilar political allegiance and the intolerance has continued to hinder peace talks.

In many cases, bigotry is dismissed as harmless banter, but its effects can be significantly detrimental. In June last year, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) launched a Ron Atkinson bigotry award -- praising radio stations, TV stations and newspapers for “…the most egregiously negative contribution to race relations in the past year.” Critics argue that such events are building traditions of acceptable bigotry. Whilst government pushes political correctness to new extremes, basic respect for diversity and difference may soon become a thing of the past.

What, then, are the solutions? Scotland paved the way by introducing a Bigotry Bill in 2002, which imposes tougher sentences for bigots. Nevertheless, the Association of Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) are wary of the number of criminals that will be brought to justice under the new law, suggesting that proof will be much harder to obtain. Policymakers argue the real solution lies in educating children about bigotry or risk rearing a new generation of intolerant narrow-minded individuals. Schools in Scotland have teamed up with the European Parliament in a bid to teach children about the wrongs of bigotry and this has been deemed a “success.”

Bigotry awards or the BBC-backing of a Radio One DJ’s negative use of the word ‘gay’ suggest a need for tighter media regulations on prejudicial presentations that do not necessarily infringe upon freedom of speech but simultaneously, do not quietly support the voicing of bigoted views.