THE DEMAND for a law against racial harassment has become central to a wing of the anti racist movement. Ten years ago, HARRY COHEN MP introduced a Bill into parliament calling for such a law, and has been one of the main motivators of such demands in parliament since then. SOCIALIST OUTLOOK spoke to Harry Cohen about the aims of such legislation, and some of its limitations. SO: What did you aim to achieve with the Bill on racial harassment? HC: The Racial Harassment. Bill was an extremely radical Bill; it was the first time that any legislation against racial attacks had been presented to the House of Commons.
Before that it was claimed that it was not possible to introduce this kind of legislation, as it was claimed that it was not practical. This bill showed that it was: it had a whole schedule that pointed out the different types of racial harassment that black people had to face from day to day.
Since then it's got worse and worse. The British Crime Survey, which only showed the major racist attacks, estimated attacks on Black and Asian people at something like 140,000 per year. That's an enormous number.
RACISM SO: The vast majority of these attacks are already a criminal offence, only the perpetrators are seldom prosecuted. How would further legislation help to deal with this? HC: Well the fact of the matter is that a lot of these attacks may already be illegal, but the law doesn't recognise the racial motivation behind them.
That does add a new and most serious dimension to the crime. It should be recognised in the law and recognised in the punishment.
My bill did three things; it made a specific offence of racial harassment - the "smaller" levels of racial harassment that still make people's lives a misery still are not covered in the present law. My bill would make that an offence.
It also puts a specific duties on the police to investigate all reported cases of racial harassment and then to make public what they've done. That isn't the cace now.
Thirdly, instead of the victims having to flee for their own safety from their own homes, it meant that action could be taken against the perpetrators.
The overtly racist elements could be evicted if they were tenants; and if they were owner occupiers measures CHITE ПІСНІ ВАСі* FIGHT RACISM could be taken to get them out. That isn't in the law at the moment.
Some councils are doing their best against racist attackers, but they are very few. There is very little coordinated action from the law or from the government saying that racial harassers have got to be dealt with. The current law doesn't cover any of those points. SO: There is an argument that the demand for new legislation could prove a diversion to the anti-racist movement from the day to day struggle against racism which by necessity can't be determined simply by legislation. HC: No, I don't agree with that, I think they go hand in glove.
I'm not saying that you can pass a legislation and all the problems are solved: far from it.
Most of the problems as you rightly pointed out are on the streets, and racist and fascist organisations need to be tackled there, but it needs to be done in a climate and a legal framework that makes it clear that the state is against racism.
At the moment we have a number of examples of institutionalised racism; immigration law, the way the police deal with Black communities, stop and search and things like that.
All this legislation positively promotes discrimination: the state is perceived as encouraging racism.
The Tory government plays a role in apvotes in it for them. a great lie. speak. Then there would be no excuses. controls. dimension.
Tory backbenchers are constantly playing the racist card when it suits them, ranting about "floods of immigrants" which is just The state is seen to promote racism far more than it promotes anti-racism, despite the fine words that ministers occasionally The law should take an absolutely clear position that it is anti-racist, and then we can put pressure on the organisations of the state, the police to actually implement it. SO: How do you see the development of the European Union, and its immimade in parliament on the Maastricht debate was on immigration What was being proposed there was that everything should be decided by an unelected committee which could put the barriers up around fortress Europe in a big way.
This body would not be accountable to anyone, and every state would have to comply, and would be bringing racism to a new Now I oppose what our government does here on immigration, because they break up families and won't allow them to be re- this out? united; they deport people - often with considerable violence, and I object to that.
But at least we do have a say through parliament, we can raise it with the minister responsible, maybe if we get a Labour government we can make some changes to that sort of policy and how it's implemented. If it goes to an unelected European commissioner, the power to get anything altered will be minimalised. I think that the Maastricht treaty is bad in the respect that we will have even more racist legislation. SO: What should the demands of the anti-racist movement be? HC: There are a number of demands that anti-racists should make. Some are to do with changes in the law. I think that the overwhelming majority of anti-racist activists would like to see a change in the law, and would like to see a racial harassment bill. Things have moved on since 1985 and there have been new drafts of legislative change, by ARA, the Society of Black Lawyers and by the Commission for Racial Equality. I would like to see a change in immigration laws, which are grossly unfair. I would like to see discrimination ended.
I've just received a paper from the GMB which points out that for black youth in London between the ages of 16 and 24, unemployment has reached 60%. We have anti-discrimination legislation on the statute book that clearly is not being carried out.
It is appalling that 60% of black youth are unemployed in London, and we need to strengthen legislation to deal with this.
Of course the struggle also goes on on the streets: for example the BNP in Tower Hamlets must be defeated in the elections, and can't be allowed to assault and intimidate black people, so self-defence organisations do have an important role to play.
Again self-defence does have an important role to play, though at least part of that pressure must be on the police to act against racists and racism.
In some areas the police have improved since 1985 but in other areas there has hardly been any change at all and adopt policies of blaming the victims.
There has got to be community pressure on the police to deal with racism, so it's a mixture of the law and the community, and both are vitally important. SO: Tony Blair said in an interview with The Voice last week that he was supporting a law against racial harassment. Is the Labour Party likely to carry HC: Well it is Labour policy; that is the impact that my Bill has had, even though the government has opposed it and dragged its feet all the way. The Labour Party will implement it, I think, or a form of it, though that will depend on the wording and what it commits it to. But it is an enormous step forward, in the context of the overall picture.
IN ISRAEL •under a 'Labour' government, just as in Britain under the Tories, the talk is of privatisation and market values.
But, in a twist characteristic of the distinct form of capitalist exploitation brought about by the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, many of the enterprises involved are under the direct control. not of the state. but of the Histadrut, Israel's TUC.
In last year's elections, the Labour Party, which had controlled the Hisdtadrut since its foundation, was defeated by a new coalition of Zionist left and liberal parties and independents, headed by former Health Minister Haim Ramon.
This new bloc, which took almost 50% of the votes, represents a new generation of Israeli activists who call themselves 'post-Zionist'.
Ramon, who resigned from Rabin's cabinet in protest at the government's failure to expropriate the Histadrut's sick fund, which insures over 70% of Israel's population, campaigned against the corruption and bureaucracy of the Histadrut old-guard.
A technocrat and a moderate on Israeli-Palestinian affairs, he is considered by many as a likely successor to Rabin as leader of the Labour Party.
Although often depicted as "Israel's powerful trades union confederation', the Histadrut is far from being an independent trade union. It is in fact a vast corporation, one of the major economic powers in Israel, and a central element of the unique Israeli mixture of state capitalism and a free-market bourgeoisie.
It is also a full participant in the economic exploitation of the Palestinian people and the Occupied Territories. From its establishment in 1920 (as the 'General Federation of Hebrew Labour in the Land of Israel'), the Histadrut was an avowedly Zionist and exclusively Jewish body, committed to the principle of 'Conquest of Labour', ie excluding Palestinian workers from employment.
Former Prime Minister Golda Meir remarked that in 1928 she "was put on the Histadrut Executive Committee, at a time when (it) was not just a trade union organisation. It was a great colonising agency".
Banks
As part of its contribution to the creation of a Jewish state, the Histadrut developed many institutions not normally associated with trades unions, including a bank, an insurance company, a construction company, bus, shipping and air transport companies, a sick fund, newspapers, agricultural and industrial trading agencies, a publishing house, bookshops, hospitals, department stores, supermarkets, vocational schools, an electronics company, and even Israel's major soccer clubs.
The 'Department for Trade Union Affairs' is a tiny part of this vast empire, which has become the country's largest employer after the state, producing 21% of Israel's GNP in 1988.
It controlled one-third of the private sector of the economy, including 82% of agriculture, 90% of transport, 25% of industry, 35% of banking and 23% of insurance.
Employers
But this vast wealth and power is not used for the benefit of Israel's working class. In fact, 80% of the citizens of Israel are members of the Histadrut, and there is no bar to private employers joining, and even holding office.
The Histadrut, like any other employer, has sacked workers, cut wages, and worsened working conditions. In September 1990, the Histadrut-owned Soltam company fired workers, whom it described as 'riffraff, from its Yokneam factory; when the workers protested and set up a picket line, the company set dogs on them.
Although affiliated to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the Histadrut was a leading participant in Israel's trade with South Africa. The Israeli daily Ha'Aretz reported in 1982 that Histadrut-controlled companies "constitute the main part of foreign trade with South Africa".
The Histadrut's Koor subsidiary set up, in partnership with the Iron and Steel Corporation of South Africa (ISCOR), a major sanctionsbreaking enterprise, known as ISKOOR to import coal and semiprocessed steel from South Africa, process it in Israel, and export it to the EC under Israel's preferential trade agreements.
ISKOOR, Soltam and the electronics company Tadiran also provided arms and other military equipment to South Africa.
The colonisatory role of the Histadrut is seen most clearly in its relation to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories.
All workers in Israel, whether or not they are members of the Histadrut, are obliged to pay an 'organisation tax' of about 0.8% of their salary to the Histadrut for 'trade union protection'.
Palestinians from the Occupied Territories are also obliged to contribute to it, even though they cannot become members of the Histadrut.
Most of the trade union work of the Histadrut is carried out by local trades councils; these have not been established in the Occupied Territories, and would in any case have no standing against employers in Israel.
Workers' Hotline, a group working with Palestinian migrant workers, has raised dozens of cases in which the Histadrut has failed to represent the interests of these workers in cases of redundancy, breach of collective agreements, denial of minimum wages, discriminatory treatment by Israeli social security, illegal arrest and other denials of their rights.
Palestinians
In effect. millions of dollars have been exacted by the Histadrut from Palestinian workers, for minimal services. The Histadrut, which formally does not support the annexation of the Occupied Territories, is heavily involved in construction work in the illegal settlements.
It has also established Workers' Councils - for Jewish settlers only -in the Occupied Territories. Most strikes in Israel have been coordinated by local Workers' Councils, which are generally more militant than the officials of the Histadrut's "Department of Trade Union Affairs"
The Histadrut itself has never conducted a major strike. Instead, it has frequently faced strikes of its own workers.
These it has either repressed with state help, as with the Haifa seamen's strike of 1952, or through co-option of strikers leaders, as with the El Al strike of 1982.
It is this body which both the government and its own leaders are now attempting to dismantle. Labour Party leader Rabin has made his position explicit:
"Trade unions that reject privatisation are worse than Hizbollah", he said during a recent visit to New York.
Histadrut Secretary-General Ramon, meanwhile, wishes to develop the Histadrut's core enterprises, while divesting it of encumbrances such as the sick Fund and the Department of Trade Union Affairs. This could lead to the development of truly independent trade unions in Israel.
However, unless these groups clearly identify the reasons for the Histadrut's failure to operate as a true trade union - in particular, its task in the Zionist colonisation of Palestine - then they will remain SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No.80, March 25 1995, Page 7 JOHN MAJOR's flying visit to Gaza on March 14 appears to have been a pathetic effort to bolster the credibility of Yassir Arafat's desperately impoverished Palestinian ghetto statelet.
Major, no doubt with one eye on the prospects for forcing further concessions from Sinn Fein leaders in Ireland, declared his support for the peace process which is designed to leave the Palestinians powerless and poverty-stricken in their own occupied homeland.
He announced a tokenistic new aid package worth just £82 million, and cynically urged the British private sector to get involved in the development of Gaza. marginal, unable to avoid making the same mistakes.
The development of an independent workers' movement in Israel and Palestine requires a break from Zionism, from the Histadrut's support for Israeli apartheid, and from Israeli state capitalism.
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No. 80, March 25 1995. Page 8. "Lord McAlpine is right. The Conservative Party does need a spell in opposition. ... Few self-respecting people today would want to join the Conservative Party, and fewer still will be new recruits to work for it in the constituencies. ... A Tory Party in opposition would be different. Galvanised by defeat, it would rethink, regroup and reorganise. Membership would grow and the money come in once more."
peasing racism when they feel there are perceived as encouraging racism" & FIGHT
"At the moment we have a number of examples of institutionalised racism; immigration law, the way the police deal with Black communities, stop and search and things like that. All this legislation positively promotes discrimination: the state is
gration policy in relation to this? HC: The only major contribution I