Race, the Tories and the law
LETTERS
From R. A. Cline, C. D. Pikher, Dr T. A. A. Hunter, Robert Stanton, Sir Roland Penrose, Mrs Coral Ann Howells, John E. Robson, Goronwy Rees, Michael Calvert, Colin Dauris, Geoffrey Begnen, J. A. Sian.
Sir: Mr Hooberman's letter displays impre- cision both of thought and expression: I. One of the manifestations of racial hatred, which may be a public menace, is 'conduct amounting to racial discrimination': this is what the Bill is about.
2. If Mr Hooberman really thinks that the Race Relations Board, as an inquisitor (not simply as 'the enforcement body') is to perform 'similar duties' to those of factory and public health inspectors, his notions of similarity are eccentric, to put it no higher.
3. I was concerned with what Clause 22 of the Bill says, not with what Mr Hooberman thinks it intends to say. The fact that it protects discriminators .does not prevent its protecting informers; neither is desirable, particularly the latter. I never, of course, .suggested that the Board would not have to prove its case by independent evidence; that would indeed be a novelty.
4. Iris nonsense to describe conciliation as 'the main means of enforcement': Part H of the Bill itself is headed 'Conciliation and Enforce- ment': the former dealt with in Clauses 13-17, the latter in Clauses 18-22. 5. Had Mr Hooberman read on, he would have found a series of examples of the kind of enforcement provisions which the Bill lacks. Ineffective provisions are worse than useless; they merely put a premium on evasion.
I do not suggest that race legislation neces- sarily fails; simply that this would.
Previous page
