The Equality and Human Rights Commission should be abolished....

[Nigel]

... not just because it is expensive, but because it inculcates racial differences to the point of being racist.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a product of Labour's attack on meritocracy. It was created by the Labour government passing the Equality Act of 2006.

One of its predecessors, the Commission for Racial Equality ('CRE") was a hideous concoction that sucked up public funds for various activities that exacerbated, and often created, racial differences amongst our people.

It was also created on the horrid, prejudiced and abhorrent justification that the British people are inherently racist, hence ethnic minorities need to be chosen for unfair special protection. As many a visitor and settlor to the UK in the period before and after Empire would be aware, there is simply no truth to this preposterous supposition of racism.

On this basis the "CRE", like the current existence of state backed racial equality policy, belies a vulgar and wrongful accusation that is made at the British people which is an unjustified stigma. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The activities of the "CRE" included forcing thousands of employers to absurdly, and formally, proclaim they were not racist through pointless ethnic minority employment monitoring. This expensive waste of time exercise still persists today, carried out under the recent pernicious Equality Act 2010.

By its very existence the 'CRE', like the Race Relations Act, unwittingly exacerbated differences between races by giving special protection to some and not to others. This gave validation to the criticism 'pick your prejudice' that is used to describe arbitrary and irrational methods of government in the third world. It is odd that any program of this sort designed for the supposed protection of minorities is focussed on racial differences rather than cultural assimilation.

The CRE had weakened social cohesion by encouraging protection of ethnic minorities from social opprobrium that would have otherwise lead to further assimilation. It had also advocated the most unfair of all government policy interventions into the private market: the concept of 'positive discrimination'.

This puts pressure on firms to employ persons from ethnic minorities no matter how inept they are. It also gives easy votes to BNP activists by highlighting an axiomatic unfairness. There is nothing more unedifying than the concept that folk of colour need extra help not available to others. It's as if they are disabled or have some inexplicable deficiency, almost making an irony, if not a hypocrisy, of positive discrimination's aims of racial protection.

This highlights why MPs, such as Labour's Dianne Abbott, who hold exclusive black and ethnic minority forums in their constituencies and promote positive discrimination are the last sort of person ethnic minorities need representing them.

The successor to the CRE, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the 'EHRC'), should be of greater concern. As well as continuing the racist practice of unfairly protecting and promoting ethnic minorities, the 'EHRC' pursues the far dangerous and costly agenda of 'equality'. 

The pursuit of equality cannot occur without greater state intervention in all areas of private life. Human beings are naturally unequal and one doesn't need to listen to Mozart to appreciate this point. To alter the just idea that the best go top can only be done through unwanted and illiberal state intervention. Thus the pursuit of equality-based fairness (an oxymoron) is contrary to natural justice, merit and the fundamental human habit of competing to learn and improve.

The farcical instances where schools were giving first prizes to all students, as winning was inherently seen as unfair, under Labour should not be forgotten.  This weakens our children as it does, in turn, our country.

There is nothing liberal and conservative about the EHRC, so it should be one of the first things a Liberal-Conservative Coalition should be working to abolish. Conveniently, this would have the benefits of saving few quid that would help with reducing the public debt.

http://pandyablog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/12/the-equality-and-human-rights-commission-should-be-abolished-not-just-because-it-is-expensive-but-because-it-inculcates-raci.html

Not someone I would quote from, even from the Mail, but it is a good piece non the less..

[Rev.Cambeul]

Trevor Phillips confronts some uncomfortable truths about racial stereotypes, as he asks if attempts to improve equality have led to serious unwanted negative consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2iFikOwYU