Equal Justice at the UN, Part II

Eliana’s View: Insights and Reflections from the CERD Conference in Geneva

Last week, I had the privilege of participating in the UNHRC's Commission for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in Geneva—a long-held dream realised, offering a unique opportunity to contribute to positive societal change.

Our Report

We presented a detailed 49-page report addressing the systemic issues within the Metropolitan Police Service, highlighting its persistent institutional racism—a reality the commissioner, Mark Rowley, refuses to acknowledge. Despite the 25th anniversary of the Lawrence report, Sadiq Khan noted the Met has "moved backwards" since 1999. This inaction endangers Black Britons, especially amid the recent far-right targeting of BAME communities. Our recommendations include creating independent oversight bodies, amending the Equality Act 2010 to outlaw institutional racism, and providing statutory funding for the NBPA and claimants.

This is a matter of life and death for Black Britons, particularly given the far-right-inspired targeting of BAME communities in recent weeks.  If action Is not taken, many more black lives will be subject to the detriment, harassed, injured, shortened or lost.

Our recommendations include the creation of new independent oversight bodies, legislative change to allow Positive Discrimination, the amendment of the Equality Act 2010 to make Institutional Racism unlawful and statutory funding to the NBPA and discrimination victims.

Our Experience

We arrived three hours early on Monday morning, eager to present our two-minute summary to the country delegates. After quickly passing through security, we took a self-guided tour of the magnificent Palais, though it was unfortunately cut short by my new shoes (quite literally). A memorable stop was the help-yourself library, which left my luggage significantly heavier on the return journey. It was inspiring to hear from and present to the large variety of NGOs in the room from all corners of the UK. The country delegates' questions were equally compelling, delving into critical issues such as the UK’s colonial legacy, the shortcomings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the government's failure to address structural racism, the recent riots, and the UK’s reluctance to make Article 14 of I-CERD compulsory.

The meeting was followed by intense networking and informal meetings where we tried to unite with other NGOs to bring our voices and plans together. I found it like a longer, larger, more chaotic, unmoderated caucus in Model UN, with diverse perspectives and agendas that are all vying to be heard. Unfortunately, some organisations, constrained by their government funding, couldn’t fully embrace radical solutions, limiting the scope of our collective efforts. However, by sunset, we had found common ground on key issues, ready for our meeting with the UK Human rights rapporteurs the following day. The day (and night) finished with us refining our recommendations into a supplementary submission.

The next day, it was an inspiration to meet with the talented Ms Tina Stavrinaki and Mr Kut Gun who skilfully managed the plethora of NGOs ready to speak. They asked lots of constructive questions, particularly focusing on discrimination in employment, which we were able to engage with effectively whilst drawing on the expertise of other NGOs, in areas involving complex questions around devolution to hate speech.

We concluded the conference by observing the UK's responses, which were swiftly met with 45 minutes of probing questions from Ms Stavrinaki and Mr Gun. The committee raised concerns about the UK's delayed reports, inconsistent data across devolved governments, and the lack of strategic engagement in regions like Scotland and Northern Ireland. They also questioned the weakening of the Human Rights Act, the adequacy of legal aid, and the effectiveness of anti-discrimination measures. In the second round, concerns focused on the UK's handling of hate crimes, the impact of social media on marginalised communities, and the conflation of free speech with hate speech. The UK's compliance with ICERD Article 4, the implications of the UK-Rwanda treaty, and the potential repeal of the public sector equality duty were also critically examined. The questions from various country delegates ranged from statements about the heroism of Cromwell(!), the UK’s stance on Palestine, asylum seekers, the failings in legal aid and the increase in hate crimes.

The UK’s response was largely superficial, offering praise for existing strategies like the "Inclusive Britain" plan without addressing ongoing issues like workplace racism, mental health detentions, and inequalities meaningfully. Regional updates from Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales also fell short, focusing on past action plans rather than providing concrete solutions. The UK acknowledged challenges but offered little beyond broad statements and incomplete progress, making the response appear inadequate and filled with empty rhetoric. They never managed to call the riots ‘riots’ and instead called them ‘disorder’.

My trip concluded with a brief visit to the Museum about the International Red Cross, a leading human rights institution established on 22 August 1864. The museum underscored that the human rights movement has deep roots, tracing back to Hammurabi in 1750 BC, and emphasised that dignity is a fundamental human right that endures even in times of war. This principle resonates deeply in the fight against racism, which begins with acknowledging our shared humanity.

In a serendipitous encounter, I literally and embarrassingly bumped into a UNHRC member while checking out of the youth hostel. We had a lengthy and insightful conversation about her experiences at the UN and strategies for combating racism. As a representative for the "Decade for People of African Descent 2015-2024" fellowship, June shared valuable insights on working with the UNHRC and the importance of amplifying marginalised voices and addressing the legacies of colonialism.

Conclusion

My time in Geneva was eye-opening.

 The chaotic nature of the process was frustrating, as it hindered our ability to consolidate the diverse voices of NGOs into actionable insights for the rapporteurs. To improve, CERD could streamline the process by setting specific questions for each organisation, allowing 20 minutes for detailed responses where needed, and limiting those with no further queries to 2-minute updates. The current approach often results in a lot of well-meaning but less useful information and non-technical questions that don't help CERD formulate more focused and effective questions for the UK Government and other stakeholders.

Despite the chaotic and sometimes frustrating process, seeing dedicated activists at CERD fighting for change in such a challenging environment was incredibly inspiring. I left with a renewed sense of purpose, eager to apply the lessons and energy from CERD to our ongoing work. There is much to be done, but with the support of like-minded individuals, we will continue to push for the change that is so desperately needed before any more black lives are injured, destroyed or lost.