United Kingdom - Executive Summary (cont.)

<-- Back

In education, Muslims have a higher than average rate of participation in post-compulsory education and at the same time have the highest rate of young people without qualifications. A large part of this, of course, reflects the lack of educational qualifications among the first generation of migrants. The key debates surrounding differences in attainment seem to point towards socio-economic status, differential effects of cultural discrimination and social capital in the form of family encouragement and expectations as the main factors for the diversity in educational attainment.

Many Muslims feel that various key arguments against state-funded Muslim schools demonstrate the level of prejudice towards Muslims and Islam, and myths surrounding the goals Muslims have for their community’s educational welfare. Key criticisms of Muslim schools are that they are monolithic and that children who attend such schools will not appreciate or understand diversity. Johnson and Castelli’s (2002) research on Muslim schools in England described most as multiethnic schools, drawing children from a wide range of social and economic backgrounds. They argued that although such schools are mono-faith they portray diverse interpretations of Islam. They point out that some establishments are increasingly gaining reputations for educational excellence.

According to the 2001 Census, Muslims demonstrate the highest levels of economic inactivity when compared with all other groups. Among young people aged 16–24, Muslim men reported the highest proportions of unemployment (three times greater than the national average). Muslim women in this age cohort have unemployment levels that are twice that of the national average. Muslims are concentrated in jobs such as cooks, sales assistants/retail cashiers/checkout operators, process plant and machine operatives, assemblers and routine operatives, sewing machinists, taxi/cab drivers, labourers in foundries, waiting staff and security guards. They are also concentrated in professions including restaurant and catering managers, software professionals, medical practitioners, chartered and certified accountants and civil service administrators and assistants.

Discrimination is one of the factors that are identified as impacting on the employment position of Muslims. Others include the unequal impact of the decline in certain industries in producing long-term unemployment. Many Muslim communities are concentrated in areas which faced the greatest decline of traditional industries. They were therefore among the most severely affected in terms of loss of jobs. This, coupled with the fact that the majority of these communities had no formal training or skills (human capital), meant that they were unable to find opportunities in other sectors.

Just as post war commonwealth migrants were at the bottom end of the labour market, they also found themselves at the poorest end of the private sector housing market. Chain migration led to clusters of communities on both regional and intra-urban levels. There is however, little evidence to support any claims of ‘normative’ self segregation; of Muslims preferring to live in Muslim only areas. A study of census data shows that all Muslims in England live in wards with mixed populations.

The 2001 Census found that in respect of housing tenure, approximately half of Muslims reported owner occupation, compared with 68 per cent of the population as a whole. A practice of pooling together their limited resources mean that Pakistani Muslims report high levels of owner occupation although often in over-crowded housing in undesirable areas. In addition, Muslims reported the highest percentage living in social rented accommodation, at just under a quarter of respondents, compared with one in five in the general population.

Some studies suggest that discrimination and Islamophobia ‘contributes to health disparities – “difference in the incidence, prevalence, mortality and burden of diseases and other adverse health conditions that exist” - among Muslim minorities’. They argue that ‘societal forces of marginalisation and “faith-blind” health policies challenge the health of Muslim families and their access to culturally appropriate care’ (Laird et. al 2007: 924). The 1999 Health Survey for England includes data on religious affiliation and the 2001 National Census also included cross-tabulations of data on health by religion. When controlling for age, Muslims reported the highest proportion of males (13 per cent) and females (16 per cent) stating that their health was ‘not good’. Females were more likely to report that their health was not good across all groups, however the groups with the largest gender gaps were Muslims, Sikhs and then Hindus. Muslims also have the highest rates of disability when controlling for age structure. Almost a quarter of females (24 per cent) reported having a disability, as did 21 per cent of males.

One key area of debate within the area of health and services is the low take-up of services by ethnic minorities. This is of particular relevance to Muslims as they demonstrate higher proportions of poor health and disability, suggesting greater need and support from outside formal services. Some research suggests that the low take up rate of family support services was not due to a lack of willingness to share the care of their children but because the services offered were either not fully articulated to the parents or were found to be inappropriate. Some service providers view the issue as being more related to group preferences than any other factor. Stereotypes of extended family life and minority communities feed the assumption among service planners and providers that South Asian people are more willing to look after their own than the White majority. This is an assumption that not only relies on the fact that those in need of support have extended families members at hand, but also that such families members are willing, if able, to provide support.

Research around issues such as policing, community and criminal justice and victimisation have focused on ethnic communities. British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are more likely than other groups to be the victims of household crime and of racially motivated attacks. More recently there has been research focusing on the experience of Muslims in prison.

Studies that examine the impact of anti-terrorism laws on the actions, behaviours, perceptions and attitudes of Muslims contends that anti-terrorism measures construct Muslims as the ‘enemy within’ and are a form of anti-Muslim racism. Some suggest that measures to deal with the financing of terrorism negatively impact on opportunities for remittance payments by Muslim migrants, ‘criminalise’ the use of the hawala money transfer system and place Islamic charities under suspicion and thereby reduce the level of donations they receive. There is also concern about the impact of the increased use of stop and search powers in increasing a sense among Muslims of being ‘under siege’.

Muslims have been politically active in the UK and have mobilised on the basis of religious identity to secure protection from religious discrimination and accommodation of religious needs. Over time they have also developed a variety of umbrella advocacy and representative organisations. The discourse of participation in national bodies first shifted from participation from the good of the ‘ethnic community’ towards the good of the ‘Muslim community’ and is now shifting from the good of the Muslim community towards the ‘common good’ of wider society.

A survey exploring people’s prejudices, carried out in early 2005 found that around 58 per cent of people did think it was important for society to respond the needs of Muslims. In that survey, the majority (66 per cent) of people were supportive to equal employment opportunity measures toward Muslims, while 19 per cent thought that such measures had gone too far. The majority expressed positive (38 per cent) or neutral (43 per cent) feelings towards Muslims, although one fifth expressed negative feelings about Muslims. A quarter of respondents said that they did sometimes feel prejudiced against Muslims but would not let it show, while nine per cent said they did not mind if they came across as prejudiced against Muslims. When asked whether particular groups were accepted as British, Arabs were the ethnic group and Muslims the religious group that people felt were least likely to be regarded as British. Around one third of respondents viewed Muslims as posing a cultural and physical threat to the UK.

The negative portrayal of Muslims in the media has been the subject of several studies and reports. A study by the Institute of Race Relations explores how press reporting around anti-terrorism arrests contributes towards an atmosphere of Islamophobia, they note that ‘in numerous occasions there is great media fanfare as the police herald the arrest of a so-called terrorist cell, only for the cases to be quietly dropped days, weeks or months later.’

A key element of the government’s integration strategy is to ensure protection from religious discrimination and violence. In relation to discrimination, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660) came into force on the 2nd December 2003. The regulations aim to implement the Employment Directive 2000/78/EC. The regulations prohibit direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation on grounds of religion and belief, in respect of employment and vocational training. They also apply to discrimination by institutions (including universities) which provide further or higher education. The Equality Act 2006 extends the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief to the provision of goods, services and facilities. In addition to this, the Equality Act 2006 creates a new Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is tasked with the responsibility of enforcing this legislation.

‘Community cohesion’ emerged as a central aspect of integration policy that has developed as part of the response to the disorder that occurred in several northern mill towns during the summer of 2001. Commissions of inquiry into the riots identified the lack of ‘community cohesion’ as underlying the breakdown in order. Following the London Bombings of July 2005, a Commission on Integration and Cohesion was created to consider how local areas can play a role in ‘forging cohesive and resilient communities. A key proposal in the Commission’s final report is for ‘a new national campaign that promotes our shared future based on a number of key principles – those of rights and responsibilities, visible social justice, and the somewhat old fashioned sounding ethics of hospitality’. It also warns that the goals of building integration and cohesion cannot be met if the discrimination experienced by some groups within society continues.

<-- Back