Britishness and Englishness

In Miseducation and Racism, in the first on-line issue of Ethnicity and Race in a Changing World, Marika Sherwood complains about the lack of government engagement with issues of race and ethnicity, such as in the curriculum, and wonders what the current emphasis on 'Britishness' is all about. Count me in, I too am perplexed.

The political angst, I suppose, is what constitutes Britishness now parliaments are to some extent devolved. What have the English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish in common, yet which is different from other countries or regions. There is an organisational response - they have a British passport and thereby British citizenship. But the sense of angst requires more than that, a loyalty, a common heritage, a desire to contribute to the common good. Yet these citizenship ambitions need not be tied to a geographical area. When Britain went into Europe, many people were clear that they did not wish to be corporate Europeans but knew instinctively that they were British. True that was tribal, us against 'them'. Other states in Europe have a semblance of unity; only Britain contains four separate countries. Also, it is a cultural and political hegemony that 'decides' what our common heritage is. Is it how Britain saved and civilized the world? or how Britain exploited and ruined the world? Who are the heroes, who the forgotten? We recognise our heroes by the Order of the British Empire, so to accept you join the imperial club. In Germany between 1930 and 1945, the only heroic action was to be disloyal to the then government. Loyalty does not exclude moral choices.

Even more perplexing is the angst for Englishness. A Welshman or Scot might be born in England without becoming English in the soul. My mother's came from Nottingham, my grandfather a miner from the age of 12. My father's family came from Dublin, and before that from Scotland via Canada, since they were 'cleared' off the land by British 'nobility'. What is the common heritage I should treasure? I have friends whose ancestors in India, Pakistan, the Caribbean, Africa and America were exploited and harried in other ways, who now find themselves in England as part of the melting pot that is named 'English'.

In America, to be American in spite of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, meant something ideologically. To be America was to create and benefit from 'opportunity' (the reality was more restricting). Americans are even now re-evaluating what it means to be American, since the past fifty years have been found wanting.

I therefore contend that seeking out an English, or British, cultural heritage is a red herring, and is potentially divisive and damaging. What we should be doing is following Barack Omama's lead in the USA and take Englishness, and Britishness by the scruff of its neck, shake it up, re-evaluate it, and decide together as a nation of mixed origins and experiences what Britishness ought to be, what ideals we should be promoting, and what prejudices we should be attacking. Then, and only then, will we have something worthy of our loyalty.
See also M. Toolan

Restorative Justice and Practice

How do you change criminals, the anti-social, offenders, people who cause conflict? Perhaps you can't with some, and we have locked most of them up in prison just in case. And prison has not improved them. Also, what part does the victim play in the justice system? Nothing, they are entirely sidelined. The offence against them personally, and the compensation that ought to be their due is hijacked to become an offence against the state. The adversarial way the case is heard might mean the best barrister wins and the guilty offender is declared innocent, sometimes to terrorise the victim. So, all is not well in the so-called justice system.
Restorative Justice seeks to make restoration by attempting to resolve the conflict caused by the offence and as much as possible 'restoring' the situation as close as possible to how it was before the offence took place. The offender meets with the victims in the company of a facilitator. Having ascertained the facts from both offender and victim, the facilitator asks the offender firmly and persistently who has been affected by the offence, and how. The victims are asked the same question. Then the offender is asked how the harm can be repaired, and an agreement is made. If this agreement is broken, then the case moves out of restorative justice and into court. It can be used from low level nuisance to violent crime. Research show a high satisfaction rate for victims - 85% - and much lower rates of reaffending. The perpetrator often for the first time understands that his victims have been hurt and can no longer block this out.

In schools, conflicts can be dealt with similarly, by establishing the facts, discussing who has been affected and how, and making an agreement to put right the harm. This turns a situation of conflict and confrontation into a learning experience for the perpetrator, who then has a chance to apologise and make restoration, and build a new relationship with the victim. It is the opposite of a soft option - it destroys any defensive front that perpetrators have been used to hide behind. It makes them very vulnerable, and by doing so enables them to build new values.

The principles of restorative justice can be used to discuss everyday practice - how to behave in a fair and equitable way. There does not need to be an offence, simply the context which allows young people to imagine a scenario and discuss the implications. This would then merge naturally into restorative justice, since this style of questioning simply is applied to any minor conflict that takes place, resolving an issue quickly and without confrontation.

At a conference in Swindon hosted by the Mayor and led by Sir Charles Pollard of Restorative Solutions, supported by headteachers, the police and community justice, applications were discussed and research data given. The importance of adopting this approach in the justice system, and in schools, was described as a 'no brainer' - there are only benefits, in success rates, costs and community cohesion. The only impediment is a conservatism that prefers vengeance and punishment to reconciling the conflict with a long term solution.