Dr Krishna Sarda - Ethnic Minority Foundation

Dr Krishna Sarda of the Ethnic Minority Foundation discusses his concerns about 'Celebrity Big Brother'.

This interview is available as an MP3 download.

 

Question: What is your reaction to the controversy surrounding the latest Channel 4's Big Brother Programme?

Dr Krishna Sarda: My reaction is at two levels. Firstly I think there was a complete and utter dereliction of leadership by people in positions of power to stand up and be counted in issues of racism and bullying.

I think it is ironic that those who occupy positions of power and leadership were not able to demonstrate early on in the program, when the racism and the bullying began, that this is  unacceptable behaviour and that something needs to be done and action taken.

I think particularly the heads of Channel 4 are due for criticism for a demonstrative lack of leadership on some of those issues.

My second reaction was that I was pleased at least 40,000 people picked up the phone and emailed to complain to Ofcom.

I think that is important because, like a lot of issues, around social justice we sometimes struggle with indifference. The indifference of the silent majority who are not willing to stand up and be counted, they are not willing to make a noise. I thought it was therefore excellent that 40,000 people put in a formal complaint to Ofcom.

Question: Do you think that racism and/or bullying took place?  If so, does such behaviour reflect general attitudes in British society or the prejudices of a minority?

Dr Krishna Sarda: I think probably both took place. I think there was probably racism and bullying. I believe if you look at the history of racism in this country and you look at the language used in that program, there was certainly a very strong element of racism in there.

Does the behaviour reflect the general attitudes in British society? I think that it certainly does.

We have to accept the fact that race does not work on its own. Race, class, culture all combine to create a very potent mix of issues that at times the British society in general finds it very, very hard to deal with.

For people who may want to dismiss the particular Big Brother program as being a class issue, well, there are examples of people at middle class level, in the upper echelons of British society that have articulated very similar racist views and sentiments previously. So I think it does reflect the general attitudes of British society.

Having said that, I think there is a substantial vocal body who find such behaviour unacceptable and that again is a very, very positive sign.

Question: As chief executive of the Ethnic Minority Foundation, what are you views on the reaction to the controversy of community leaders in the UK?  What about leaders within the voluntary sector?

Dr Krishna Sarda: Interesting question because really when other multicultural/race issues have arisen in the UK we've had community leaders lining up to make comments, give statements, give interviews about how bad it is etc. In this particular issue it was remarkable that they were completely absent, they chose not to make any comments and it makes you wonder why? I am not going to pass judgement on that - I will leave that as a question.

What about leaders in the third sector? Well it did not surprise me that the third sector was absolutely silent as ever but yet willing to take what I call the wages of sin. It's the equivalent of saying, I am going to commit sin today, I shall go and give a donation to my church or my temple, I will wash my sins away.

It poses some interesting questions for charities and the leaders that actually run them. Is it perfectly legitimate to take money from people and from institutions and organisations that actually indulge in behaviour and conduct that is not what we as a society want to see? How do you balance that at a time when a lot of charities are into ethical investing?  We do not want to buy shares in companies that share arms or companies that pollute the world, so where is the commitment in the third sector? There is a serious questions there.

Question: Under the Communications Act of 2003, Channel 4 is expected to appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society and to include programmes of an educational nature which exhibit a distinctive character. Do you think that the interests of minority ethnic individuals have been served by the programme?

Dr Krishna Sarda:My answer is definitely no. It is really a sad day when a public sector broadcaster like Channel 4 can do what it has done and can demonstrate this incredible lack of leadership and get away with it.

I think it is depressing in a sense because it reaffirms that we do not live in an equal society. I am not so naive to think that we live in an equal society; I know I live in an unequal society but I genuinely believe the laws and the systems are meant to apply equally to everyone. 

People like us who fight for fairness and social justice believe very strongly that you need to make the case to argue for your position. I think that Channel 4, its senior management and the board have failed to make a proper case of what I call being accountable for what it has done. Channel 4 has sought to justify its actions, post event, by giving tremendous amount of spin and using its muscle and using money. I think it has done a disservice to the minority ethnic communities.

Question: Do you think Channel 4 allowed racism and bullying to be used as entertainment or do you agree with their explanation that the programme merely encouraged open debate?

Dr Krishna Sarda: If the chief executive of Channel 4 wanted to encourage open debate then how come he was so silent other than saying to people "go read my press statement". I think that his talk is not supported by his walk. So there is a big issue there. I think there was an element of voyeurism; we live today in a society where we are indifferent to others (particularly victims of racism and bullying) and that has been a big issue.

People talk about a lack of trust within communities and within societies, we refuse to stand up for our neighbours, we refuse to stand up for injustice that we have seen on the Tube or the bus because we are afraid of what actually might happen to us. But sitting in a warm room watching another person being bullied, watching that person being put through a whole host of language and other issues is certainly a form of entertainment.

Channel 4 thought they could get away with it because in the ratings war it was hoping it would generate sufficient controversy for it to exploit. I am afraid it is about money and media and power, that is what it eventually comes down to.

Question: Given that minority ethnic individuals experience higher levels of racism, discrimination and disadvantage than the general population; do you think the programme has helped highlight their plight?

Dr Krishna Sarda: It has not helped to raise their plight, it is quite the reverse. It has actually demonstrated that often the person who receives the racist abuse and the bullying is quite often helpless in being able to challenge and take that issue on. There is a bigger question isn't there that if we are highlighting their plight then what message are we giving?  

Question: Given that an unprecedented 40,000 complains from members of the public were lodged with Ofcom, what would you like to see the regulator do?  Do you agree with the view that regulators are ultimately toothless?

Dr Krishna Sarda: I think ideally what I would like to see the regulator do is to really issue a severe reprimand to Channel 4 and to its chief executive when its licence comes up for renewal. I'd like to see conditions put into that licence about 'future conductive behaviour' and I think it has to come from the top and be directed to the people at the top in C4, otherwise nothing will change. That I think would be very, very strong reaction.

To the question on whether the regulators are toothless: We live in a climate where the government, corporate and the business world have argued for less regulations. They have said 'the more regulation raised the less we can actually do'. Therefore the big issue is that there is a serious need for giving the regulators the teeth by which they bite, by which they can do things.

It is ridiculous to put in complaints for something to happen when really three to six months into that you may get a response to say ' your complaint was looked into, no response was given'. We will be looking very carefully to see how Ofcom respond to those 40,000 complaints. We want to see Ofcom's capacity and ability to investigate those allegations of racism and discrimination.

Is Ofcom going to have the opportunity to quiz the chief executive and chairman of Channel 4 on some of those issues? We would like to see the evidence that both sides can provide. It comes down again to the power of the regulators.

Question: What is your reaction to Carphone Warehouse withdrawing its sponsorship from the programme?  Is this a reflection of corporate social responsibility coming of age or an over-reaction to media hype?

Dr Krishna Sarda: My personal view is that the Carphone Warehouse should be congratulated for the action they have taken. I think that it is a very brave company; it is an organisation that has taken its corporate social responsibility seriously.

Similarly we were talking earlier about the issue of ethical investment charities taking money and Carphone Warehouse has clearly said 'we will not invest money into abusive and racist programs'. That is what I would have expected my colleagues in the third sector to actually do. We will not take this money from where it is coming from because we know the intention for actually giving us that money. So first of all a huge congratulations to Carphone Warehouse for actually demonstrating that leadership. Very, very powerful.

Question: Channel 4's new reality show Shipwreck has already attracted controversy with 370 complaints lodged with Ofcom over a contestant who has openly backed slavery, insulted black and gay people and condemned multicultural Britain. Should such views given a public platform in the name of entertainment?

Dr Krishna Sarda: The clear answer is no. In the last six to 12 months in the UK we have clearly taken a view that those that preach terrorism, those that preach hatred have no platform, we will not give them a platform.

Those that preach those issues should be charged under the law and should be taken into court and those same principles should be applied for those that engage in racist behaviour.

I am absolutely surprised that Channel 4 does not seem to have learned the lesson form Big Brother; it is using reality TV shows as a means to expose and bring to the audience programs that are even more insulting. It is not seeking to create a cohesive society but seeking to create more divisions. I think it is simply not acceptable.

Question: Are there any other points to highlight on this subject?

Dr Krishna Sarda: I think there is a very strong issue for parliamentarians that when the media discuss and debate issues and Channel 4's licence comes up for renewal, let's not forget that Ofcom is accountable to parliament in terms of what it does.

Ofcom is a non-departmental public body but whatever it does is actually reported through to parliament.

I think parliamentarians should be asking questions as representatives of UK societies. Questions such as how is Channel 4 being held to account? This is what the whole argument is about really. If you do not hold Channel 4 to account on some of these issues, this will be the biggest disservice that Ofcom and parliamentarians will have ever have done to the communities we all want to serve.

Question: Where do you see us going in the future? What do you think will happen over the next six months?

Dr Krishna Sarda: This particular program and the events of the last 12 months have actually served in some parts of the community to reinforce the cynicism. There are two standards of behaviour when it comes to us, black and ethnic minority groups. They want us do this, this and this and yet when we complain about legitimate issues they do not listen to us, they take no interest.

Therefore it will firstly reaffirm that inequality, that issue about power and prejudice and people's ability to get action in terms of what they see as being wrong.

Second I hope there will be discussion and debate on broadcasting. I hope there are debates on what kind of broadcasting is acceptable/right and fair in the 21st century.

We should have debates on racism, bullying, etc and I think it is a good thing to have these debates in a much more structured way. We should create the capacity in society to have these debates – to have difficult conversations.

We shy away from difficult conversation because difficult conversations end up with platitudes. Difficult conversations usually result in one side being insulted or one side switching off.

There is a huge need in society to create that capacity in individuals and say 'we want to have a difficult conversation about this issue' and we want to do it in a manner that enables both sides to keep their respect but come to some form of consensus on what we think is right and wrong.

To send a comment to EMF clickhere