Ken Livingstone
on asylum and multiculturalism
Greater London Authority buildings, London

Munira Mirza

When Ken Livingstone, the newly appointed Mayor of London, talks about asylum and multiethnic diversity, one gets the impression that it is the one issue he can feel supremely confident about.

Enjoying the kudos of being an independent politician, Livingstone has not had to act apologetically about the UK's new asylum laws, voucher schemes and border controls. He revels on the moral high ground with a brand of multiculturalism that even Blair's Cool Britannia could not live up to. He is surrounded by a team of people who look like they have just stepped out of a Benetton advertisement, and he stands at the forefront of contemporary British soundbites on race. It is for this reason that it is important to interrogate the troubling flaws in his popular speeches.

I went to hear Livingstone speak at a meeting organised in the GLA buildings, by black think-tank The 1990 Trust and Jewish equality group Jcore. To begin with, Livingstone talked about the moral disgust he felt at British legislation against asylum seekers. He stressed his utter disapproval of the New Labour Government and Conservative Party stance on refusing asylum seekers refuge in the UK, despite overwhelming evidence of their persecution abroad.

He then moved on to talk about the value of living in a multicultural city and why immigration was a good thing. The multi-ethnicity of the capital, he argued, makes London an easier place for international businesses to settle into. The range of languages and lifestyles practised here is a commercial asset. From this viewpoint, he argued that companies should be 'named and shamed' for not having a workforce that reflected the ethnic makeup of the city's population. It is simply bad business sense to not think about race and diversity when you are recruiting your staff.

However rare and appealing it is to hear a politician admit that immigration might be a good thing, Livingstone's arguments are based on implicit racist assumptions. He argues that immigrants should be allowed into the city or employed by companies on the basis that they are from a non-white race. However, the opposite needs to be argued - that one's race or ethnic background should not be a deciding factor concerning your liberty to move around or your application for a job. To consider an individual's application for asylum or employment assumes that their race is the most important thing about them, and that it determines some aspect of who they are. The problem this of course, like racism generally, is that it prejudges a person by their race, rather than by their individual character.

When I questioned Livingstone about the need to reformulate this debate into questions of liberty and human equality (i.e. we should not have an immigration law at all), he responded that the argument would be unpopular and that anti-racists need to win over as many people as possible. Presumably, he feels that ordinary people cannot understand or participate in this debate unless it tugs on their heartstrings and they are shown pictures of starving foreign children at border control. But then he is a politician after all, independent or not.