Runnymede Trust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Runnymede Trust describes itself as a think tank devoted to research and advocacy on the subjects of ethnicity and cultural diversity. The Runnymede Trust has the stated aim of challenging racial discrimination, influencing legislation [1] and promoting multi-ethnicity in the UK, thus bearing some characteristics of an action committee or lobbyist group.

1 History of the Runnymede Trust
2 Funding
3 Activities of the Runnymede Trust
- 3.1 Reports on "Islamophobia"
4 References
5 External links

[edit] History of the Runnymede Trust

The Runnymede Trust was founded in 1968 with the stated aim of challenging racial discrimination, influencing legislation [2] and promoting multi-ethnicity in the UK.

[edit] Funding

The Runnymede trust, a registered charity 1063609, has a wide range of donors, from high-street banks to TV companies. Significantly, the Home Office of the UK government is a contibutor.[3] However, the major donors are, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the Robert Gavron Charitable Trust, whom share a trustee, Dr Katherine S Gavron, with the Runnymede Trust. [4]

[edit] Activities of the Runnymede Trust

The trust seeks to stimulate debate in areas of public policy such as education, the criminal justice system, employment and citizenship as they relate to a modern multi-ethnic society.

[edit] Reports on "Islamophobia"

In the United Kingdom, the term “Islamophobia” was not used in government policy until 1997, when Runnymede Trust published the report Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All.^[1] In a section entitled The Nature of Islamophobia, the report itemizes eight features that Runnymede attributed to Islamophobia:

Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
Islam is seen as separate and “other”. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations.
Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand.
Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

Another critic of the Runnymede definition, British columnist Josie Appleton, criticized the definition given by the Runnymede Trust thusly:

This Runnymede report talked about a rising 'anti-Muslim prejudice' that needed addressing in policy. But the section titled 'The nature of Islamophobia' suggests a very broad notion of prejudice — examples of Islamophobia included people seeing Islam as inferior to the West, rather than just distinctively different; seeing Islam as monolithic and static, rather than diverse and progressive; seeing Islam as an enemy, rather than a partner to cooperate with (7). This also seemed to be founded on an over-sensitivity, an attempt to stem any kind of criticism of Islam. Rather than engage Muslims in debate, non-Muslims are supposed to tiptoe around them, for fear of causing offence. Since 11 September we have seen how this attitude can stifle discussion. ^[2]

UK researcher Dr Chris Allen has not rejected the concept of Islamophobia but has criticised the primary theory, concept and definition of Islamophobia—that of the Runnymede Trust—as naïve and over‐simplified.^[3]

The Runnymede Trust issued a report in 2004 which said that Islamophobia had become institutional in many Public bodies.^[4]