Just read the headline

Classic Guardian piece today on its front page (although it is relegated in the later online version). There is the classic  dilution of assertive headlines by more cautious comment, but little evidence of the famed 'news values' of balance andindependence.

The headline says:

UK has seen 'Brexit-related' growth in racism, says UN representative 

'Brexit has contributed [my emphasis] to an environment of increased racial discrimination and intolerance, the UN special rapporteur on racism has said'. There is a stronger claim too. Not only has intolerance increased but it has actually had an effect

“The environment leading up to the referendum, the environment during the referendum, and the environment after the referendum has made racial and ethnic minorities more vulnerable to racial discrimination and intolerance,” she said.  

What is the evidence? The UN rapporteur, one Prof Tendayi Achiume, looked at “The discourses on racial equality' before during and after the Referendum, and the 'policies and practices upon which the Brexit debate has conferred legitimacy'.  “Many with whom I consulted highlighted the growth in volume and acceptability of xenophobic discourses on migration, and on foreign nationals including refugees in social and print media.”

Consultees included 'Deborah Coles, executive director of Inquest, which gives legal assistance to families whose loved ones have died in state custody' [dispropotionately ethnic minority males]. And there is 'Stafford Scott, of race relations charity The Monitoring Group, who also gave evidence to Achiume, welcomed comments from Achiume about how police gangs databases disproportionately skew towards identifying black young people as perpetrators of gang violence, and which he described as “part of the process that sets up our community to be viewed as a suspect community by the entire state.” 

  Achiume seems to have had a busy time:

Achiume spent 11 days in the UK investigating the impact of Brexit on racial equality. But she went beyond that mandate, highlighting the scandal of misapplication of “hostile environment” policies on the Windrush generation of Caribbean migrants, the disproportionate criminalisation of black people, and the “sustained and pervasive” vilification of Muslims via Prevent, the government’s counter-radicalisation strategy. 'Achiume also expressed alarm at the stark increase in hate crimes and incidents across the UK after the referendum to leave the EU.'

She mentions specifically the Windrush scandal  and the Lammy review of discrimination in criminal justice cases. She says the “Widespread enforcement of the Prevent duty is fuelling distrust among racial and ethnic minority communities, especially those who are Muslim.” andparticulalry criticises the vague criteria implied in Prevent policies.

Now I know my own limits as someone still interested in social science research instead of journalistic consensus posing as expert opinion, but I am a tad sceptical that consulting lobbying organisations is going to cover the issues of evidence. Nor does it seem easy in the research community [sic] to isolate causals from clusters of complex variables. There seems to be no attempt in the article at least to separate out factors operating before and after the Referendum: any claimed amplifying effects of the Referendum are not clear. 'Racism' also seems to remain as a compound factor, consisting of attitudes and practices,mostly concerning State policy, and it is combined with xenophobia.The implied link between State policy and public attitudes, marshalled during the Referendum campaigns,maybe, is not clear. To make one obvious point, A Rudd and T May, both architects of the Windrush scandal, were Remainers.

Perhaps the actual Report will be clearer. The Guardian might once have clarified a few points too, maybe even raised some critical issues.Even thinking of any problems, let alone helping readers grasp them, seems impossible with this irresistible combination of Guardian special interests.