Race and ethnicity
1. Overview
This chapter covers issues of race and ethnicity that may be relevant in the court or tribunal setting. However, it will be appreciated that there are many different matters relating to a person's race or ethnicity that may crop up. It is impossible to cover every issue that may need to be considered and judges will appreciate that the onus is on them to ensure a fair hearing that allows participation by all.
There may be cross over between some aspects of this chapter and the chapter dealing with religion; and with other chapters, for example vulnerable persons, or more.
Using appropriate language
Race/ethnicity and the justice system
Gypsies, Travellers and RomaForms of address
Gaelic names
Other cultural issues to consider
Interpreters
Practical arrangements in court
Current terminology
Introduction
The government-commissioned Lammy Review into the treatment of Black[1] and Asian minority ethnic ('BAME')[2] people in the criminal justice system was published in September 2017. The terms of reference related to England and Wales only, but the review contains useful information that Scottish judges may wish to draw upon.[3]
The final report concluded that there is a high level of distrust in the criminal justice system amongst the BAME population. Part of this is caused by lack of diversity amongst judges. However, transparency and clear explanations of court process and sentencing decisions are almost as important in building trust. There remains an over-representation of persons from an ethnic minority background as accused persons within the criminal justice system, and disparities in aspects of their treatment. Disproportionality in the youth justice system was identified as a major problem in the report and has not improved since Lammy, according to a 2023 update undertaken by the Prison Reform Trust.
A hard-hitting report, 'Racial Bias and the Bench', published by the University of Manchester in November 2022, carried out a relatively small survey of legal professionals in England and Wales. Although not based on experience in Scotland, the results are alarming: over half (56%) of the survey respondents stated they had witnessed one or more judges acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant. A similar proportion (52%) had witnessed one or more judges acting in a racially biased way in their judicial rulings, summing up, sentencing, bail, comments and/or directions.
Jules Holroyd, writing for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, notes:
'Empirical psychology of the past few decades has again and again shown that the workings of our minds are not transparent to us, and that many of us harbour and are influenced by implicit biases. Perhaps it is impossible for us to avoid all of the many kinds of biases that we might be susceptible to; but we can decide where to focus efforts in trying to avoid bias. Some kinds of bias, such as implicit race biases, are particularly troubling. This sort of bias means that people who – sincerely – report that they are not racist, and that they are committed to fair and non-discriminatory treatment, might nonetheless harbour implicit race biases, and be influenced by these biases in the way they behave. These biases are described as “implicit” because they are not easy to detect (we cannot easily check whether we have them or are influenced by them), and because they operate automatically, and outside the reach of direct control.
The sorts of implicit racial biases that have been detected are varied, but there are robust findings that indicate that, in contemporary society, implicit race bias is pervasive. Some studies conducted by the psychologist Patricia Devine show that people tend to have more positive associations with white rather than Black people; other studies show that Black males are more readily associated with weapons; others that Black males are more strongly associated with danger and hostility than are white males. These associations influence behaviour, as the work of psychologists Jack Glaser and Jennifer Eberhardt has shown.'
Against this background, judges should take care to examine their own actions and thinking with a view to guarding against racist attitudes and/or practices.
Judges need to be conscious of their own inherent biases. The authors of 'Racial Bias and the Bench' refer to research from the US suggesting those who consider themselves not to be personally biased may act in more biased ways than those who start from understanding themselves to be actively biased and take conscious steps to counter that bias. The authors argue, 'to assume that, for most judges, bias has already been overcome or was never present in the first place, simply risks further sedimenting bias'. So, if this is correct, assuming a colour-blind position may risk the status quo, and thus continue racism that may exist in society, including in the justice system. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that what is needed from the bench is proactive practice, as discussed in the article below.[4]
It may be that it is not enough to show no racism; what is required instead is an anti-racist approach. Reference is made to an article in Counsel magazine, titled, 'The Anti-Racist Court'. The first step is to educate oneself to have a greater appreciation of the lived experience of those from minority ethnic backgrounds. Thereafter, be ready to counter any assumptions that are being made because of a person's racial profile and recognise that a courtroom, which may be an overwhelmingly White space, may be alienating for a person from another background.[5]
The Scottish Government published, 'Ethnicity in the Justice System' in April 2023, reporting that people from minority ethnic groups tend to have more positive views of the justice system than the national average. However, this changed when considering the fairness and treatment of those accused of a crime. Specifically, those from minority ethnic backgrounds had lower levels of confidence than the national average in the statements: 'Allows all those accused of crime to get a fair trial regardless of who they are' and, 'Treats those accused of crime as innocent until proven guilty'.
A draft guideline for blackmail, kidnap and false imprisonment is under consideration by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales at the time of writing (consulted upon in early 2024). It acknowledges that Asian and Black offenders seem to receive longer sentences.[6] The consultation considers adding wording to the guideline to highlight this apparent disparity and to refer sentencers to their Equal Treatment Bench Book. It is yet to be determined if this wording will be adopted in the final version.
2. Current data on ethnicity
Scotland's last census took place in 2022. The results, published on 21 May 2024, reported that 12.9% of people in Scotland had a minority ethnic background. This was an increase from 8.2% in 2011. The largest groupings were Polish, Pakistani/Scottish Pakistani/British Pakistani, Irish, African/Scottish African/British African, Indian/Scottish Indian/British Indian, Chinese/Scottish Chinese/British Chinese, Arab/Scottish Arab/British Arab. There were also a number of persons who identified as, 'Other White', generally identifying themselves as from another European country. Separately, just over 1% of the population identified as mixed or multiple ethnic group.
3. Legal contexts
The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination in relation to to 'race'.[7] This means colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins.
It also imposes an equality duty on the public sector, which includes courts and tribunals (although the exercise of judicial functions is excluded).[8] Reference is made to chapter 1 which gives a short legal guide to the Equality Act.
'Race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins' is a protected characteristic in terms of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. Broadly speaking, the Act provides that an offence can be aggravated by prejudice based on the victim's membership of a group defined by reference to a listed characteristic (age, disability, race (and related characteristics), religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics). It creates offences of stirring up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to the listed characteristics.'
4. Using appropriate language
It would be impossible to list all the different races, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds of those who may be involved with the Scottish courts and tribunals. The clear overriding objective is for all persons to be treated fairly and equally. Sometimes to treat someone fairly you need to treat them differently; for example, by ensuring they have proceedings translated for them.
'Race' and 'ethnicity' are two different concepts. The former is often used to describe a category of persons said to share physical traits, although this is controversial. Race is often now said to be a social construct; and the latter is used to define large groups of people according to a common racial, national, tribal, religious, cultural, or linguistic background. 'Ethnicity' is linked with cultural expression and identification.[9]
Where a person's ethnicity or race is irrelevant, it should not be referred to. However, it will sometimes be relevant to identify or describe a person's ethnicity or race, for example, where cultural issues may be relevant to a child's proposed relocation. Where it is relevant, care must be taken to ensure that appropriate terminology is used. It is important to avoid causing offence and thereby give confidence that everyone will receive a fair hearing.
Where judges are unsure about how to identify or describe a person's race or ethnicity or how to address a person from a minority ethnic group, they should ask the person concerned how they wish to be identified, described, or addressed. Language is constantly evolving, and it is important that unacceptable language is not used. This is not about so-called 'political correctness'; rather, it is part of society's response to the need to recognise and respect diversity and equality.
Some terms that were used in the past are now outdated and unacceptable. They will cause offence. Some terms create a difference of opinion, with some viewing them as appropriate and others unacceptable. Please see terminology guide below.
Race/ethnicity and the justice system
The April 2023 document published by the Scottish Government, 'Ethnicity in the Justice System', presented a review of quantitative evidence on that topic. The following findings may be useful for judges to know:
It has long been estimated that the incarceration rate for people who identify as African, Caribbean, or Black, or from other ethnic groups is significantly higher than for people who identify as White.
The vast majority who had contact with the police said the police had been polite (93%) and treated them fairly (86%): there were no significant differences by ethnicity.
Those from minority ethnic backgrounds were significantly less likely to say they know a lot, or a fair amount, about the Scottish criminal justice system.
People from minority ethnic groups tend to have more confidence in the justice system than the national average, but they had lower confidence in these statements: 'Allows all those accused of crimes to get a fair trial regardless of who they are' and, 'Treats those accused of crime as innocent until proven guilty'.
Race aggravated hate crimes make up most hate crimes reported to the police. People who identify as African, Caribbean, or Black have a higher rate of victimisation than the national average.
Overall, minority ethnic groups appear to be underrepresented in justice organisations.
Gypsies, Travellers and Roma
The terms, 'Gypsy' and 'Travellers' are often used interchangeably, sometimes referred to as, 'Gypsy Travellers' or 'Scottish Travellers'. The term 'Roma' refers to those from Eastern Europe with a gypsy or travelling background.[10] Gypsy Travellers have been held to be a distinct racial group.[11] Whilst there is diversity within the broad grouping, generally the shared family ties together with the bonds of culture, tradition and heritage within their community are important, perhaps influencing a preference for working and living with others from the same background. Many Gypsy Travellers no longer travel continually, reflecting the lack of sites and spaces on the road, and the realities of modern life.[12]
There is a lack of comprehensive research on Gypsy Travellers' experiences in Scotland, but concerns have been raised by human rights groups as to discrimination and inequality in many areas of day-to-day life, including education, housing, and cultural rights.[13] The Equality and Human Rights Commission authored a report in 2015 (dealing with England only) entitled: 'England's most disadvantaged groups: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma.' The title encapsulates the myriad of disadvantages that members of this population may face. It is possible there are widespread racist attitudes to Gypsy Travellers.[14]
Travellers, who form 0.1% of the British population, are overrepresented in the English criminal justice system.[15] The Scottish Government have referred to gypsy travellers as, 'one of the most marginalised groups of people in Scotland.' Although the numbers of those identifying as gypsy or travellers in the 2022 census was small, the challenges faced by gypsy travellers has been specifically identified in this section given the Scottish Government's comments (judges may wish to note that it has been argued the census in England and Wales has not properly captured figures for the gypsy, Roma and traveller population. It is not known if a similar argument might apply to Scotland). England and Wales has only recently started to have a 'Traveller' option in its data system.[16] Of those asked in Prison Inspections if they identified as Gypsy, Roma or Traveller, 5% said that they did. They are more likely to report health and substance misuse problems in prison. They are more likely than prisoners from other communities to report concerns about their safety.
Some studies suggest members of this group might be more likely to be in custody because of lack of a home address or fears they will abscond.[17] This is often based on misconceptions about where people from these communities live. Low literacy levels amongst Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoners reduce their access to healthcare, education, housing, and employment services in prison, as these tend to be requested through a written form. Access to services and employment post-release in the community also often relies on a considerable level of literacy.
5. Forms of address
Court and tribunal hearings usually begin with introductions by name. For a party or witness with a name a judge is not familiar with, the way a judge or member of court staff reacts to it can symbolise an attitude towards their other cultural differences: it is an important first step towards gaining and holding confidence that these do not prove to be a disadvantage in court.
If a name is difficult to pronounce, it is tempting to avoid saying it out of embarrassment. This is not best practice. The individual may notice the omission and wrongly interpret it to mean dismissiveness or disrespect. Where in any doubt the best thing is to ask, rather than to make assumptions. A person should be asked for their full name, then, 'What do you want me/us to call you?' If the individual does not speak English as a first language, avoid complex conditional verbs such as those contained in the question: 'What would you like me to call you?' The question, 'What is your Christian name?' should be avoided (as it refers to one distinct religion) and in any event may not be understood. It is best to try to pronounce the name, ask for guidance, and remember to apologise if unable to get it right.
Confusion can arise if a person, knowing their name is unusual in the UK, tries to be helpful by giving their name differently to different front-line staff on separate occasions. They may select out parts of their name, or give spellings or transliterations from another alphabet, according to how they are asked, or according to what they assume the person asking will find easiest. Some outdated computerised record systems can also create inaccurate records by imposing only the format of the naming system most familiar in the UK.
People in religious marriages not recognised in the UK, and who have not entered a recognised civil marriage, may nevertheless wish to be known as, 'husband and wife' (as opposed to 'partners') and the woman may wish to be called, 'Mrs'. Indeed, the concept of a committed relationship outside marriage may be unfamiliar to those from certain societies.
In some cultures, naming systems follow a different format to the Scottish. For example, the family name (in Scottish format the surname) may come first, a woman may not change her name on marriage, and a person may have a religious name only used in some situations. As stated above, the best thing to do is to seek guidance from the individual themselves. Some guidance about naming systems is provided in the Bench Book for England and Wales, save for Gaelic (dealt with below).
Gaelic names
It is important that Gaelic personal names, place names and the names of institutions are pronounced correctly, as with all names. Failing to get the pronunciation right could reduce the confidence of court users in the court's authority. If unfamiliar with Gaelic pronunciation, look in advance for the key names likely to arise, check their pronunciation with a Gaelic speaker and write the words down phonetically for your own reference.
The most common class of Gaelic surnames are patronymic and vary according to whether the bearer is male (eg MacDhòmhnaill – Mac = son 'MacDonald') or female (eg NicDhòmhnaill – Nic = daughter 'MacDonald'), so for example, Catherine MacPhee is properly called in Gaelic, Caitrìona Nic a' Phì.
It was once traditional for everyone living in a Gaelic-speaking district to have a local nickname describing their trade or a physical characteristic or trait and some of these may perpetuate. Sometimes people were named after the place they lived in last, or were born in. If the person named was of a family long settled in the district, they would probably be named after their father.
Where a person's mother was a native married to an outsider, they may have been named after her. Thus plain 'John MacDonald' in English may also be spoken of as 'Iain Mhurchaidh NicDhòmhnaill Alasdair.' This means 'John [son of] Murdo [son of] Donald [son of] Alasdair', a patronymic. The sole object of Gaelic surnames is to make the identity of the person spoken of as clear as possible by means of the name referring to whom or where the person 'belongs'. The practical result of all of this is that a person's legal name may be different to the name by which they are known in Gaelic; for example, James MacLeod may be known as 'Seumas Neill' (literally 'Neil's James') or 'Seumas a Ghlinne' (a nickname – James of the glen).
In addition, until the late 1980s/early 1990s some Registrars did not fill in statutory records with Gaelic given names or spellings, which has resulted in people being universally known by one name but having another legal name, for example, 'Alasdair' would be 'Alexander' or 'Seonag' would be 'Joan' on statutory records. Using the person's usual Gaelic name, rather than their registered name, if appropriate, confers respect on both the culture and the person.
Other cultural issues to consider
Sex offences: because of cultural or religious differences, it may be very difficult for some witnesses from certain minority ethnic communities to give evidence due to, for example, the need to use certain words. Sensitivity to cultural norms should be shown.
Racially motivated offences: sensitivity may be required if and when racist language is repeated in court as part of the evidence.
Some people may be offended by foul language. The judge should consider whether to intervene after balancing the importance of having regard to sensitivities of individuals and the importance of achieving unambiguous evidence or justice. It may be sufficient to reassure the witness that the court is in the habit of hearing such evidence.
Some people may not understand the relevance of identifying the accused in court. Pointing may be considered rude in some cultures, but there are other ways of identification. If a veil is being worn see section on this.
Some people may not, because of their cultural or religious norms, wish to shake hands with a member of the opposite sex or, for example, have a bar officer of the opposite sex fix a lapel microphone to their clothing.
Some people may, because of their cultural or religious norms, avoid direct eye contact. They are not being 'shifty', merely habitually reserved. This will naturally be exacerbated if the subject matter would be regarded as inherently embarrassing or immodest, such as a sexual matter.
In some cultures, particularly East Asia (eg China, Japan, Taiwan) the concept of 'saving face' is fundamental. It goes beyond what would be the norm in Scotland. Such an individual may also be concerned to save the face of eg the judge or agent. This desire will be particularly acute if there are others from the same cultural background present. This can lead to various issues. For example, the response to the question, 'Do you understand?' is likely to be 'yes', even when there is no understanding, as to admit that might imply that the judge has not explained clearly.
In some cultures, it is customary to give background detail as context when answering a question. This can lead to an impression of being long-winded, or even evasive and can lead to interruptions due to impatience, thus missing the key point.
Pre-court written materials should be available in a range of formats and in different languages. For example, the SCTS document, 'About the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service' is available in eight different languages.
These are simply examples. Judges should take care to appreciate that there may be differences in language and body language and their use in distinct cultures, and the need to make allowances for this.
Interpreters
Although judges are not involved in making arrangements for interpreters, it is important that they are fully aware of potential difficulties experienced by court users who may have only a limited ability to speak and understand English, and the interpretation facilities available and the arrangements for securing them.[18] Practice regarding how to book interpreters varies across different courts and tribunals. Judges should be familiar with the rules in their own jurisdiction.
Judges need to ensure that where there is an interpreter, there is no reduction in a party or witness's participation in the hearing, willingness to speak, understanding of questions, and overall ability to put their case. It is an essential part of a judge's function to ensure there is a fair hearing.
When giving evidence, people for whom English is not a first language may not always fully understand what they are being asked. It is one thing to know the basics of a language and to be able to communicate when shopping or working. It is quite another matter having to appear in court, understand questions, and potentially give evidence. It should also be remembered that many minority ethnic people prefer to speak their mother tongue at home. Similarly, Gaelic speakers may be relatively fluent in English but still feel more comfortable speaking Gaelic, eg in relation to legal or technical terms. Judges should therefore be alert to different language needs, and should not assume, simply because a witness has lived in the UK for many years, that they do not require an interpreter.
It can happen that an interpreter was not arranged in advance, or that an interpreter who has been booked does not arrive. It may be tempting for everyone involved to continue without an interpreter in that situation if the party or witness says they can manage in English. Judges should exercise caution about accepting such reassurances.
An interpreter has a difficult job. Languages do not operate in ways which identically match each other. They can differ in grammatical structure, vocabulary, the meaning of certain abstract concepts, and in how much is directly spoken as opposed to understood between the lines. The interpreter's job is to transfer as closely as possible the meaning of what is said by each side, not merely to translate words and phrases literally, which can create a false impression. For example, 'The panel makes no plea' is unlikely to have a direct translation and the interpreter will require to convey the meaning of this, which may take more words and/or time.
Practical arrangements in court
Dialects. Where applicable, ensure that the interpreter speaks the correct dialect of the language in question and that the witness and interpreter can communicate properly. It may be tempting when an interpreter arrives with the wrong dialect to ask whether the witness can manage anyway. A witness may feel under pressure to agree when in fact there could be a considerable loss of understanding.
Layout. Plan an appropriate seating position with the interpreter, paying particular attention to, for example, the need for them to be seen on a remote screen. Facial expressions and gestures can often contribute to the meaning of what is said. The interpreter should, therefore, be able to see all speaking participants, and their position should also indicate their role as neutral and impartial.
Breaks. Interpreting is a taxing job. No interpreter can go on too long. Consider requests to have frequent breaks and allow sufficient recovery time. It is good practice to agree frequency and timing of breaks with the interpreter in advance.
Notes. Allow the interpreter to take notes if they wish to.
Pace. Ensure everyone speaks at a slower pace and pauses, if necessary, for translation to be completed. It may be necessary to remind agents of this more than once. Everything said in court should be translated.
Language. Encourage the use of simple, short sentences. Take care to allow time for concepts for which there may be no direct translation to be explained, for example, 'You will be released on bail.'
Form. The use of an interpreter should not alter the form of any question. For example, judges should ensure that agents do not address the interpreter, rather than the witness. Eg 'Can you ask him how old he is?' is improper. The question should be, 'How old are you?' addressed to the witness and translated by the interpreter.
All or nothing. Sometimes, if a person has some degree of English language skill, they wish to only have parts of the evidence or questions interpreted. This approach is likely to cause confusion and muddle matters. It may be difficult to pick up when someone is not following, leading to the risk that parts of the evidence have not been understood.
If an interpreter is necessary, a hearing in person may well be preferable to a remote hearing, as overlapping speech, which often happens in a remote hearing, will make the interpreter's job impossible. There are other difficulties for an interpreter in a virtual hearing, such as a reduced ability to take visual cues. Such matters should be considered if a remote hearing is being asked for.
Current terminology
Judges should take care to keep up to date with terminology, to avoid using words that may seem innocuous, but which have connotations, especially to certain groups. For example, 'Eskimo' was a term in common usage in the past, but as its origins refer to perceived behaviour it is now thought to be trivialising of the group's culture. Rather, the term 'Inuit' should now be used. This is just one example of the way language usage can change.
In addition, someone from a different culture or background may use a phrase that we would consider outdated in Scotland, but which may yet be acceptable in other countries or cultures. For example, the term 'coloured' may still be in acceptable use in some parts of South Africa, whilst unacceptable in Scotland.
It will be impossible to keep fully appraised of all the nuances of language use across the world, and polite enquiry may have to be made of a witness or other court user if their language seems outmoded. The following information is offered regarding current Scottish acceptable terminology:
Black[19]
| It is now generally considered acceptable to use the term 'Black' to describe people of African-Caribbean or sub-Saharan African descent, although some argue caution.[20] People of South Asian descent may or may not describe themselves as 'Black': there may be a different view between older and younger generations. Please also note that you may wish to capitalise this- see footnote 1 below. |
Non-white | It is not acceptable to describe Black people or Black and Asian people generally as 'non-White'. That is defining people by what they are not. |
West Indian/Afro-Caribbean/African Caribbean | The term 'West Indian' was formerly used as a phrase to describe the first generation of post-World War 2 settlers from the West Indies and, in particular, many older people from that community will so describe themselves. Whilst the term 'West Indian' would not always give offence, it is inappropriate to use unless the individual concerned identifies themselves in this way. The term 'African Caribbean' is the term now much more widely accepted. It has largely replaced the earlier term, 'Afro-Caribbean'. As with 'West Indian', this might be used as a self-description by some people but may be seen as old-fashioned and even offensive by others. 'African Caribbean' does not refer to all people of West Indian origin, some of whom are White or of Asian extraction. Young people born in Britain may choose not to use any of these designations and will often describe themselves as 'Black' or 'Black British' or simply as 'British'. |
African | The term 'African' might be used in self-identification, although most people of African origin are likely to refer to their country of origin in national terms (such as 'Nigerian' or 'Ghanaian'). It should be appreciated that Africa is an immense continent containing more than 50 countries, multiple languages, cultures and diversity, and lumping everyone from that continent together may be inappropriate and cause offence. Young people born in Britain may choose not to use any of these designations and will often describe themselves as 'Black' or 'Black British' or simply as 'British'. |
Asian | This is a collective term which has been applied in Britain to people from the Indian sub-continent. In practice, people from the Indian sub-continent tend to identify themselves in terms of one or more of the following:
The term 'Asian' can be appropriate when the exact ethnic origin of the person is unknown or as a collective reference to people from the Indian sub-continent. The more specific terms of Southeast Asian (eg Singapore, Indonesia), East Asian (eg China, Japan, Korea), East African Asian (eg Uganda, Tanzania) or South Asian (eg Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) may be preferred. Young people of South Asian origin born in Britain often accept the same identities and designations as their parents. This is by no means always the case, and some prefer to describe themselves as 'Black' or as 'British Asian' as a symbol of solidarity in the face of racial discrimination. People from Southeast Asia and the Far East tend not to be referred to, or self-refer, as 'Asian' in the UK. Normally they would refer to their specific country of origin, eg Vietnamese, Malaysian, Chinese. The term 'oriental' should be avoided as it would usually be seen as offensive. |
Mixed race/ Mixed or Dual heritage/Mixed parentage/Dual parentage | The term 'mixed race' is widely used and is considered acceptable by some, though not by others. More acceptable terms are usually 'mixed heritage' or 'mixed/dual parentage'. 'Half-caste' is generally considered offensive and should be avoided. The term 'multi-racial' is only used in relation to diverse communities. |
Ethnic minorities/ Minority ethnic/BME (Black and Minority Ethnic)/BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic): | The terms 'ethnic minority' and 'minority ethnic' are widely used and are generally acceptable as the broadest terms to encompass all those groups who are seen, and who see themselves, as distinct from the majority in terms of ethnic or cultural identity. 'Minority ethnic' is broader than 'Black minority ethnic' or the problematic term 'visible minorities' (problematic as it may imply that there are invisible minorities) and brings in such groups as Greek and Turkish Cypriots or Gypsy Travellers. Originally the term 'ethnic minority' was used, but it is now generally considered more appropriate to use the term 'minority ethnic' because, in relation to the first formulation, the majority group also has ethnicity. A minority ethnic person should not be referred to purely as an 'ethnic person'. Nor should the term of 'ethnic communities' be used to describe minority ethnic communities. Every individual and community has an ethnicity. A minority ethnic person should not be referred to as a noun, ie 'an Ethnic' or 'a Minority Ethnic'. |
'BAME' | Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic, either pronounced by the letters, or more recently as a word (rhyming with 'name') – is the phrase used most frequently in the UK. However, some people object to being described as a 'BAME' individual (BAME being a collective designation which obscures their particular cultural heritage) or even worse, by an acronym. There is also a difficulty in that the 'A' in 'BAME' can be misunderstood to mean 'and' as opposed to 'Asian'. In a 2020 poll, 42% of minority ethnic respondents did not identify with the term BAME. Only 24% did identify with the term and thought it useful. Since then, the term has become even more unpopular because of its generality and vagueness. The Scottish Government no longer use the term 'BAME' and instead use 'minority ethnic (ME)', explaining that the term 'minority ethnic' was more inclusive of all persons belonging to ME communities. |
People of colour/coloured: | The term 'people of colour' tends to be used more in the USA than in the UK, although it has been adopted more frequently in the last few years in the UK. 'Coloured' is offensive and must be avoided in the UK. A person of the older White generation in the UK may feel that they are being polite by using the word 'coloured' rather than 'Black', but that is an extremely outdated view and not acceptable in any way. 'Brown' (as a reference to South Asian people) should also be avoided. |
Jewish people | It is better to say 'Jewish person' or 'Jewish people' than 'Jews' or, worse, 'a Jew'. Although some Jewish people will not mind the collective reference to 'Jews', others will feel the terms 'Jew' and 'Jews' have been used with hostility over the years and now potentially carry negative connotations. |
Immigrant people seeking asylum/refugee | The terms 'immigrant', 'people seeking asylum' and 'refugee' should only be used where such terms are factually correct in connection with the particular individual. Even then, 'immigrant' should be used with caution, as it can sound exclusionary, especially for a person who has lived in the UK for a long time or who has gained British nationality. The words 'immigrant' or 'second generation immigrant' should never be used to describe a Black, Asian or minority ethnic person who was born in the UK. 'Person seeking asylum' is now preferred to 'asylum-seeker' as it is more humanising. |
British/Scottish | 'British' and 'Scottish' are acceptable terms in themselves, but they should be used in an inclusive sense to refer to all ethnic groups and not simply to denote White people. |
Gaelic | It would be wrong, for example, to describe a witness who gives evidence in Gaelic as 'the Gaelic witness', instead use 'the witness who spoke in Gaelic or who used Gaelic'. |