I have to say that I have learnt a great deal about myself from your letters page! Apparently I am disloyal to everyone and I don't understand the feelings of people. I never knew all that but now I do. Mr Jayesh Patel says that the anti discrimination clause about caste is based on flimsy evidence and hearsay. That may well be so but it is part of an Act of Parliament now which means that attention was paid to the so called flimsy and hearsay evidence by both Houses of Parliament. He also says that both Houses passed the legislation because there was no Hindu representation. I have to point out to him that during the debate Lord Dholakia, Lord Popat, Lord Parekh all spoke against it. I call that substantial Hindu representation. Not only that but Hindu organisations lobbied vigorously. So that statement is also not correct. I have said this before but I'll repeat it. The Government cannot now "scrap" the clause. When it is activated and found to be of no use it can be repealed. That will also go through both Houses and there is no guarantee that there will be an agreement on repealing it. There is absolutely no point in continuously asking for it to be scrapped or struck out, it cannot be - it is part of an Act of Parliament and only both Houses of Parliament can repeal it. I was very surprised that Lord Popat gave the impression that Government could just put a line through it. I am very proud to say that I speak for myself. I do not represent anybody and I never want to represent anybody because no-one else is willing to stand up and say the things that need to be said.
Shreela Flather
By email
