The aim of this paper is to examine the principles that New Labour has employed in its citizenship and multicultural policies in Britain, and to clarify theoretical locations as well as philosophical rationales of those principles. By deliberative multiculturalism, I mean a set of policies and discourses of New Labour about citizenship and multicultural issues, which emphasizes rational dialogue and mutual respect with firmly guaranteed political rights especially for minorities.
New Labour tries to go beyond liberal and republican citizenship practice through enhancing deliberation, the origin of which goes back to the British tradition of parliamentary sovereignty. It also attempts to achieve a one-nation out of cultural cleavages, shifting its focus from redistribution with social rights to multicultural deliberation with political rights. I organize my discussion with a focus on the difference between two theoretical concepts: the relationship between cultural rights and individual equality, and the relationship between national boundaries and global belonging. In the concluding section, I explain three positive developments of New Labour's approach and also four limitations it has faced.
Read the whole paper - it's worth it!
Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts
Tory Prevent Strategy on Multiculturalism
The Tories have released a new version of the Prevent strategy—supposedly designed to tackle “terrorism” and “extremism.”
But it remains as racist as the first Prevent policy created by New Labour in 2007.
The Tories are going to even further extremes to clamp down on every aspect of Muslim life, criminalising the entire Muslim population.Farooq Murad, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has described the report as containing the “implicit assumption that Muslims are less able to function in an open democracy than other people, more susceptible to totalitarian impulses and more open to be incited to violence”.
The government will target anyone who challenges “fundamental British values” such as “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
The Tories also want to police our thoughts.
Committed
The report states unequivocally, “We remain absolutely committed to protecting freedom of speech. But preventing terrorism will mean challenging extremist (and non-violent) ideas that are also part of a terrorist ideology.” Mukhtar Masters from Preston told Socialist Worker, “We are a community under constant suspicion. That’s the consequence of Prevent. “No matter what we do, it isn’t good enough. Their Britishness is about washing away our own beliefs and culture and destroying multiculturalism.”
Michael Lavalette, national chair of the Social Work Action Network, has repeatedly spoken out against Prevent being used to target innocent people. He said, “The rewrite reinforces everything wrong about the policy. This time they are demanding an even greater role of policing for welfare workers.
“For them ‘extremism’ can include opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya and support for the Palestinians—ideas millions of people agree with.” While the strategy refers to tackling other extremisms—like that of the far-right—this is dismissed in a few paragraphs. This reflects the government’s hypocrisy—targeting Muslims while pandering to racist and Islamophobic ideas of groups like the English Defence League (EDL).
“In Bradford and Bolton some Prevent funding was diverted into stopping people from opposing the racism of the EDL,” Michael said.
“There were leaflets explaining that people could be arrested for simply coming out to say they oppose the presence of racists on their streets. “It seems Muslims don’t have the same right to protest as everyone else. “The government wants to stop Muslims from organising in their communities.”
And the report endorses David Cameron’s vicious attack on multiculturalism made earlier this year, with talk of a new proposal on integration. Public institutions, like libraries, schools, universities and the NHS, are being asked to spy on individuals and identify possible “terror recruits”.
“Internet filtering across the public estate” is essential. The report says the state will work with YouTube and AOL to limit and monitor internet access. The aim is to “limit access to harmful content online in specific sectors or premises (notably schools, public libraries and other public buildings); and ensure that action is taken to try to remove unlawful and harmful content from the internet.”
There is no explanation of what harmful content may include, but it is clear that educational institutions are to be a major focus of the clampdown.
Explanation
Heathcare workers will come under immense pressure to spy for the government. The report states, “People with mental health issues or learning disabilities may be more easily drawn into terrorism.” It talks about inserting Prevent into the health curriculum. This applies to all levels of education. The report demands that universities do more to root out extremists. Pura Ariza, a member of the UCU lecturers’ union who teaches at Manchester Metropolitan University, told Socialist Worker that lecturers are refusing to spy on students.“The Tories want us to see Muslims as terrorists first, not students or human beings.
“We reject that,” she said.
“There are too few black and ethnic minority students at our universities because of institutional racism.
“We are here to teach, not monitor students’.”
Home secretary Theresa May made wild, unspecified claims that Prevent funding had been used to support extremism. She said that the government is withdrawing funding from a number of Muslim organisations as a result.
Non-extreme
She added that even groups considered “non-extreme” and “very often operating within the law” may not pass the “extremism” test. Yet the Tories see it as proper to fund organisations like Life and The Silver Ring Thing—fundamentalist Christian groups that want to deny women the right to free, safe abortions and who want to stop schools teaching students about contraception.
The right wing press don’t denounce on a daily basis the Christian groups who claim homosexuality is a sin. These contradictions should come as no surprise, Martin Smith from Love Music Hate Racism told Socialist Worker. “First Labour and now the Tories are systematically singling out and targeting Muslims for abuse.
“Attacks on Muslims and mosques have increased, and the new Prevent report is likely to inspire racist and fascist groups like the EDL and BNP. “It is vital that anti-racists unite as a matter of urgency to resist the ramping up of Islamophobia and to defend multiculturalism.”
Read more
But it remains as racist as the first Prevent policy created by New Labour in 2007.
The Tories are going to even further extremes to clamp down on every aspect of Muslim life, criminalising the entire Muslim population.Farooq Murad, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has described the report as containing the “implicit assumption that Muslims are less able to function in an open democracy than other people, more susceptible to totalitarian impulses and more open to be incited to violence”.
The government will target anyone who challenges “fundamental British values” such as “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
The Tories also want to police our thoughts.
Committed
The report states unequivocally, “We remain absolutely committed to protecting freedom of speech. But preventing terrorism will mean challenging extremist (and non-violent) ideas that are also part of a terrorist ideology.” Mukhtar Masters from Preston told Socialist Worker, “We are a community under constant suspicion. That’s the consequence of Prevent. “No matter what we do, it isn’t good enough. Their Britishness is about washing away our own beliefs and culture and destroying multiculturalism.”
Michael Lavalette, national chair of the Social Work Action Network, has repeatedly spoken out against Prevent being used to target innocent people. He said, “The rewrite reinforces everything wrong about the policy. This time they are demanding an even greater role of policing for welfare workers.
“For them ‘extremism’ can include opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya and support for the Palestinians—ideas millions of people agree with.” While the strategy refers to tackling other extremisms—like that of the far-right—this is dismissed in a few paragraphs. This reflects the government’s hypocrisy—targeting Muslims while pandering to racist and Islamophobic ideas of groups like the English Defence League (EDL).
“In Bradford and Bolton some Prevent funding was diverted into stopping people from opposing the racism of the EDL,” Michael said.
“There were leaflets explaining that people could be arrested for simply coming out to say they oppose the presence of racists on their streets. “It seems Muslims don’t have the same right to protest as everyone else. “The government wants to stop Muslims from organising in their communities.”
And the report endorses David Cameron’s vicious attack on multiculturalism made earlier this year, with talk of a new proposal on integration. Public institutions, like libraries, schools, universities and the NHS, are being asked to spy on individuals and identify possible “terror recruits”.
“Internet filtering across the public estate” is essential. The report says the state will work with YouTube and AOL to limit and monitor internet access. The aim is to “limit access to harmful content online in specific sectors or premises (notably schools, public libraries and other public buildings); and ensure that action is taken to try to remove unlawful and harmful content from the internet.”
There is no explanation of what harmful content may include, but it is clear that educational institutions are to be a major focus of the clampdown.
Explanation
Heathcare workers will come under immense pressure to spy for the government. The report states, “People with mental health issues or learning disabilities may be more easily drawn into terrorism.” It talks about inserting Prevent into the health curriculum. This applies to all levels of education. The report demands that universities do more to root out extremists. Pura Ariza, a member of the UCU lecturers’ union who teaches at Manchester Metropolitan University, told Socialist Worker that lecturers are refusing to spy on students.“The Tories want us to see Muslims as terrorists first, not students or human beings.
“We reject that,” she said.
“There are too few black and ethnic minority students at our universities because of institutional racism.
“We are here to teach, not monitor students’.”
Home secretary Theresa May made wild, unspecified claims that Prevent funding had been used to support extremism. She said that the government is withdrawing funding from a number of Muslim organisations as a result.
Non-extreme
She added that even groups considered “non-extreme” and “very often operating within the law” may not pass the “extremism” test. Yet the Tories see it as proper to fund organisations like Life and The Silver Ring Thing—fundamentalist Christian groups that want to deny women the right to free, safe abortions and who want to stop schools teaching students about contraception.
The right wing press don’t denounce on a daily basis the Christian groups who claim homosexuality is a sin. These contradictions should come as no surprise, Martin Smith from Love Music Hate Racism told Socialist Worker. “First Labour and now the Tories are systematically singling out and targeting Muslims for abuse.
“Attacks on Muslims and mosques have increased, and the new Prevent report is likely to inspire racist and fascist groups like the EDL and BNP. “It is vital that anti-racists unite as a matter of urgency to resist the ramping up of Islamophobia and to defend multiculturalism.”
Read more
Coalition disagreement on multiculturalism
WATCHING David Cameron answer questions from university students in Qatar last week, one of his less impressive moments came when a student tackled him over a speech on multiculturalism and radical Islam that he gave to the Munich Security Conference in early February.
You said in that speech that multiculturalism has failed, said the student. Don't you think you are encouraging hatred? What about British tolerance?
Mr Cameron gave a slightly waffly reply. Britain was a successful example of a multiracial society, he told the students of Qatar University. What he had been criticising in Munich was the idea that Britain should be "super tolerant" about communities living separately. He was criticising "state multiculturalism, which was the doctrine that we had in our country for too long that you keep people separate". Under this doctrine, he said, it was believed that different immigrant groups should live together, speak their own language, go to their own schools and not integrate at all. I remember leaning over to the reporter next to me and saying, blimey, he is describing apartheid, not multiculturalism. All in all, the prime minister sounded a bit shrill and unconvincing.
Read more...
You said in that speech that multiculturalism has failed, said the student. Don't you think you are encouraging hatred? What about British tolerance?
Mr Cameron gave a slightly waffly reply. Britain was a successful example of a multiracial society, he told the students of Qatar University. What he had been criticising in Munich was the idea that Britain should be "super tolerant" about communities living separately. He was criticising "state multiculturalism, which was the doctrine that we had in our country for too long that you keep people separate". Under this doctrine, he said, it was believed that different immigrant groups should live together, speak their own language, go to their own schools and not integrate at all. I remember leaning over to the reporter next to me and saying, blimey, he is describing apartheid, not multiculturalism. All in all, the prime minister sounded a bit shrill and unconvincing.
Read more...
Cameron's attack on Multiculturalism is divisive
David Cameron's speech attacking multiculturalism may seem to have come out of a clear blue sky, but its genesis can be traced back to long before he became prime minister. Indeed, in its tone and content it shares many similarities with a key speech made by Tony Blair in 2005, shortly after the London bombings.
Blair argued that the roots of violent Islamism were not "superficial but deep" and could be found "in the extremist minority that now in every European city preach hatred of the west and our way of life".
Those who perpetuated such an ideology, Blair claimed, play "on our tolerance and good nature … as if it is our behaviour that should change, that if we only tried to work out and act on their grievances, we could lift this evil … This is a misunderstanding of a catastrophic order."
But even though Blair returned to this argument recurrently, the Labour government was unable to resolve its internal battles over how best to combat violent extremism. The rows engulfed the government's chief response to the threat, articulated in its "Prevent" strategy, which originally sought to counter the spread of Islamism by empowering moderate voices in the Muslim world.
The Home Office and the Department for Communities vied with each other for cash and resources as they attempted to implement the strategy. Behind the scenes, ministers clashed over who should own the policy. A number of Muslim groups flagged concerns that senior civil servants were in thrall to Islamist organisations that preached non-violence in the UK but endorsed violent extremism abroad. There were even accusations that Prevent itself had been hijacked by extremist groups.
"There was this belief that supporting and reaching out to the non-violent extremists would prevent violent extremists from committing acts of terrorism," said Haras Rafiq, a founder of the Sufi Muslim Council and a director of Centri, an anti-extremism organisation. "It is clear that Cameron now believes that approach was muddled."
Cameron's speech signalled just how muddled he felt the approach had become. In the future, he pledged, only groups that would encourage integration would receive funding. "Let's properly judge these organisations," Cameron said. "Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law?"
Read more...
Blair argued that the roots of violent Islamism were not "superficial but deep" and could be found "in the extremist minority that now in every European city preach hatred of the west and our way of life".
Those who perpetuated such an ideology, Blair claimed, play "on our tolerance and good nature … as if it is our behaviour that should change, that if we only tried to work out and act on their grievances, we could lift this evil … This is a misunderstanding of a catastrophic order."
But even though Blair returned to this argument recurrently, the Labour government was unable to resolve its internal battles over how best to combat violent extremism. The rows engulfed the government's chief response to the threat, articulated in its "Prevent" strategy, which originally sought to counter the spread of Islamism by empowering moderate voices in the Muslim world.
The Home Office and the Department for Communities vied with each other for cash and resources as they attempted to implement the strategy. Behind the scenes, ministers clashed over who should own the policy. A number of Muslim groups flagged concerns that senior civil servants were in thrall to Islamist organisations that preached non-violence in the UK but endorsed violent extremism abroad. There were even accusations that Prevent itself had been hijacked by extremist groups.
"There was this belief that supporting and reaching out to the non-violent extremists would prevent violent extremists from committing acts of terrorism," said Haras Rafiq, a founder of the Sufi Muslim Council and a director of Centri, an anti-extremism organisation. "It is clear that Cameron now believes that approach was muddled."
Cameron's speech signalled just how muddled he felt the approach had become. In the future, he pledged, only groups that would encourage integration would receive funding. "Let's properly judge these organisations," Cameron said. "Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law?"
Read more...
Conservative party cowardice on multiculturalism
One consequence of multiculturalism is that the white population, the people who can rightly claim this land as theirs, are now expected to act and to speak in ways that demonstrate their support and commitment to multiculturalism. In other words, whites, as victims of these ugly policies, policies espoused by Labour and which will be continued if the Conservative Party wins the general election, must show support for something which actively encourages their racial and cultural dispossession. If they cannot bring themselves to state the vile lie – “diversity is our strength” – they must at the very least eschew any public criticism of the ethnic cleansing of whites, especially if they work in the Macphersonised public sector.
Since 1997 the changes affecting Britain as a direct consequence of the imposition of the doctrine of multiculturalism have been deep and far-reaching. They have changed this country overwhelmingly for the worse. The Conservative Party has done nothing to stop this Soviet-style agenda from being imposed. When, in the aftermath of the publication of the Macpherson Report (1999), the police were targeted and accused of being institutionally racist, William Hague, whose favourite pose is that of a straight talker, accepted the report’s findings in full. Later, during the 2001 general election campaign, when the outgoing Conservative Member of Parliament for East Yorkshire, John Townend, highlighted his constituents’ justified fears over mass immigration, Hague denounced him.
At every stage in this Labour government’s attempts to impose multiculturalism on Britain, the Conservative Party has connived and colluded with Labour. The Conservative Party has had endless opportunities to highlight the Neo-Marxist, politically-correct terror which has infected our society, yet it has done nothing. The odd Conservative MP might come out with the cliché - “this is political correctness gone mad” - just to give the impression to beleaguered constituents that he understands their concerns when some spiteful council decides to ban the flying of the England flag on 23rd April, but he does nothing. When teachers, university lecturers, police officers and nurses have been isolated and attacked often for completely harmless remarks, the Conservative Party remained silent. And let me remind Cameron of the way he treated Patrick Mercer, a former army officer, his erstwhile front bench spokesman on defence. When Mercer pointed out some of the facts of life in the British Army on race and race-related matters Cameron sacked him. Cameron does not deserve good people like Mercer. Sacking Mercer was all about playing to the gallery and demonstrating Cameron’s commitment to the poisonous cult of anti-racism: it was an act of cowardice. I can only hope that Mercer will refuse any post he might be offered in the future.
Multiculturalism has not led to the creation of some rainbow-coloured utopia in Britain. On the contrary, it has inflicted enormous damage: alienation, hypocrisy and isolation; bureaucratic and legislative creep; crime; diversity-damage; overpopulation and overcrowding; and the persecution of dissenters in ways that are all too redolent of the former Soviet Union and East Germany.
Read more...
Since 1997 the changes affecting Britain as a direct consequence of the imposition of the doctrine of multiculturalism have been deep and far-reaching. They have changed this country overwhelmingly for the worse. The Conservative Party has done nothing to stop this Soviet-style agenda from being imposed. When, in the aftermath of the publication of the Macpherson Report (1999), the police were targeted and accused of being institutionally racist, William Hague, whose favourite pose is that of a straight talker, accepted the report’s findings in full. Later, during the 2001 general election campaign, when the outgoing Conservative Member of Parliament for East Yorkshire, John Townend, highlighted his constituents’ justified fears over mass immigration, Hague denounced him.
At every stage in this Labour government’s attempts to impose multiculturalism on Britain, the Conservative Party has connived and colluded with Labour. The Conservative Party has had endless opportunities to highlight the Neo-Marxist, politically-correct terror which has infected our society, yet it has done nothing. The odd Conservative MP might come out with the cliché - “this is political correctness gone mad” - just to give the impression to beleaguered constituents that he understands their concerns when some spiteful council decides to ban the flying of the England flag on 23rd April, but he does nothing. When teachers, university lecturers, police officers and nurses have been isolated and attacked often for completely harmless remarks, the Conservative Party remained silent. And let me remind Cameron of the way he treated Patrick Mercer, a former army officer, his erstwhile front bench spokesman on defence. When Mercer pointed out some of the facts of life in the British Army on race and race-related matters Cameron sacked him. Cameron does not deserve good people like Mercer. Sacking Mercer was all about playing to the gallery and demonstrating Cameron’s commitment to the poisonous cult of anti-racism: it was an act of cowardice. I can only hope that Mercer will refuse any post he might be offered in the future.
Multiculturalism has not led to the creation of some rainbow-coloured utopia in Britain. On the contrary, it has inflicted enormous damage: alienation, hypocrisy and isolation; bureaucratic and legislative creep; crime; diversity-damage; overpopulation and overcrowding; and the persecution of dissenters in ways that are all too redolent of the former Soviet Union and East Germany.
Read more...
Clegg breaks with Cameron on Multiculturalism
Nick Clegg has split from David Cameron in his definition of multiculturalism.
The Deputy Prime Minister gave a speech today in Luton -- a symbolic location, given that when Cameron spoke on the same subject in Munich last month, an English Defence League rally took place in the town.
Where Cameron was pessimistic and critical about multiculturalism -- prompting Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan to accuse him of "writing propaganda for the EDL" -- Clegg is positive, and advocates engagement.
It is a significant break in opinion, and while Clegg was careful to signal points of agreement with Cameron throughout the speech, it frequently reads like a direct answer to the PM's points. Over at ConservativeHome, Paul Goodman expresses concern about Clegg's timing in stoking media speculation about a division in the coalition. However, a little disapproval from the Tories is probably no bad thing for Clegg, who needs to shore up support from Lib Dems. Paul Waugh notes that many Tories will see this speech as based not just on principle, but on "the practical need of the Lib Dems to shore up their ethnic vote".
Let's compare and contrast the key points.
On multiculturalism
Cameron:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.
Clegg:
For me, multiculturalism has to seen as a process by which people respect and communicate with each other, rather than build walls between each other. Welcoming diversity but resisting division: that's the kind of multiculturalism of an open, confident society.
On the nature of the threat
Cameron:
It's important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group...
Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse and warped interpretation of Islam and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens.
Clegg:
My point is this. We need a perfect symmetry in our response to crime and violent extremism. Bigots are bigots, whatever the colour of their skin. Criminals are criminals, whatever their political beliefs. Terrorists are terrorists, whatever their religion.
On banning organisations
Cameron:
We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism - against people at home and abroad. Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are certainly, in some cases, part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it's in the public interest to work with
Clegg:
You don't win a fight by leaving the ring. You get in and win. The overwhelming majority of the people attending this conference are active, engaged and law-abiding citizens. We don't win people to liberal ideals by giving ourselves a leave of absence from the argument.
Equally, smart engagement means being extremely careful about decisions to proscribe individual organisations. There are occasions when that is the right course of action. I have to say that, for me, agreeing to the proscription of the Pakistani Taliban was a straightforward decision. But proscription must always be a last resort, never a knee-jerk reflex.
On liberalism
Cameron:
Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does much more.
Clegg:
In an open, liberal society, individuals are free to live in the manner of their choosing, so long as they do not harm others.
Read more...
The Deputy Prime Minister gave a speech today in Luton -- a symbolic location, given that when Cameron spoke on the same subject in Munich last month, an English Defence League rally took place in the town.
Where Cameron was pessimistic and critical about multiculturalism -- prompting Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan to accuse him of "writing propaganda for the EDL" -- Clegg is positive, and advocates engagement.
It is a significant break in opinion, and while Clegg was careful to signal points of agreement with Cameron throughout the speech, it frequently reads like a direct answer to the PM's points. Over at ConservativeHome, Paul Goodman expresses concern about Clegg's timing in stoking media speculation about a division in the coalition. However, a little disapproval from the Tories is probably no bad thing for Clegg, who needs to shore up support from Lib Dems. Paul Waugh notes that many Tories will see this speech as based not just on principle, but on "the practical need of the Lib Dems to shore up their ethnic vote".
Let's compare and contrast the key points.
On multiculturalism
Cameron:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.
Clegg:
For me, multiculturalism has to seen as a process by which people respect and communicate with each other, rather than build walls between each other. Welcoming diversity but resisting division: that's the kind of multiculturalism of an open, confident society.
On the nature of the threat
Cameron:
It's important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group...
Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse and warped interpretation of Islam and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens.
Clegg:
My point is this. We need a perfect symmetry in our response to crime and violent extremism. Bigots are bigots, whatever the colour of their skin. Criminals are criminals, whatever their political beliefs. Terrorists are terrorists, whatever their religion.
On banning organisations
Cameron:
We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism - against people at home and abroad. Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are certainly, in some cases, part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it's in the public interest to work with
Clegg:
You don't win a fight by leaving the ring. You get in and win. The overwhelming majority of the people attending this conference are active, engaged and law-abiding citizens. We don't win people to liberal ideals by giving ourselves a leave of absence from the argument.
Equally, smart engagement means being extremely careful about decisions to proscribe individual organisations. There are occasions when that is the right course of action. I have to say that, for me, agreeing to the proscription of the Pakistani Taliban was a straightforward decision. But proscription must always be a last resort, never a knee-jerk reflex.
On liberalism
Cameron:
Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does much more.
Clegg:
In an open, liberal society, individuals are free to live in the manner of their choosing, so long as they do not harm others.
Read more...
"Multiculturalism has failed" - Cameron
David Cameron has criticised "state multiculturalism" in his first speech as prime minister on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism.
At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.
He also signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.
The speech angered some Muslim groups, while others queried its timing amid an English Defence League rally in the UK.
As Mr Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.
Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.
"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.
Read more...
At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.
He also signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.
The speech angered some Muslim groups, while others queried its timing amid an English Defence League rally in the UK.
As Mr Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.
Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.
"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.
Read more...
New Labour and Multiculturalism
Renewed controversy on the subject came to the fore when Andrew Neather — a former adviser to Jack Straw, Tony Blair and David Blunkett — claimed that Labour ministers had a hidden agenda in allowing mass immigration into Britain, to "change the face of Britain forever".This alleged conspiracy has become known by the sobriquet "Neathergate".
According to Neather, who was present at closed meetings in 2000, a secret Government report called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up, and that “mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”. Neather went on to say that “the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.[65][66]
This was later affirmed after a request through the freedom of information act secured access to the full version of a 2000 government report on immigration that had been heavily edited on a previous release.[67] The Conservative party demanded an independent inquiry into the issue and alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism for political ends.
In February 2011 Prime Minister David Cameron stated that the "doctrine of state multiculturalism" (promoted by the previous Labour government) has failed and will be no longer be state policy.[68] He stated that the UK needed a stronger national identity and signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism
Read more...
According to Neather, who was present at closed meetings in 2000, a secret Government report called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up, and that “mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”. Neather went on to say that “the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.[65][66]
This was later affirmed after a request through the freedom of information act secured access to the full version of a 2000 government report on immigration that had been heavily edited on a previous release.[67] The Conservative party demanded an independent inquiry into the issue and alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism for political ends.
In February 2011 Prime Minister David Cameron stated that the "doctrine of state multiculturalism" (promoted by the previous Labour government) has failed and will be no longer be state policy.[68] He stated that the UK needed a stronger national identity and signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism
Read more...
Conservative speech on Multiculturalism
For over a decade now we have witnessed a plethora of speeches and academic papers on the subject of multiculturalism. It is nine years since the Parekh Report came out under the auspices of the Runnymede Trust, a document that proved extremely controversial.
It was welcomed by some, particularly on the left, as a serious critique of the structures of the British state. It suggested that society was rather institutionally racist and it offered proposals to recreate the identity of our country on the basis of being a community of diverse communities.
Others at the time saw it as a deconstructionist document that if implemented would leave any sense of common bond in tatters. There was a lot of journalistic apoplexy. As is common in such cases many had only read the executive summary from which it was difficult to escape the conclusion that it was designed to shock, maybe to shake us out of complacency.
The Parekh report is a subject to which I will return later, because it seems to me that it is essential that it attracts a Conservative contribution - which I am afraid it did not have at the time!
There is, I suggest, quite apart from Hazel Blears' speech, ample evidence that the ideas and ideals of multiculturalism have run into the sand. Certainly its ensuing bureaucratic application has resulted in it being held in widespread contempt.
As I wrote this speech two items of news illustrated this for me.
These were: the parent who was admonished by a school because her 5 year old child discussed her albeit basic Christian understanding with another child; and, secondly, the story of the community nurse suspended for 6 weeks for suggesting she might pray for a patient she was looking after. I put them together because they struck me as examples of disproportionate reactions which are doing great harm to the worthy cause of promoting harmony which I am quite clear the Parekh report was trying to do, even if I have considerable doubts as to its methodology.
In both cases I am sure the authorities believed they were reacting totally appropriately in accordance with the principles of equality and diversity that have grown out of the intention behind the Parekh report in order to develop greater respect and tolerance between citizens.
What I want to discuss tonight is whether the means have destroyed the end and how we as Conservatives would set about achieving a better balance between the spirit of the Parekh report and its results.
Now is the time to put this question. Under the leadership of David Cameron and with a general election on the horizon Conservatives must demonstrate that we have the ability and ideas to address the challenges that a multi-cultural society presents.
The challenge is all the more difficult as the left has had this area to itself for too long.
Multiculturalism has become synonymous with the messages of the centre left. So any Conservative approach must be articulated within my Party's own tradition and language.
We will not be able to offer our ideas to the electorate if we just continue to repeat parrot fashion the words and methods of the centre left - an approach which is governed by a socialist view of society.
Read more...
It was welcomed by some, particularly on the left, as a serious critique of the structures of the British state. It suggested that society was rather institutionally racist and it offered proposals to recreate the identity of our country on the basis of being a community of diverse communities.
Others at the time saw it as a deconstructionist document that if implemented would leave any sense of common bond in tatters. There was a lot of journalistic apoplexy. As is common in such cases many had only read the executive summary from which it was difficult to escape the conclusion that it was designed to shock, maybe to shake us out of complacency.
The Parekh report is a subject to which I will return later, because it seems to me that it is essential that it attracts a Conservative contribution - which I am afraid it did not have at the time!
There is, I suggest, quite apart from Hazel Blears' speech, ample evidence that the ideas and ideals of multiculturalism have run into the sand. Certainly its ensuing bureaucratic application has resulted in it being held in widespread contempt.
As I wrote this speech two items of news illustrated this for me.
These were: the parent who was admonished by a school because her 5 year old child discussed her albeit basic Christian understanding with another child; and, secondly, the story of the community nurse suspended for 6 weeks for suggesting she might pray for a patient she was looking after. I put them together because they struck me as examples of disproportionate reactions which are doing great harm to the worthy cause of promoting harmony which I am quite clear the Parekh report was trying to do, even if I have considerable doubts as to its methodology.
In both cases I am sure the authorities believed they were reacting totally appropriately in accordance with the principles of equality and diversity that have grown out of the intention behind the Parekh report in order to develop greater respect and tolerance between citizens.
What I want to discuss tonight is whether the means have destroyed the end and how we as Conservatives would set about achieving a better balance between the spirit of the Parekh report and its results.
Now is the time to put this question. Under the leadership of David Cameron and with a general election on the horizon Conservatives must demonstrate that we have the ability and ideas to address the challenges that a multi-cultural society presents.
The challenge is all the more difficult as the left has had this area to itself for too long.
Multiculturalism has become synonymous with the messages of the centre left. So any Conservative approach must be articulated within my Party's own tradition and language.
We will not be able to offer our ideas to the electorate if we just continue to repeat parrot fashion the words and methods of the centre left - an approach which is governed by a socialist view of society.
Read more...
The Baroness Warsi speech on Multiculturalism
Conference, there are three key messages I would like you to take away from my speech today…
1. Labour’s reliance on multiculturalism has failed Britain
2. The state’s continued suspicion of faith is wrong
3. And the threat of terrorism is no excuse for demonising a whole community.
Firstly, when we as Conservatives talk about multiculturalism we are not talking about the building of temples, or synagogues or mosques in any neighbourhood. For us that is religious pluralism and it is a defining British characteristic that began with the non-conformists.
For me, state multiculturalism, as I like to define it is forcing Britain’s diverse communities to still define themselves as different, patronisingly special and tempting them to compete against each other for public funds.
It’s the madness of political correctness which fails to teach our children British history in case it offends, and is the madness of translating documents into a multitude of languages instead of actually teaching people English.
State multiculturalism is not integration, is not unifying and is not the British way.
Secondly, Conference under Labour, the State has become increasingly sceptical of an individuals religious belief.
We’ve all seen the stories, how appalling that in Labour’s Britain a community nurse can be suspended for offering to pray for a patient’s recovery.
Or a school receptionist could face disciplinary action for sending an email to friends asking them to pray for her daughter.
At the heart of these cases lies a growing intolerance and illiberal attitude towards those who believe in God. The scepticism of senior Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris driving this secular agenda has now grown to become an ideology permeating through many parts of the public sector.
It’s an agenda driven by the political-elite, who have hijacked the pursuit of ‘equality’ by demanding a dumbing down of faith.
It’s no wonder that this leads to accusations in the media that our Country’s Christian culture is being downgraded.
For many their faith brings them closer to their neighbour, it’s the driver for their voluntary work, their social action. And for many, faith is the basis for some of the best schools in our Country.
This scepticism against faith communities and in some case outright hostility, is both wrong and dangerous.
Strong societies are built on cherishing their heritage.
So when some misguided lliberal tries to downgrade Christmas…
Read more...
1. Labour’s reliance on multiculturalism has failed Britain
2. The state’s continued suspicion of faith is wrong
3. And the threat of terrorism is no excuse for demonising a whole community.
Firstly, when we as Conservatives talk about multiculturalism we are not talking about the building of temples, or synagogues or mosques in any neighbourhood. For us that is religious pluralism and it is a defining British characteristic that began with the non-conformists.
For me, state multiculturalism, as I like to define it is forcing Britain’s diverse communities to still define themselves as different, patronisingly special and tempting them to compete against each other for public funds.
It’s the madness of political correctness which fails to teach our children British history in case it offends, and is the madness of translating documents into a multitude of languages instead of actually teaching people English.
State multiculturalism is not integration, is not unifying and is not the British way.
Secondly, Conference under Labour, the State has become increasingly sceptical of an individuals religious belief.
We’ve all seen the stories, how appalling that in Labour’s Britain a community nurse can be suspended for offering to pray for a patient’s recovery.
Or a school receptionist could face disciplinary action for sending an email to friends asking them to pray for her daughter.
At the heart of these cases lies a growing intolerance and illiberal attitude towards those who believe in God. The scepticism of senior Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris driving this secular agenda has now grown to become an ideology permeating through many parts of the public sector.
It’s an agenda driven by the political-elite, who have hijacked the pursuit of ‘equality’ by demanding a dumbing down of faith.
It’s no wonder that this leads to accusations in the media that our Country’s Christian culture is being downgraded.
For many their faith brings them closer to their neighbour, it’s the driver for their voluntary work, their social action. And for many, faith is the basis for some of the best schools in our Country.
This scepticism against faith communities and in some case outright hostility, is both wrong and dangerous.
Strong societies are built on cherishing their heritage.
So when some misguided lliberal tries to downgrade Christmas…
Read more...
Conservatives and multiculturalism
For the best part of 10 years, I represented the largest number of Muslim voters of any Conservative MP. During the last parliament, I was the party's spokesman on integration in the Commons. I worked happily with people on the left who took an uncompromising view of Islamist extremism, agreeing with them that since it saw no distinction between religious and secular law it was incompatible with liberal democracy. So my article for Davis's book could reasonably be expected to excoriate the M-word.
I agree with some on the left and most on the right that integration is a good thing and cultural relativism a bad one. For example, female genital mutilation shouldn't be tolerated in Britain simply because it's a cultural custom in parts of Africa and Asia. But I have come to see that the ultimate modernisation for the Conservative party isn't to back gay marriage or promote more women. It's to end the Tory war on multiculturalism. In saying so, my essay for The Future of Conservatism therefore bucks the stereotype, and is based on a simple truth: that multiculturalism means different things to different people.
To some, it means Mohammad Siddique Khan, the British-born 7/7 suicide bomber, a chilling example of what can happen when integration fails (though, blessedly, a very rare one). To others, it means the Notting Hill carnival or Manchester Pride – or the Bible, that meshing of Jewish, Greek and Roman culture. But it's no great mystery to guess what Tory condemnations of multiculturalism mean to many ethic minority voters. When Conservative lips mouth "multiculturalism", they hear multi-racialism – a verbal assault on people of a different ethnicity.
Read more...
I agree with some on the left and most on the right that integration is a good thing and cultural relativism a bad one. For example, female genital mutilation shouldn't be tolerated in Britain simply because it's a cultural custom in parts of Africa and Asia. But I have come to see that the ultimate modernisation for the Conservative party isn't to back gay marriage or promote more women. It's to end the Tory war on multiculturalism. In saying so, my essay for The Future of Conservatism therefore bucks the stereotype, and is based on a simple truth: that multiculturalism means different things to different people.
To some, it means Mohammad Siddique Khan, the British-born 7/7 suicide bomber, a chilling example of what can happen when integration fails (though, blessedly, a very rare one). To others, it means the Notting Hill carnival or Manchester Pride – or the Bible, that meshing of Jewish, Greek and Roman culture. But it's no great mystery to guess what Tory condemnations of multiculturalism mean to many ethic minority voters. When Conservative lips mouth "multiculturalism", they hear multi-racialism – a verbal assault on people of a different ethnicity.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)