Is Multiculturalism Killing Britain?

Followers

March 5, 200917 yr

Today, shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve lets rip on a subject the Tories have been notably silent on - multiculturalism. His main argument isn't a disaster, and, for what it's worth, he manages to satisfy both sides of the debate without overly upsetting anyone - a form of pacification now mistaken for success in modern politics. But his "vision" for a multicultural Britain makes several serious errors. Most importantly, he seems to fundamentally misunderstand what British identity is all about.

Grieve begins by identifying a very real problem: the government's current approach to multiculturalism. He describes the last 11 years of Labour government a "decade of courting self-appointed heads of minority groups and pandering to special interest lobbies, ignoring the range of opinions and depth of diversity in modern Britain".

He's quite right. The approach of the government has been to consult just the leaders - often self-appointed leaders - of various groups, be they racial, religious, sexual or otherwise. These leaders are often the most reactionary face of the group. The Muslim community presents a shining example. Feminist Muslim groups, or gay Muslim groups, have been largely ignored by New Labour, while self-appointed community leaders such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) are treated as the one-stop shop for Muslim views.

But his solution - a reaffirmation of traditional British community based on common values, is problematic. "It is these values," he says, "honed by history, bruised and buffed by time, that have created our legal and constitutional arrangements.

"Faced with a society that seems to be suffering an identity breakdown, should we be surprised that [recent immigrants] find a common identity with their fellow countrymen hard to identify?"

This solution reveals a mistaken understanding of what the traditional British values Grieve puts so much emphasis on actually are. This nation has always had a laissez-faire approach to immigration, much as it has historically adopted a laissez-faire attitude to its own people. To most Britons, being British is strongly connected to minding your own business, and being free to get on with yours.

During the Victorian era, for instance, Britain welcomed the most radical thinkers in Europe, most of them barred from their own country. In this, the home of capitalism, Marx wrote Das Kapital, Lenin walks the streets of east London, and Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin formulated the beginnings of anarchist theory. Much later, at the turn of the century, French intelligence services described our capital as Londonistan, because of how free radical Islamists were to set up camp here.

It's a curious way to defend the British approach, I know - bringing up examples of left-wing extremists and Islamic hardliners. But historically, this is what Britain has done. It has allowed people to come to these shores and live their life as they see fit, within reason. France, with its onus of a fiercely secular state, goes about things rather differently. The government's decision to ban the hijab in public schools would be unthinkable in the UK. The tension caused by this interference in immigrants' lifestyles was at least partially reflected in the riots which tore apart banlieues two summers ago.

In America, which historically adopted a similarly liberal approach to immigration as the UK, the pressure on immigrants to conform to the society they have come to live in is even greater. The curious American infatuation with flag waving and the emphasis placed on those expressing political opinions to reiterate their loyalty to the country force many immigrants into becoming more American than the Americans in order to be accepted.

It seems almost laughable after a decade of encroachments on our civil liberties, but Britain was once considered the freest country on Earth. There was a very simple reason for this - you were allowed to get on with your own business as long as you didn't interfere with others getting on with theirs. This is the most important traditional British value.

Grieve ends his speech saying he will unveil a vision of Britain based on "the strength that lies in the common sense of communities". I called the Conservatives to ask what this might mean and didn't get a straight answer. A spokesperson told me - with some justification - that this is a speech, not a policy proposal. But a lot of very dubious ideas can lurk in that sentence, which makes appeals to a more French way of approaching society - a vision of Britain that demands a singular behaviour, rather than tolerating a plurality of lifestyles.

There must be red lines, of course - all of which must be based on individuals' freedom of choice. It is not acceptable that communities in Britain can conduct forced marriages, for instance. Each individual must be as free as possible to conduct their affairs, and a communities' freedom to retain its cultural practises does not overrule the individual's freedom to live their life as they see fit.

This freedom is what Britain is all about. It's a country we can be proud of, and one immigrants would be proud to live in too.

Ian Dunt

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/article/4420/

March 5, 200917 yr

A spokesperson told me - with some justification - that this is a speech, not a policy proposal.

and that's all it is, hot air and words lacking substance merely sound bites to attract attention without saying anything that might offend anyone.

The Conservatives are going to have to do a lot better than that. They may be ahead in the polls now but come election time people are more likely to settle for the devil they know than the one they don't. At the moment of reckoning this kind of stuff is not what people are worrying about nor will it be irrespective of the nex few months.

March 6, 200917 yr

Ice cream van politics.

March 6, 200917 yr

In that case I'll have a mister whippy!

March 6, 200917 yr

Bedlamisation in OTB? There's a thing...

March 6, 200917 yr

Okay, I'll have a choc-ice then!