August 11th 2005
updated down the page, latest 17th October 2010
Summary: We have a multicultural world. This allows the nations to
develop coherent individual national cultures, which are sometimes
constructed from a blend of others. Good international relations are an
important aim, but an incoherent multiculturalism within a single
country is useless and a recipe for chaos. Tolerance for and
integration of cultural minorities who support the nation state, which
in turn supports and shelters them is, however, essential. That is the
social contract and the basis of civilization.
to understand is why there are different cultures. The origins of the
different cultures are a function of geography. The human race, as it
grew from its basic family origins in expanding numbers, spread across
the globe, either driven by environmental forces or seeking for
environmental opportunities. Some moved to places they desired, some
were driven out by those in possession. Some invaded and took over land
occupied by other species of proto or near humans, some battled with
existing humans. By every possible combination of the above, humans
came to live, at various times, in all parts of the globe where they
were able to survive. As climates changed, some stayed and died, some
stayed and adapted, some moved on to take advantage of new
opportunities. In each case the culture of a particular ethnic branch
of the human race developed cultures that enabled them to survive in
the geographical environment they inhabited. Sometimes people of one
dominated those of another and enslaved them. This symbiosis was
brutal, sometimes quite beneficial. Until systems of currency and wages
were devised and applied, employment could only be by payment by
provision of food, shelter and protection from external assault. For
this reason slavery was the basis of most early societies and empires
that left a mark on history
enshrined their culture in formalised ideas of their origins,
and as language developed the oral traditions became written down and
each new generation was taught from the orthodoxies established by
successful tribes and nations. These became Religions when the
authority claimed by the leaders was claimed in the name of precedent
going back first to ancestors, then to the sun as the life force, and
then beyond physical nature to a presumed spiritual source. All these
ideas were reasonable and remain compatible, However, religions and
their specific cultural practices were related to life in the
particular geographical situation they found themselves, since survival
depended, always, on successful adaptation to and development of, the
environment. Travel and trade modified the social environment, but the
basic geography, geology and climate of a country and the people who
came to inhabit and defend it, determined the character of the culture
that emerged. The arctic and the deserts are extremes, in between are
all sorts of variants of territorial and maritime cultures.
multicultural precisely because it is geographically different, and
ethnic differences are themselves related to environmental factors.
Each culture specialises in its particular field, and the
cross-fertilisation is excellent and productive. But just as he
European Union can only thrive and evolve by the participation of
individual nation states which can develop within themselves the
knowledge and responsibilities of managing their affairs, so the Globe
can only profit from multiculturalism provided these cultures advance
and develop. It would be ridiculous to encourage French cafe society
based on the free sale of alcohol throughout the Middle East, for
example. While missionary Christians may have had great success in
bringing a new religion and culture to some parts of the globe, there
are other places where it has been inappropriate. The idea of Muslims
turning Britain into an Islamic state absurd, as nearly all Muslims
agree. That is not to say we do not have quite a lot to learn from
all the above, it is in addition logical beyond reasonable dispute that
any one country, subject to a a single legal system, must have a
dominant culture on which laws are based, otherwise laws would become
incoherent and contradictory. A recent attempt to introduce 'Islamic
banking' for example, to pretend that different financial rules on
lending, borrowing and interest can apply to Muslims, is just a fudge.
The financial system the West has developed on is one which includes
banking as we know it. That is not to say it cannot evolve but it must
be coherent. Human rights as they affect women is another
example. There are many others. Individuals who have built the UK, and
those who come to live here and work here, do so by choice and take
advantage of the culture we have built. I personally worked with
refugees for some years and was disturbed by the fact that some who had
come here to seek with admiration the culture we have (as opposed that
of their country of origin where they were in serious danger because of
the risk to the regime of their intelligent questioning of policy and
customs) were treated with bad faith by the Home Office, while many who
were culturally opposed to our entire way of life were able to
establish themselves here without difficulty. Possibly this practice
has been cleaned up a bit, but I am not up to date on it. It is also
clear that there are limits to how many asylum seekers we can absorb on
a temporary basis. The fact that there is a war going on somewhere
cannot oblige us to receive those in danger. I should oblige the
International Community to intervene and, collectively, to provide
temporary refuge where it can be done on an equitable basis.
is a vital property of the planet. Travel and cross
fertilisation is vital, but within any given country alien cultures can
only be tolerated if they do not cause or preach a status of
independence form the laws of the land which have been developed to
suit that country, its environment, history, institutional coherence
and the wishes of those who have traditionally made it their home by
birth or immigration.
accept this will have to find somewhere else to live that is to their
liking and will accept them. If such a country indulges in rather
tougher treatment of detainees, and it is the only country that will
accept them, then they have a problem, but their problem cannot
logically become ours, no matter what international obligations we
have, if they reject the sovereignty of our state over their personal
religion. As has been said countless times since Thomas Hobbes coined
it, the Social Contract is only valid if enforced by the sovereign
power. This is ultimate foundation of social philosophy, the SINE QUA
NON. There is no possible argument to that unless you want to erase all
human history and start again, and even then you would eventually
arrive at the same point.
There are special cases where a clash of cultures is temporarily
unresolvable. That is where the same geographical environment is
disputed by societies who have a different approach to the same
environmental circumstances and, instead of one overcoming the other,
the situation is constrained by a context that has arisen outside the
field of conflict. The Israelis were planted in their present
geograhical state by an International Community that restrains them
from total war against Palestinians. Their own history also constrains
them against genocide. Individual Palestinians, however, cannot always
be restrained from suicide bombing. In Nothern Ireland the
British Army, sent originally to protect Catholics from Protestants,
prevents the triumph of any one side while being unable to stop
individual acts of terror. But it is to be noted that both sides aspire
to the same human rights and cultural ambitions which are are not
incompatible. In these two examples, we are looking at a dispute over
territory, not dispute over ideology for the majority of the citizens
involved. The only solution is an equitable sharing of
territory. In Nothern Ireland, catholics do not now see
protestant civilians ans invaders, so there is a chance, however
elusive, for peace. In
Palestine, Palestinians still see Israelis as invaders. Therein lies
lies the problem.
Is the attempt at multiculturalism in BritIain a reason for the
breakdown of culture as a whole and the rise of crime and violence? The
evidence is contradictory and paradoxical. Scotland is not particularly
multicultural but has become the most violent country in the developed
world, followed closely by England and Wales we are told according to a
BT Yahoo Sky News report today:
Scotland has been named the most
violent country in the developed
world.A United Nations report claims more than 2,000 Scots are
assaulted every week - almost 10 times official police figures.The
study - which does not include figures for murder, muggings or sexual
assaults - claims that together, England and Wales are the second most
Experts say Britain's
heavy-drinking habits are to blame.
The UN claims the attacks have been
fuelled by a "booze and blades"
in the west of Scotland with the
worst offenders being males aged
between 15 and 25.
crime has doubled in the country over the past 20 years to a level
comparable with crime-ridden cities like Rio de Janeiro.
By contrast, Japan was named in the
UN report as the least violent
nation, followed by Italy and Portugal.
Only 0.1% of Japanese have been
victims of assault compared with 3%
of Scots, 2.8% in England and Wales, and 2% in America.
The study is based on phone
interviews with victims of crime in 21
spokesman Jan Van Dijk said: "Our survey is more accurate than the
official figures because there is a huge proportion of crimes that go
"We have seen a trend in Scotland
and the proportion
has almost doubled since 1989 and risen 1.9% in 1996. This is very
significant and is a clear upward trend."
Is it any wonder, then that if our
indigenous culture fails, and our Protestant Christian religion is
abandoned, then immigrant cultures with traditional customs will be
forced to keep to their own way of life in order to set acceptable
standards and even for their own protection.
In other parts of the country, immigrant elements who have degenerated
to gun law and gangsterism are a threat to themselves as well as their
neighbours. The rule of law has always been dependent on two things:
the support of the community and enforcement by the sovereign power.
The social contract depends in these self-supporting strands. The
threads by which our civilisation hangs have been woven over centuries
but have to be respected and maintained, and it has to be a collective
and coherent effort or we risk retiring behind protective walls. This
article is from the Daily MIrror.
19 September 2005
DRIFTING TOWARD GHETTOS
warning after Katrina
RACE relations chief
Trevor Phillips will warn that
Britain is "sleepwalking" into New Orleans-style segregation.
a speech this week, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality,
will argue racial divides are growing, with black and Muslim ghettos
emerging in urban areas.
He will claim this
"nightmare" is being fuelled by the
aftermath of the July 7 terror attacks in London.
in a stark warning to Tony Blair, Mr Phillips will tell the Prime
Minister his race relations policies are failing to tackle alienation
and a drift towards extremism among minorities.
Thursday, he will tell the Manchester Council for Community Relations
that the experience of Hurricane Katrina is a lesson for Britain about
the dangers of failing to integrate.
He will add:
"We are becoming more unequal by ethnicity. If you look closely at the
campuses of our most distinguished universities you can pick out the
invisible 'No blacks may enter' messages."
Mr Philips will say
that because of the
so-called "white flight" from the cities, parts of Britain were
"literal black holes into which nobody goes without fear".
action, we could end up in a "New Orleans-style Britain" of "ethnic and
religious communities, eyeing each other uneasily over the fences of
our differences. America is not our dream but our nightmare.
the hurricane hits - and it could be a recession rather than a natural
disaster - those communities are set up for destruction."
Secretary and former anti-apartheid
activist Peter Hain said the situation is "worrying".
MP, who was born in Kenya and grew up in South Africa said: "Compared
to 20 years ago, when I came to Britain, there is much more racial
tolerance and much more integration.
"But there is a
tendency to congregate on a residential
basis by ethnic group."
Lib Dem president
Simon Hughes said: "We shouldn't
generalise - it isn't a crisis."
NOVEMBER 5th 2005
For a week there have been riots in the northern suburbs of Paris.
These events have important lessons, not just for France, or for the
UK, but for the whole world.
When people move voluntarily as immigrants, to a country where the
cultural history is different, they do so by choice. This is true even
if they are refugees. They may well feel disposessed, even exploited in
their new domicile. The may find themselves in a situation of
underprivileged status with regard to the populaton as a whole. Others
may find themsleves much in demand, with a perceived status higher than
that they left behind them. Whichever is the case, they have chosen to
leave their homeland and take advantage of admission to another country.
This is not the case for their children.
did not make that choice.
Some will find themselves born into a world which their parents have
chosen but which may have a culture other than that practised within
the family home. While some wil get the best and make the best of both
worlds and thrive, many will get their culture from neither, at least
not at a level that prepares them for life in the community. There are
those who do not fit in with the culture of their adopted country but
will not find the culture of their homeland provided in their new
environment. The beginning of this web page on Multiculturalism
explains that cultures have to be internally consistent. That is why,
in a multicultural world, nations, geographical and political
boundaries came into being. That is also how and why on continents,
contiguous nations came through wars and peace treaties, occupations
and rebellions, to share cultural assets and experiences, to eventually
coalesce into areas of linguistic homogeneity. The language carried the
culture and still does. Music is also a medium of importance in this
process. So, while there is a French culture, there is also a European
culture which is substantially different from non-European culture.
At a certain level of education people of different cultures find
compatibility because their experience has touched external nature and
related to the life of the planet, with its trials and woes, joys and
loves, achievements and disasters. These are understood within an
educated framework. But if this level of education is not reached,
there can be incompatibility and antagonism between cultures. When this
happens, the religions associated with those cultures are sometimes
called in aid by those who wish to rally their forces. This is
when fundamentalism enters the equation and economic deprivation is
confused with religion as the cause of social breakdown. Many of the
Paris rioters have no understanding of anything. They call themselves
racists, meaning they are against the gang in the street next door. But
there are always those who thrive on the ignorance of others and the
suppliers of drugs form a chain where those nearer the top have an
understanding which, though horribly limited, is attuned to their
personal survival and profit.
There is no painless answer to this situation, or to any other where
adult human beings decide to have children in circumstances which are
not ideal, not to their liking or not even adequate. These days, many
young people appear to have children without even deciding to - things
just 'happen' to them. They are not in control of their lives.
Thousands of years of civilization and experience are not introduced to
them before they are let loose in the world, stimulated by the media
and uncontrolled by their families. The correction to this will
come, as it always has done, through pain. This will be felt by those
who cause it and also by those who by connection or propinquity will
just suffer from it.
It is abundantly clear that humanity has had need of its different
cultures. Bettany Hughes excellent reminder on Channel 4 of how the
Islamic Moors kept alive and developed the culture of ancient Greece,
returning it, enhanced, to Christendom after the dark ages, is but one
example. Yet it was historically inevitavble that for Spain to develop
as a nation it would have to adopt one alphabet and way of writing for
general use. We can definitely say that the development of western
civilisation passed via the Islamic Moors while Christendom lost the
plot temporarily. The Moors were given a very raw deal by all sides.
They were attacked by fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist
Islamists and much of their good work and infrastructure destroyed.
Once again we see that fundamentalism is the real enemy of
civilization. But this does not in any way contradict the principle
that from tme to time a coherent culture must be imposed on any country
that is to take responsibility for its own affairs, even if it is part
of a supernational organisation such as the EU. No doubt the
Chinese will one day contemplate how Europe kept civilization alive and
advancing while China went through its dark age of religious rigidity
and obscurantism, or Communism as we call it.
If we are to avoid periods and places of
'ethnic cleansing' on this planet we have to ensure better education
and birth control. Control may be by natural or artificial means
according to taste, but control in all things is the basis of the
avoidance, so far
as we can, of undesirable situations. What we are witnessing
today is a lack of control by individuals of themselves, by parents of
children, by teachers of pupils, by governments of economies, by the
world of its energy and its climate. The control must start with
individuals, if we are to maintain a truly free society. The tendency
to overcontrol by governments is directly proportional to the lack of
self-control of itheir citizens.
NOVEMBER 7th 2005
The troubles in France can summarised is a few words. The French system
is perfect for handling immigrants who come to France by choice and are
accepted. They have to accept French culture, and they have chosen to
accept it. It cannot deal with their offspring. No records are
kept of the number of muslims as the French state ignores race. No
provisions are made to deal with them. This is a real crisis, but it
has to be acknowledged that France is facing a problem that the UK has
avoided by a different approach which in time will lead to a different
multicultural impasse. In the French case, unemployment as a result is
causing the eruption at this time, so the French state will have to
take steps not only to ensure fuller participation in the educational
system but provide meanngful employment. It is notable that in the
region centred n Marseille there have not been riots as this is the
centre of illegal employment where the intervention of police is to be
avoided at all costs.
The debate on multiculuralism is moving on. But let us look back for a moment to 2003
and a discussion on democracy and its application in different
historical and geographical contexts. Take a look at the input on a BBC
web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3230269.stm
Then consider this from August 30th 2005:
who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday
out of Australia,
the government targeted radicals
a bid to head off potential
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim
pledged loyalty to Australia
Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John
and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would
Costello, seen as heir
apparent to Howard, hinted that
radical clerics could be asked
to leave the country if they
not accept that Australia
secular state, and its laws were
by parliament. "If those
are not your values, if you want a
has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is
you", he said on national television.
"I'd be saying to clerics who are
that there are two laws governing
Australian law and another the
that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary
independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia
have the opportunity to go to another country, which
practices it, perhaps, then, that's a
option", Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics
forced to leave, he said
with dual citizenship could
possibly be asked to move to the
country. Education Minister Brendan
Nelson later told reporters
Muslims who did not want to
accept local values should
who don't want to be Australians,
who don't want to live by
Australian values and understand
well then, they can
basically clear off", he said.
Separately, Howard angered some
on Wednesday by saying
supported spy agencies
monitoring the nation's mosques: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST
Take It Or Leave It.
am tired of this nation worrying about
whether we are offending some
or their culture. Since
the terrorist attacks on Bali,
experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."
"However, the dust from the attacks had
barely settled when the 'politically
complaining about the possibility that
was offending others. I am not against immigration,
do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better
coming to Australia. However,
are a few things that those who have recently come to our
apparently some born here, need to understand. This
a multicultural community has served only
our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians,
have our own culture, our own society, our own language
"This culture has been developed over
centuries of struggles, trials
victories by millions of men
and women who have sought freedom. We
ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,
or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become
our society, Learn the language!"
"Most Australians believe in God. This
some Christian, right wing,
push, but a fact, because
Christian men and women, on
principles, founded this
nation, and this is clearly documented.
is certainly appropriate to
display it on the walls of
schools. If God offends you, then I
suggest you consider another
of the world as your new
home, because God is part of our
"We will accept your beliefs, and will
question why. All we ask is
you accept ours, and live in
harmony and peaceful enjoyment with
"If the Southern Cross offends you, or
don't like 'A
seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.
happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and
don't care how you did things where you came from. By all
your culture, but do not force it on others.''
"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR
LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you
opportunity to enjoy all this.
But once you are done complaining,
and griping about
Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian
or Our Way of Life, I highly
encourage you take advantage
one other great Australian
freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'. If
happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here.
to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."
Further details - http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=875
belief must never become the law - discuss? Of course
religion was the origin of law, but early monotheistic religion was
really empirical and ecological, even when tribal or nationalistic.
Science is the evolution and extension of this based on enhanced
observation. It is perfectly possible to have a rational construct,
with a secular state that respects its traditions - the very traditions
that made possible the development to a secular society that respects
religious beliefs that are not in contradiction with observation and
look at comments just after a Panorama programme in 2001 after
the Twin Towers attack.
reading all of them, not just some, to get a picture of how
varied are the perceptions
Phillips is doing his best to bring sanity and logic to the
'No limits' to UK's race debate
The UK's debate over ethnic
segregation should have no limits, the chief of Britain's race watchdog
Opening a major conference in
London, Trevor Phillips said difficult
questions on the future of British society were going unanswered.
The build-up to the event's
opening was overshadowed by a boycott by London Mayor Ken Livingstone.
Some 900 delegates are attending
the two-day event which will hear from 160 speakers from around the
Mr Phillips said that the Commission for Racial Equality's
would look back on 30 years of race relations action - but also bring
into sharp focus critical problems building up today.
| If we want to change Britain then
all of Britain must be part of the debate and part of the solution
Mr Phillips, soon to head a new equalities super-watchdog, said the
challenges included fears of growing ethnic segregation and isolation
in some inner cities - and little contact between white people and
those of other backgrounds.
"If we truly want to create a nation at ease with its
diversity, are we facing up to the challenges of the future?" he said.
"How do we cope with the rising frictions between people of difference
races and faiths?"
Mr Phillips repeated and defended his controversial warnings
the 2005 London suicide bombings that the UK was experiencing rising
"As a nation we are becoming more ethnically segregated
by residence - and inequality is being amplified by our separate lives.
It is true that some areas are more integrated, but only in the sense
that one black person joining an all-white tennis club integrates it.
| We may have been too ready in
the past to focus on separate provision -
and not ready enough to ask how to get people to come together
"The real crisis lies in the areas which the middle-class minorities
are leaving behind - areas which are becoming more and more ethnically
concentrated and exclusive."
Mr Phillips said his warning was not made to grab
headlines - but to alert people that those likely to lose out most were
the very minorities stuck in these communities.
"If we want to change Britain then all of Britain must be part of
the debate and part of the solution," he said.
"And that means that people of all races, all colours, all faiths
all stations in life have a role to play. This is what we mean by
moving race from the margins to the mainstream - moving from protest to
The event is being boycotted by London Mayor Ken Livingstone.
Mr Livingstone, who has clashed frequently with Mr Phillips, had
expected to attend as mayor of one of the most ethnically diverse
cities in the world.
But in a letter to the CRE chief, Mr Livingstone said
Mr Phillips was using inflammatory language and alarming headlines
which would damage community relations.
One conference session entitled 'Rivers Of Blood: did Enoch Powell
get it right?' was dropped before the event opened.
The CRE said it was disappointed by the snub and said that the
criticism was part of a sustained campaign against the commission.
2006 TWO ARTICLES FROM THE
INDEPENDENT. A WELCOME DOSE OF GOOD SENSE FROM CAMERON AND BLAIR
Ruth Kelly, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, opened
conference saying ministers were now asking whether too much attention
had been given to individual minorities rather than to projects to
build unity in society.
"We may have been too ready in the past to focus on
separate provision - and not ready enough to ask how to get people to
come together," said Ms Kelly.
"It is not cultural diversity itself which is being
questioned. The issue is one of balance between preserving a
distinctive identity and closer integration.
"We must respect difference but this must not been at
the expense of having a society and local communities without a common
Cameron praised for rejecting
By Nigel Morris
Published: 09 December
Tony Blair has lavished praise on
David Cameron for his refusal to
exploit the issue of immigration since he became Tory leader.
The Prime Minister abandoned
party political rivalries to call for a mature debate on
He said: "It is great that in
British politics today no mainstream
party plays the race card. It is not conceivable, in my view, that this
leader of the Conservative Party would ever misuse the debate on
"And that is both a tribute to
him and to the common culture of
tolerance we have established ... There will naturally be debates about
the rules for migration - what they should be and how they are enforced.
"But I don't think in this
country there's any appetite for turning
such a debate into an attack - explicit or implied - on immigrants."
Mr Blair's comments are in stark
contrast to his accusation at the
last election that, under Michael Howard, the Tories played on fears
over asylum and immigration. He said then: "The Tory party have gone
from being a one-nation party to being a one-issue party."
A spokesman for Mr Cameron said
last night: "It's important in
politics that people are constructive and work together when they
agree. But there will be plenty on times when we disagree with the
tells immigrants to integrate or stay away
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs
Published: 09 December
Tony Blair has told immigrants they have a "duty to integrate" and
immigrants should stay away unless they are prepared to accept
Britain's traditional tolerance of other faiths.
The Prime Minister said it was "plain common sense" to ban face
in jobs that depend on communication, dismissed suggestions that sharia
law should be adopted anywhere in Britain and called on mosques that
excluded women to "look again at their practices".
He also announced a crackdown on public money for ethnic minority
groups that did not promote integration and urged faith schools to
build bridges with other religions.
In a strongly-worded lecture on integration, Mr Blair mounted a
wide-ranging defence of multiculturalism, but insisted that its success
depended on Britons of all backgrounds respecting the nation's
He singled out a "new and virulent form of ideology associated with
a minority of our Muslim community" for threatening racial harmony in
the United Kingdom.
"Most Muslims are proud to be British and Muslim and are thoroughly
decent, law-abiding citizens. But it is a problem with a minority of
that community, particularly originating from certain countries."
He drew a parallel between white supporters of the British National
Party and Muslims who shun integration. Mr Blair complained that public
money had been too easily handed out to organisations "tightly bonded
around religious, racial or ethnic identities".
He added: "In the future, we will assess bids from groups of any
ethnicity or any religious denomination, also against a test, where
appropriate, of promoting community cohesion and integration."
The Prime Minister said that "equality of respect and treatment for
all citizens" was a key British value.
He spoke of the frustration of some Muslim women at being barred
from certain mosques and insisted: "Those that exclude the voice of
women need to look again at their practices."
Mr Blair said that no British citizen could legitimately expect to
stand outside the law as set down by Parliament. "There is no question
of the UK allowing the introduction of religious law in the UK."
He said it was important faith schools taught "tolerance and
respect" for other religions and announced that the Department for
Education and Skills would examine ways of ensuring that happened. He
added: "We will also encourage all faith schools to construct a bridge
to other cultures by twinning with schools from another faith."
The Prime Minister re-entered the controversy over women wearing
face veils by pointing out that Jack Straw's disclosure that he asked
for them to be removed in constituency surgeries had been backed by the
Mufti of Egypt, its interpreter of Islamic law.
"It is really is a matter of plain common sense that when it is an
essential part of someone's work to communicate directly with people,
being able to see their face is important."
Mr Blair defined British values as "belief in democracy, the rule of
law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and
its shared heritage".
Dominic Grieve, the Tories' community cohesion spokesman, described
the speech as a remarkable turnaround. "Many of the problems ... he
addresses are at least in part the consequence of a philosophy of
divisive multiculturalism and political correctness that has been
actively promoted by the Labour Party over many years at both national
and local government levels," he said.
FEBRUARY 20th 2007
Today we were
treated to an examplen of the twisted logic of those who think that
multiculturalism means 'anything goes'. A proposal has emerged from a
government department studying the problems of integration, that
immigrant workers and spouses should be required to learn English and
to know some basic English before they came to live here. As someone
who 30 years ago went to live in France for over 15 years I find this
reasonable - I would not have dreamt of doing that without speaking
fluent if initially grammatically substandard French. But today we
heard spokespersons for immigrants claiming this was absurd on the
grounds that we now have a multicltural and multilingual society!
If logic and reason
are to have any meaning, that should mean that people should be
prepared to be, at the very least, knowledgable of the language,
culture law and history of the country in which they choose to live and
which is good enough to accept them and allow them to benefit from its
services, facilities, job opportunities and protection. I think the
proposal is long overdue.
FEBRUARY 14th 2008
It is a year since
I had anything new to add here, but two events give rise to quite a lot
of feeling in the UK public.
The first in the
Archbishop's lecture to some legal eagles that was overheard by the
press, in which he was understood to have said that elements of Sharia
Law would inevitably, eventually, be incorporated into UK law.
Unsurprisingly this caused a rumpus - see SHARIA
IN THE UK
The second is the
proposal by Muslims in Oxford that a mosque in that city should
broadcast through loudspeakers the traditional Musllim call to prayer.
I can't think of anything more certain to irritate the rest of the
citizens, including all other religions and agnostics and atheists,
FEBUARY 15th 2008
This morning's Woman's Hour (BBC Radio 4) on Multiculturalism is the
subject of comments in the ETHNICITY
FEBRUARY 8th 2010
criticises dagger bans
By Poonam Taneja
Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers -
Kirpans - to school and other public places, Britain's first Asian
judge has said.
There have been a
number of cases of Sikhs being refused entry to venues because they
wear the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.
A comment to the above news item says:
"It is the right of
young girl and boy to be educated at the
school of their choice.
him or her to be refused admission on that
sort of ground, as far as I'm concerned, is quite wrong.
It would seem to me that if a school has
rules on dress, or the carriage of knives, with which a student
disagrees, then it would not be the 'school of their choice'. It is
impossible to insist on choice of schools unless there are schools to
choose from. To choose a school, or even a country, in order to change
it to your own way of thinking and living, is not an idea that makes a
lot of sense to me, let alone a right.
OCTOBER 17th 2010
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, announces Multiculturalism has
Her critics say her remarks are "Unhelpful". They also happen to be