Social and political commentary from a conservative perspective

Multiculturalism

January 12th, 2007 5:26 pm// Bel //

Over at Raw Carrot, an interesting and thought-provoking video on multiculturalism.

6 Responses to “Multiculturalism”

  1. George Poles Says:
    January 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Having watched the video I have to say it doesn’t seem to have anything whatsoever to do with multiculturalism/mass immigration and everything to do with Islamic fundamentalism. M0st immigrants to this country are not Muslims and I strongly doubt that most of those who are Muslims are fundamentalists. I further doubt that the majority of those who are fundamentalists are supporters of terrorist attacks.

    I support mass immigration but I acknowledge that there are real issues over it, especially in relation to the availability of services and housing. It’s a debate worth having.

    On balance, I support the idea of multiculturalism as against monoculturalism. That does not deny that this country is a liberal democracy which sets certain minimum standards for all its people, including freedom of expression, equality of treatment &c &c. The idea that anyone should, for instance, be forced to wear a veil is wrong; if they freely choose to wear one, however foolish or otherwise their reason for doing so, then I don’t think the state should try and stop them. Again, there is a legitimate debate to be had about the social and societal differences that can be tolerated within a single state.

    This video doesn’t address these arguments. The only inference a man from Mars could take from it would be that mass immigration/multiculturalism is a synonym for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism - and that simply isn’t true.

  2. Bel Says:
    January 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    Hello George Poles, thank you for your thoughtful response. On the video, I realised that the central argument (ie does multiculturalism lead to these evils?) may well be a matter for debate, hence my referring to it as ‘thought-provoking’.

    The mass immigration argument is an interesting one, especially when one considers that the four suicide bombers were in fact British citizens. However, that does not mean that the dangers of mass immigration are not any the less real.

    As to multiculturalism, I may be wrong, and I would appreciate your views, but I understand it to mean a situation where we regard all cultures as equally valid. This is what I disagree with. I do not accept that all cultures are equally valid. I believe that some cultures espouse practices that are repressive, harmful, and not at all to be encouraged. To rank such cultures as on a par with others is, in my view, just plain wrong. To the extent that multiculturalism attempts to do that, I believe it should be resisted.

    The video is entitled ‘Should we celebrate multiculturalism?’, or something similar. That is not the question I would have asked. My question would have been ‘did multiculturalism lead to the growth of islamic fundamentalism?’ Somehow I suspect that that was the point the video was trying to make.

  3. George Poles Says:
    January 13th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Thank you Bel. I’ve only recently discovered your blog since As A Dodo (which I write for) joined Blogpower and I must say I’ve found it extremely thought-provoking, though as you can probably guess I’m rather to the left of your own political centre on some issues.

    Perhaps the greatest problem with multiculturalism is the way we all define it so differently. I think it has to mean something more than a cultural relativist view that in the appropriate culture anything goes. As I say Britain is a liberal (small “l”) democracy and I for one think that liberal democracy is the best way we’ve found to go. I think we are entitled to expect anyone who chooses to settle in this country to subscribe to its basic tenets and I don’t see this as conflicting with multiculturalism. I live close to a part of London which has many Orthodox Jews living in it, I don’t see any reason to require them to give up their clothing despite the fact that it belongs to a different age and a much colder climate, nor their religious observances nor their favourite foods. If they wish to remain partially isolated from the rest of the community they are free to do so (in fact in doing so they are behaving like so many Londoners who wouldn’t know their neighbours from Adam). If one of them were to advocate blowing people up, however, he should be tried and imprisoned asap.

    All cultures have their nutters - I find many views expressed by some Christian fundamentalists (including one who lectured me at length on why any doctor who carried out an abortion should be castrated) extremely obnoxious - and those nutters should be dealt with publicly and appropriately (as happened with Omar Khayam, the protestor dressed as a suicide bomber who appears in the video). The danger with multiculturalism comes when it is seen as protecting those with obnoxious views or behaviour on the grounds that those views or behaviour are “cultural” or “religious”.

    As to whether multiculturalism led to Islamic fundamentalism in the UK, I doubt it. More important seems to have been security services’ habit of allowing fundamentalists to set up and teach here on the grounds they could be kept under useful observation and that any harm they caused might occur overseas. But that’s another issue.

  4. Raw Carrot Says:
    January 15th, 2007 at 1:02 am

    “Having watched the video I have to say it doesn’t seem to have anything whatsoever to do with multiculturalism/mass immigration and everything to do with Islamic fundamentalism.”

    George,

    I think you may have missed something then. Do you fail to see that a multicultural society, in being ‘tolerant’, tolerates the intolerable?

    The emphasis on Islamic fundamentalism was chosen as (to be honest) the images were the easiest to find, and I felt that the issue is the most critical currently affecting us.

    To expect a society to be “cohesive” and “strong” when a sizable portion of it is so utterly different to the ‘incumbents’ is, in my view, naive. Certainly, when this difference involves an inherent aversion to democracy, liberty and even the rule of law it is clear, in my mind, that something must give.

    So far the UK Government and majority of the population have ‘given’ — discrimination laws have been introduced, new crimes created, and tolerance at every turn offered. The point of the short film was to suggest that ‘just giving’ is not a good answer to mass immigration. The Government has given us “multiculturalism” — and with it have come fractured communities thereby making it all the harder for any of us to truly know our neighbours. At the extremes have come some hideous acts - and while multiculturalism may not be the sole factor in the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the UK it has doe nothing to challenge it.

  5. George Poles Says:
    January 15th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    Two points: first, again I have to say that I feel extremely uneasy, not to say disturbed, at the video’s equation of mass immigration/multiculturalism with Islamic fundamentalism. I appreciate that these are the images that are the most available but had I, say, chosen to illustrate a video of the multiculturalism debate solely with happy faces watching Chinese New Year celebrations in Leicester Square, people joining in the Diwali celebrations in Leicester, enjoying a curry in Bradford &c &c I think you might assume I was coming from a biased position.

    My second point: as I suggested before it is quite possible to insist that all citizens (or rather, subjects in the UK’s case) sign up to democracy, liberty and the rule of law and bring down the full force of the law when they fail to act in accordance with those principles. Technically Catholics should regard the Pope as their supreme leader on Earth and a greater authority than Parliament’s laws - as long as this doesn’t cause a holder of that faith to disobey the law I don’t see it as a problem. Muslims believe that they should obey Islamic laws, so long as they do so within the bounds of British law again I fail to see the problem. To take such a view is not “just giving” it is saying all people should have equality before the law.

    Now some questions: As to the presence of anti-discrimination laws - what is your objection? Are you suggesting that it is desirable to discriminate against people on the basis of their race or colour? Don’t forget, anti-discrimination laws can apply as against non-whites discriminating against whites - they don’t merely favour one group as against another. What about protection from discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, is that objectionable? In regard to the latter would you include Christian fundamentalists, many of whom would be well outside the mainstream of faith in Britain?

  6. George Poles Says:
    January 15th, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    BTW apologies in advance if the above is a little “ranty” - a streaming cold seems to have switched off my “civilised level of debate” meter.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.