David Cameron on Multiculturalism
David Cameron finally has an opinion, and it is against multiculturalism. Now, this is hardly a novel position, but it almost immediately makes me feel uncomfortable. After all, what is multiculturalism? Fortunately, Cameron is on-hand to clarify - he's against "state multiculturalism". Which makes some sense to me - any state-led attempt to graft some sort of blueprint onto society doesn't tend to end well. The irony that this is the same David Cameron who is attempting to nudge us into his Big Society is not lost on me, though.
But why doesn't David Cameron think state multiculturalism is working? Well, he's against extremism; which, I suppose, is a logical position for a conservative. Of course, he's particularly against Muslim extremism, and seems to be doing little to tackle other forms of extremism - like the luddite reactionary racism of the EDL and the BNP. Furthermore, there seems to be little said about tackling the sort of extremists who march in the streets of London, demanding revolution before lobbing fire extinguishers off rooftops at police officers. Then again, the latter cant be grafted onto his narrative about the failure of multiculturalism. And that, of course, is a crushing blow to Cameron's case; extremism is not just about multiculturalism. It can occur whenever there is disagreement which - given we are a diverse society - is inevitable. And while extremism is often a cause for concern, disagreement and diversity shouldn't be. And anyone who, as Cameron seems to be doing in this speech, calls for some sort of collective identity to overcome such disagreement and diversity is being grossly illiberal.
Which is ironic, since Cameron is calling for a "much more active, muscular liberalism". The language immediately makes me feel faintly nauseous; Cameron here (deliberately or otherwise) sounds like one of those US Libertarians who speak in non-sequiturs like "in order to have a free country we must have a strong state". But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and see what he means by this vision of liberalism:
"Let's properly judge these organisations: 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? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?
"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations."
Ah, now this is more like it - vintage Cameron. Talking purely in meaningless platitudes. Let's look at some of these terms he's bandying around. First up, "universal human rights". Quite simply, these do not exist. There are no human rights that every state - let alone every person - is prepared to agree on. Pointing to North Korea is an easy way to demonstrate this, but we could also look at the US - our partners with whom we have a "special relationship". Their version of human rights does not match our one; not only do they execute people, but they are prepared to execute children. Universal human rights do not exist; how can anyone pass a test based on what does not exist?
And what of democracy? Cameron makes much of Islamic extremism. Yet look at a state often seen to embody Islamic extremism: Iran. Iran - like it or not - is a democracy, in that an elite choose candidates who stand for election. Sure, you can say that isn't particularly democratic - but then again, an elite choosing which candidates can stand in an election is a pretty good description of the dominant party politics of the UK. Furthermore, this sort of rhetoric falls foul of the fallacy that democracy is an end in itself; it isn't. It can help to bring freedom, diversity and a better life for many; but there is no guarantee that democracy can do it alone. Besides, democracy does not necessarily bring you the results you want. Again, look at the response to the last Iranian presidential election in the West. Still, at least this is a test many can pass: extremists can like democracy too.
And encouraging integration rather than separation - let's skip over the spectre of conformism inherent in the idea of integration for a moment and instead think about those who encourage separation. There are many people in this country who stand opposed to further integration into Europe - including in Cameron's own party. There are those who advocate separation from the EU. Are these extremists? Is UKIP really a challenge to the fabric of British society? Should Cameron refuse to stand next to those members of his Cabinet who have a Eurosceptic voting record? No, of course not. But the sort of terms that Cameron uses are so broad that they can be interpreted in any number of different ways. They are meaningless; yet they are the terms he will use to discover who the extremists are. In other words, the definition of an extremist is entirely at his discretion.
Multiculturalism may not have worked; but conformism is not then, ipso facto, the answer. Nor is it realistic; as soon as you try to force people to become what they are not, and believe in what they cannot, you run the risk of radicalising people. That's another irony of Cameron's plans; in fighting extremists, he runs the risk of creating more extremists. If multiculturalism is the problem, then Cameron still doesn't have the solution.
And is there a solution? Possibly, but it isn't an easy one. It involves understanding, and embracing, the fact of value-pluralism in humans at the same time as being guided by something like the harm principle. Or, to put it another way, you can believe what you like and cannot be forced to conform to the belief systems of anyone else - even the Prime Minister - just so long as your actions do not encroach on the freedoms of others. Yeah, it's not perfect and yeah, in a country where conformity is seen by many as something to aspire to, it isn't going to be easy. But it is perhaps the best we have to offer when people aren't going to agree, no matter how David Cameron might want them to.
Labels: Cameron, Extremism, Fundamentalism, Islam, multiculturalism, Racism
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 2:13 pm
19 Comments
19 Comments:
Well, there you have it;
"..just so long as your actions do not encroach on the freedoms of others"
i.e. if you want to subjugate women, get out. If you want to cut people's hands off, then do it elsewhere.
Surely this is what Cameron meant? I don't think he is necessarily opposed to diversity, he's just (quite rightly) saying that the state should not respond to it by way of diverse legislation.
Nice article though :)
No, you've completely missed the point.
You can hold all those beliefs if you so wish, but putting them into practice is the problem. But for both of the issues you cite, existing laws can deal with that. And "get out"? That sounds like the language of the BNP, frankly.
I still can't undersand why most politicians are scared of Islam and Muslim culture. Behaving such way will do no better to the human relation in the long and short term. People,respectfully, holding seats should give the best of the best in terms of tolerance and acceptance of the other. Unfortunately, they are enlarging the gap of aloofness and hatred.
Human beings are all the same and what hurts a muslim feeling will similarly hurt a christian's, jews's or atheist's. Finally,I will borrow the old thinkers and pacifists hope for a time where people could understand and respect each other regardless of religions, beliefs and tradition differences.
The extrapolate from Nameless Libertarian’s point, the idea that “existing laws deal” with unacceptable practices by immigrants is totally naïve. Try telling that to a young Pakistani girl being threatned at knifepoint with a forced marriage by her brothers or parents. Halal type slaughter used to be illegal. Now the law has changed.
The reality is that the law changes to accommodate the desires of immigrants, however odious those desires or practices.
Someone recently published a book about the Danish cartoons in the US, but (hilariously) didn’t dare include the actual cartoons in the book. The author clearly didn’t regard US law as being of any use for the purposes of defending their right to free speech.
I do not have the power to influence this world, however it is the actions of my enemies which will ensure that I shall overcome.
Musgrave,
Your point is pretty garbled. There are laws in this country to prevent people from coercing others with threats, or actual acts, of violence - and these laws can be prosecuted regardless of the religious or ethnic background of the victims and perpetrators.
Of course laws cannot prevent all criminal acts, be it fraud, murder, or coercing people at knifepoint to do what they do not wish to do. Why signal out anyone religion or ethnic group as particularly prone to such acts and therefore needing extra legislation? Because it is easier to tell what group they belong to by the colour of their skin or their place of worship?
And yes, the law changes - sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Interested parties will always try to influence that - and again, it is not about religious or ethnic background.
TNL
"Why signal out anyone religion or ethnic group as particularly prone to such acts and therefore needing extra legislation? Because it is easier to tell what group they belong to by the colour of their skin or their place of worship?"
Religion does not equal ethnic group. The UKIP and the BNP do not speak for white Englishman anymore than the KKK speak for white American Southerners. That doesn't mean one shouldn't ostracize and target them as much as possible. Extremist mosques/charities don't speak for South Asian Britains, and one shouldn't suggest that they do, but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't isolate those groups.
Ideas matter. It's perfectly legitimate to identify and punish those who propagate ideas dangerous to the well-being of the nation's citizens.
Islamists can't contribute anything positive, they can only destroy civilised life. This is the disaster that multiculturalism has inflicted on Britain!
Why on earth do you say that North Korea demonstrates the non-existence of human rights? Just because a country does not uphold the rights of its citizens does not mean that the rights do not exist at all.
What about the right of a woman to choose who she wants to marry? Sure, there are people who disagree with that; they are welcome to their beliefs and welcome to talk about them, but they do so at the risk of being criticized, not for us to 'tolerate' them as you seem to be suggesting.
Universal human rights do not exist
Yes they do; it's just that no government lives up to them. Unlike certain individuals, who singly are powerless to correct the state.
First up: No, universal human rights do not exist in any tangible way. The very best case that can be made for them is that there is some baseline of what people instinctively believe is inhuman as act - yet there is no real consensus on that between individuals or nations. Even the generally accepted (in terms of the international community) definition of human rights is ambiguous and the result of considerable compromise - and even then, it is not universally accepted (as North Korea shows).
You could argue that there should be universal human rights, but that is a very different concept to asserting they currently exist.
Furthermore (and this is particularly demonstrated by Quazar but hinted at by some of the other comments) there is a difference between belief and action. People should be able to believe what they want without risking punishment - if you disagree with them, you can try to persuade them otherwise. It is only when they move from holding an illiberal or abhorrent belief to acting on it that society has a right to punish. To configure it any other way is to risk creating the Thought Police. And, ironically, is to drift into the sort of fascism that extremists of all ilks seem to embrace.
And trencherbone, I have no time for your sub-BNP/EDL hysteria.
TNL
Well then you would agree that Islam should be open to verbal criticism rather than people being afraid to do so?
Does that mean you DO have something in common with Mr Cameron after all?
Anonymong,
People can - and do - criticise Islam each and every day. We need to avoid conflating Islam with Islamic extremism. And we need to avoid punishing people for holding beliefs that we do not hold - which is a far cry for condoning everything they have to say. There is nothing in what I say that means people cannot criticise others.
Which should be obvious from both the post and my comments on it, FFS.
TNL
Don't you dare pretend that most people currently feel free to criticize Islam as they wish without fear of retribution. Tell that to Salman Rushdie, tell that to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Of course it was a waffling speech yesterday with all kinds of big society nonsense that you rightly repudiated, and of course the majority of Muslims are decent, honorable citizens.
But one positive aspect of yesterday was that the PM stood up and criticized what he saw as the noxious tenets of certain branches of Islam.
People are not as active as they should be in challenging homophobic, gender-biased and ultimately, false beliefs often out of fear of offense or retribution. Of course it would be tyrannical to suggest 'punishing' people for their beliefs, but then again no one did.
As an advocate of free speech I suggest you first turn your ire towards the muftis that claim the right to issue fatwas as a justified response to the crime of the written or spoken word.
And don't you fucking dare to tell me what to think! People can and do challenge Islam on a daily basis! Yes, some people are issued with threats for doing so, but that is not something unique to Islam! Animal rights fanatics threaten those who hurt animals; racist thugs threaten those who disagree with their ignorance; in America, pro-lifers attack those who would give a woman the right to choose. All examples of people attacking others for disagreeing with their beliefs; all have fuck all to do with Islam or multiculturalism.
And this is the point: Cameron chose to have a dig at Islam. But if you think the radical branches of Islam have a monopoly on noxious views and attack others for not holding their beliefs, then you are as naive as he is.
Furthermore, Cameron has suggested conformity - to some sort of nebulous, vapid cockwaffle - as the solution to extremism. It is simply empowering him and his vision of Britishness - whatever the hell that might be.
And if you think no-one has suggest punishing people for their beliefs, then re-read the comments here!
Finally, since I have suddenly been dubbed an "advocate" of free speech, let me assure you that I will comment on whatever I want and attack whomever I like. I'm not going to be told what to do by someone like you.
TNL
sir i enjoy your piece but please refrain to swear in discussion of topic. jazakullah khai
My take on it was that multi-culturlism has failed because the various ethnic groups never get out of the mindset of being a minority when they should simply be "British" (yeah, whatever that means...). So, for example, instead of complaining about the 'British' Police or holding protests at the funerals of 'British' soldiers they should realise that it's *their* government doing things they don't agree with and direct their protest at the right people. Their beliefs etc wouldn't come into it as long as nothing they did broke the law. The 'universal human rights' bit would be that everyone has the same rights under the law in this country - e.g. as a way of saying that forced marriages are illegal here, and 'minorities' don't get some special exemption just because it was part of their *old* culture.
Multiculturalism becomes a problem when people fight it. Resentment and intolerance breed dissension between cultural groups in society and in turn lead to extremism and violence. Cameron has taken a stance in opposition to multiculturalism which will only lead to exacerbate the current divisions in society, much as the cuts the Torys make in the public sector and in education lead to divisions in society. Cameron calls for a "Big Society" and then proceeds to set social unity back blow by blow, first through widening the class division and now by attacking multiculturalism. I wonder who qualifies for his "Big Society" and who will be left by the time he has finished dividing people? If I were to hazard a guess I would imagine white upper-middle class, right wing English nationals with enough money to pay for his private jet.
ecks why,
The vast majority of your points could be used against Christianity as well. I take it you attack Christianity as much as you do Islam, but of course there is no mention of that in your comment.
Even if we do take your sweeping, unjustified and unevidenced assertions about Islam as correct (and I don't believe they are) then it would still be the most ignorant form of racism to argue that all Muslims across the world are totalitarian fanatics. There is simply no reason to think that, and no evidence to support that.
This world is full of evils, including fundamentalist Islam and the sort of ignorant racism that seeks to dismiss all Muslims because of the beliefs of their religious extremists. You drift toward the latter, and as such your views will be of little value until you manage to reach a more sophisticated and tolerant understanding of religions with which you might not agree.
TNL
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home