Getting Integrated And Cohesive Nu-Labour On the day that Britain’s Nu-Labour government announces its plan to tackle the kind of people who try to self-detonate on aeroplanes with bombs in bottles of baby-milk by creating something called the ‘Commission on Integration and Cohesion’, we could really do with something to laugh at.
Fortunately, the BBC’s most useful idiot, Dominic Casciani, is on hand to provide us with one:
Forty years ago, when Britain was turning itself into a multicultural society, the then Labour government struggled to come up with the words that described how it saw it happening.
Well, to be perfectly fair, Britain wasn’t so much turning into a multicultural society as being turned into one by a feckless, leftist establishment. If you’d asked the average 1960’s Brit if they thought unregulated mass-immigration was a good idea, they’d have given the concept the same thumbs-down they give it today. Very unfortunately for all of us, though, no one did ask. They still don’t.
Roy Jenkins, the then home secretary, is credited with the definition which is now in the sociology text books. Integration was not a “flattening process of assimilation,” he declared, “but equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance”.
While it’s certainly worth pondering, in passing, how much better things might have turned out if those ’sociology textbooks’ had quoted from Enoch Powell instead, still, it’s interesting to note that Dominic’s instinct is to lean left in the company of a fool like Jenkins instead of right along with the guy who called the shot and the pocket.
Today, amid an era of rapid change, we are still arguing over what exactly integration should mean.
… Well, to be perfectly fair, there are some things at least 96% of Britons aren’t arguing over: the desirability of self-detonation, Sharia law and a membership of the Global Caliphate, for instance. Funny, isn’t it, Dominic? How that ‘flattening process of assimilation’ looks more and more attractive each time ‘moderate’ Muslims bring these things up?
And a year on from the London bombings, the debate is firmly fixed on whether or not mutual tolerance has been pursued at the expense of something more practically designed to create unity.
Because, you know, it couldn’t possibly be that the ‘debate’ is ‘firmly fixed’ around the question: How did we get ourselves stuck with a bunch of Islamofascist crazies who keep trying to kill us?
In a month that has seen more deep concern over the threat of terrorism and a separate debate over the impact of immigration, the government is under pressure to answer this question.
Since British borders remain alarmingly open, however, it seems more likely that very little will happen beyond pointless talking. Speaking of which:
But its new Department for Communities and Local Government, headed by Ruth Kelly, says it is looking for the answers - starting with a Commission on Integration and Cohesion.
Whew! For a minute there we were actually worried the Spirit of Roy Jenkins had returned to haunt the modern world! It’s a good thing, then, that Ruth Kelly is, in the here-and-now, ready to assure us that the wall of hate British Muslims have spent the last four decades building will be swept aside by her ‘integration and cohesion’ committee. Oh. Wait. That’s not actually going to happen, is it?
But what will the commission actually do?
The 13 commissioners have until next June to look at what causes tensions, segregation and conflict in modern Britain - and how community or national leaders can challenge it in the name of a more cohesive society.
They gave them ten, whole months to come up with the ’causes’ of ‘tension’? Damn. But the minds of big-governmenters really do move slowly, don’t they? See, while this investigation lumbers on, the rest of us have already decided that we do not want: (a) Sharia law, (b) Muslim-only holidays, or, (c) Self-detonation of any kind happening on public transport anywhere. Period. What’s more, we don’t need a Committee to inform us of these facts. (Thanks all the same. Ruth.)
It will tour Britain and look at the best and worst examples of getting people from different backgrounds to, at the very least, have an understanding of each other.
Fantastic idea! Here’s an example of the worst:
An example of the challenge is looking at the contact between children attending different faith schools but living close to each other in inner cities.
Um … No. An example of the challenge is looking at the contrast between the sort of adults who want to play with baby and those who want to self-detonate with him. Before fretting over the education system, mightn’t it be wise to deal with things like that?
Then there is the question of how does the UK integrate large number of Eastern European workers.
Well, you know, worrying as East European immigration is in terms of demographics, what’s the betting that third-generation Poles won’t be blowing themselves up on planes and trains in forty, fifty or however many years time? Hmm? So why does this Kelly/Dominic double-act keep drifting away from the issue of Islamic terrorism? It couldn’t be that they’re attempting to dodge the issue that the biggest problems are all caused by Muslims, could it?
But much of its work will inevitable wade into politically sensitive waters, including the rise of the British National Party, controversial and disputed claims relating to the level of segregation in the UK and, critically, the development of religious ideology and political extremism.
Or (to translate what Dominic’s saying here into plain English), ‘Hey, Ruth, if you even try to criticise Muslims for, well, anything at all, we Beeboids will start up howling about fascism (’politically sensitive waters’), the BNP, and, well, anything else we can think-up to throw at critics of self-detonating Brown People. So back off, you right-wing, Roman Catholic harpy.’
But part of its challenge will be convincing people that another commission will actually achieve anything. In the realm of community cohesion, as it is now called, there has been report after report.
This is true enough, though only because the very Islamofascists we need to convince of this are actively working against social cohesion. To listen to Dominic tell it, you’d think that everything would work out fine if we could just, you know, find the right words, talk the right talk. In fact, the reason the committees so beloved of leftists keep failing is because Muslim leaders want them to fail.
Lord Scarman’s famous report into the 1981 Brixton riots touched on many of the issues that remain live today - divisions in society along racial or cultural grounds linked to economic and social conditions.
Gosh, but if only we’d realised that an Afro-Caribbean riot taking place 25 years ago in one place would’ve led to the global threat of Islamofascist terrorism.
Much more recently, Ted Cantle’s damning Community Cohesion Review after the 2001 riots in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham reached similar conclusions - adding a much more potent warning that different ethnic groups were growing up apart rather than together.
Let’s just toy with that phrase ‘ethnic groups’ for a moment, shall we? See, since the Bradford riots in question were between normal Brits and RoPers, it really is worth asking if Dominic Casciani and the BBC are describing ordinary Britons as an ‘ethnic group’. You know, in our own country.
The Home Office’s own Preventing Extremism Taskforce, launched after the London bombings, was a commission of sorts. Its recommendations have been partially acted upon, with varying degrees of agreement on what has been achieved to tackle the really big issue of the growth of extremism among some young Muslims.
In other words: the last committee didn’t really work — Let’s have another committee. Big Government at work, folks.
Tahir Abbas of Birmingham University, who is studying extremism and government’s responses, said he hoped the new focus would lead to more sophisticated policymaking. Dr Abbas has played a key role in launching one of the taskforce’s main planks, a proposed professional standards body for mosques and imams.
Well, then, time to heave a sigh of relief. Only yesterday nothing stood between us and the one-third of British Muslims who think that terrorism is just fine and dandy. Now, however, we’ve got Dr. Abbas, Birmingham University, and one of the task force’s ‘main planks’ on our side. Phew! Anyone contemplating self-detonation had better beware!
“We have had 1,000 years of immigration and, yes, we have a reasonably successful multicultural society. However we have sharp inequalities,” said Dr Abbas.
Oh, who the hell does Dr. Abbas think he’s kidding? *sigh* Yes, it’s true that non-Brits have moved into Britain many times over the last 1000 years. However, at no point in that time-frame have we either: (a) Been expected to absorb a full 4% of our total population, or (b) Witnessed members of our immigrant ‘community’ self-detonating out of rage against everything their adopted society represents.
“But the recent spotlight on culture and values, away from notions of equality and diversity, has not helped, particularly in relation to Muslims.”
Or, in plain English: British Muslims don’t like being reminded of the fact that their religion is chock full of terrorists.
“In relation to extremism, it is a problem of Muslim communities and how they have let themselves down in relation to poor leadership, strong patriarchy in the home, gender inequalities and limited capacities of Imams.
So Muslim culture is in a mess? Does Dr. Abbas feel like providing a solution to this problem … Or will he just try to spin away from uncomfortable truths:
“But the communities need specific targeting and dedicated resources.
.’We’ll create the mess, you infidel taxpayers can pay to clean it up’.
“Senior politicians also need to be a little sensitive as to what their statements may be doing to already disillusioned young people. The vulnerable are very susceptible right now as they have nothing to hold on to and nobody to direct them.”
And, since no interview with a Muslim would be complete without painting terrorists as victims, here it is.
But according to some government critics, the situation is far more complex than assuming that this is simply about distrust or lack or contact between white people and minority groups.
Well, let’s get this straight: the mistrust is between British Muslims (one-third of who approved of 7/7 and one-half of who believe their co-religionists were not responsible for 9/11) and non-Muslims (white and non-white) who object to being blasted to bits on airliners and tube trains. Unless Dominic really wants to draw a comparison between violent, fantasist jihadis and people who wish to keep breathing, he really should expand on the meaning of ‘mistrust’.
Munira Mirza, a researcher into multiculturalism, argues policymakers have elevated complex cultural, ethnic and private differences to matters of public policy importance - encouraging communities to define themselves in narrow ways because it attracts the most attention and funding.
Well, alright, Munira does have a point here — Ever since the Salmon Rushdie affair back in the late eighties, the British political class have courted (and thereby legitimised) the more extreme Islamist groups. It’s this situation that allows, say, the terror supporting Azzam Tamimi to pass himself off as a ‘moderate’. So far, so good.
Being the sort of person who Dominic Casciani seeks out for advise, however, it should be obvious that Munira won’t keep talking sense indefinitely.
She claims the proof of Whitehall’s alleged folly is the sudden appearance of demands from other faith groups - Sikhs, Hindus and Christian activists - as they have seen the government talking to Muslims.
Well, you know, most of us would measure the government’s failure against the number of British Muslims currently attempting to commit acts of mass-murder. You know, as opposed to shoehorning three non-terrorising religions into the debate.
“I think the government is aware that society is fragmenting into tribes,” she says. “But if they are talking about creating common values for different faith groups, what are they?
Is this a serious question? If so, then it’s worrying that a government ‘expert’ on multiculturalism has to ask it — Surely we start out working for the ‘common value’ of not blowing people up and move on from there. Really, this shouldn’t be too difficult a concept to grasp.
“The government’s approach is wholly preoccupied with Muslims and that in turn tells people that being a Muslim is the most important part of them.
Does the government say that? Where? When? Maybe it’s true that not enough is done to swat down those who make this claim, but, to be fair, this Islam-is-everything stuff is actually coming from Muslim leaders themselves, not government.
“They should stop talking to people through the prism of religion and start talking to them as citizens.”
Well, certainly, it would be nice if we could do just that. Only, here’s the thing: what’s the betting that, for the kind of person who’s willing to strap-on a bomb-belt for Allah, attempts to de-emphasise the importance of religion will be about as effective as persuading them to enlist in the IDF. So that’s one thing.
Another, which applies broadly to Munira, Dominic and all the other nattering fools engaging in this debate, is that these are the very same people who got us into this whole mess in the first place. On the strength of the nonsense being talked here, we really shouldn’t trust them to get us out of it.
(Cross-posted at Rottweiler Puppy)
Said RottyPup @ 11:54 am | Permalink
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a commentLine and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
