Multiculturalism Hasn't Worked: Let's Rediscover Britishness

The tyranny of political correctness has for years suppressed the qualms that many Britons have had about what was happening to their country. Radical imams were allowed to preach hatred while being funded with state benefits, but few dared to question such madness, let alone act against it. The doctrine of multiculturalism dictated that all beliefs should be allowed to flourish, and to challenge that view was as politically incorrect as pinning up a Pirelli calendar in Islington Town Hall or suggesting that two married parents usually provide the best start in life for a child.

Gradually, however, people are gaining the courage to defy the diktats of political correctness and to question the assumptions of what should be acceptable in Britain today. In Bournemouth last week, David Cameron admitted to feeling uncomfortable about the segregation that now exists in many cities, where people remain isolated in ethnic communities. Jack Straw has publicly raised the veil on an issue that, privately, many will have admitted to finding disturbing. And even the Church of England, it seems, may be rediscovering sufficient backbone to assert the importance of its role as the predominant faith in the country.

Multiculturalism, as an increasing band of influential voices is prepared to say, has not worked. Both Labour and Conservative politicians have now stressed the need for all immigrants to learn English, but merely speaking the language is not enough. For the country to feel comfortable, there needs to be a sense of cohesion. That is unlikely to be achieved by the Commission on Cohesion and Integration set up by Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities. The omission of any representative of the Church of England on the 14-strong Commission, which includes the secretary-general of the Hindu Forum of Great Britain, indicates that it may be starting from the wrong place. To start from the right place requires a degree of confidence in core British ideals. That does not mean harking back to John Major's Hovis-style vision of bicycling delivery boys doffing their caps to village worthies. But we should reassert Britain's claim to be a country that believes in tolerance, politeness and compassion, and one in which, even if the church-going habit has faded, Christian values prevail.

Multiculturalism was on its way to destroying that ethos, as became apparent to me several years ago at my daughter's school in south-east London. Academically selective, it had students of a variety of races and religions and, in their early years there, they seemed oblivious to their differences and friendships ranged widely. Sadly, as they grew older, the groupings became less mixed. By the time they were installed in the sixth form, the differences were so -pronounced that a dispute over Christmas decorations had to be taken to the head-mistress.

The majority of the girls had wanted to festoon the common room with streamers and festive fripperies; the Muslim girls objected. The headmistress's judgment was a cowardly compromise: the room was to be divided and half could be decorated. All over the country the politically correct have abandoned Nativity plays, decreed there must be "season's greetings" rather than "Happy Christmas" messages and tried to abandon our traditions in an effort not to cause offence. The result has not been the creation of a happily integrated society. Immigration is not new to Britain and people from many countries have, over the years, been welcomed and assimilated. In its current guise, though, multiculturalism militates against such assimilation and keeps communities separate.

Clothing can be a tangible demonstration of that separateness. It need not be a barrier to integration: in a society in which just about any style of dress imaginable is now seen on the streets, there is no reason why a turban or a shalwar kameez should look out of place beside a T-shirt or a tartan mini-dress. But a full veil is something different and Jack Straw was absolutely right to point this out. If a woman should wish to shroud herself in black from head to foot and cover her face all but for a slit for her to peer through, then it is her right to do so.

Britain has long given up insistence on any particular dress code in public places, apart from the requirement that total nakedness should not be seen on the streets. The chador-clad female might argue that the opposite style of attire to her own, in which great swathes of flesh go unclad and bra straps and thong tops are displayed, is far more likely to cause offence than her modesty.

But Mr Straw's argument is that the full veil prevents him having a proper face-to-face conversation with the wearer and thus limits his understanding of what is meant rather than what is just being said. He is surely right. The veil forms a barrier that limits the creation of relationships. It unites those who nestle behind such garments and makes it harder for them to integrate with the bulk of the population.

It may be that there are many Muslims who choose to wear the veil but also want to play a full role in British society. They should realise that they are making that more difficult because of the uniform they choose to wear. That this has not been the subject of public debate before shows what a hold political correctness has had on the country.

And still does in some areas. Only this week a Conservative councillor was forced to resign after implying that a modern Noah's Ark would have to accommodate some gay animals. "How offensive", came the howls of outrage. Political correctness is no joke.

Drive for multi-faith Britain deepens rifts, says Church

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
(Filed: 08/10/2006)

The Church of England has launched an astonishing attack on the Government's drive to turn Britain into a multi-faith society.

In a wide-ranging condemnation of policy, it says that the attempt to make minority "faith" communities more integrated has backfired, leaving society "more separated than ever before". The criticisms are made in a confidential Church document, leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, that challenges the "widespread description" of Britain as a multi-faith society and even calls for the term "multi-faith" to be reconsidered.

The Church says 'privileged attention' has been given to the Islamic faith

It claims that divisions between communities have been deepened by the Government's "schizophrenic" approach to tackling multiculturalism. While trying to encourage interfaith relations, it has actually given "privileged attention" to the Islamic faith and Muslim communities.

Written by Guy Wilkinson, the interfaith adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, the paper says that the Church of England has been sidelined. Instead, "preferential" treatment has been afforded to the Muslim community despite the fact that it makes up only three per cent of the population. Britain remains overwhelmingly a Christian country at heart and moves to label it as a multi-faith society suggest a hidden agenda, it says.

The leaked report follows a week of tension in which a Muslim policeman was excused armed guard duty at the Israeli embassy in London, Asian and white youths clashed in Windsor, and Jack Straw suggested that Muslim women should not wear the full veil across the face in public.

The report lists a number of moves made by the Government since the London bombings in July last year to win favour with Muslim communities. These include "using public funds" to fly Muslim scholars to Britain, shelving legislation on forced marriage and encouraging financial arrangements to comply with Islamic requirements. These efforts have undermined its interfaith agenda and produced no "noticeable positive impact on community cohesion", the Church document says.

"Indeed, one might argue that disaffection and separation is now greater than ever, with Muslim

communities withdrawing further into a sense of victimhood, and other faith communities seriously concerned that the Government has given signals that appear to encourage the notion of a privileged relationship with sections of the Muslim community."

Insiders at the House of Bishops meeting last week, where the briefing paper was "well received", say it marks a radical departure from the Church's usually diplomatic relations with the Government on the multi-faith issue. One bishop said it was the first time the Church had launched such a defence of the country's Christian heritage.

The paper, entitled Cohesion and Integration – A briefing note for the House [of Bishops], argues that the effort invested in trying to integrate Muslims since the London bombings has had no positive impact on community relations and that Ruth Kelly's controversial Commission on Cohesion and Integration seems doomed to fail.

It can also be revealed that the archbishop met Miss Kelly, the Communities Secretary, last month to discuss how the Church of England could contribute. Bishops are dismayed that no Christian denomination is represented on the commission.

The bishops' document questions how effective it will be and says the focus for solving the problem should not be placed on one particular minority but "with the 'majority' communities and in the core culture".

"In relation to faith, there has been a divided, almost schizophrenic approach," the briefing paper says. The Government was misguided in "scapegoating the Muslim community as the source of the problem at the same time as believing that they should be uniquely responsible for solutions". It goes on: "The contribution of the Church of England in particular and of Christianity in general to the underlying culture remains very substantial."

The 2001 census showed that 72 per cent of Britons describe themselves as Christian. "It could certainly be argued that there is an agenda behind a claim that a five per cent adherence to 'other faiths' makes for a multi-faith society," says the document.

Mr Wilkinson, who was an archdeacon in Bradford during the riots of 2001, says the Government is wrong to see faith as the cause of a divided society.

I couldn't agree with you more. I am second generation, my grandmother walked across the Rio Grande around 1909 to stay with relatives until the revolution was over. The extended family lost, she married an american cotton farm worker in Texas- hence my father. My father was totally against bilingual education (he had to demonstrate the english learned at school when he came home everyday or be punished).
He often told me that without being forced to learn and speak english he would never have bothered, living in the Bario in San Antonio. Instead he served our nation in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, obtained an A.S. degree while in the service, finished his B.S. after retirement, spoke and wrote English, Spanish, Arabic, German, some Japanese, and was studying Greek when he passed away.
He believed in the American Melting Pot - Be AMERICAN first, don't forget your roots but remember our Nation's strength comes from out similarities not our differences, Americans take the best from all cultures and adopt it as our own.

I apolagize for the length.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.