iBlog: When you think of `multiculturalism`...


Tomorrow's blog today

Saturday, December 09, 2006

When you think of `multiculturalism`...

... Do you automaticly think of British Muslims?

One of the virtues of my job is that I can listen to BBC radio 4 from 2.15's afternoon play right through to whatever B list ex-politician is debating whichever sub-editor from the Independant at 10.30pm, and for all the multicultural representation hosted by the BBC, `multicultural Britain` seems to either be Christians moaning at stuff (surprise surprise) or Muslims trying to convince the public they're not all extremists.

Don't get me wrong, I can't echo what Tony says here more:
"Conform to [the temporate state of Britain]; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed.

"If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us. The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means." - Tony Blair 8/12/2006

But it occured to me that multicultualism doens't mean Muslims coming into Britain and being allowed to worship as they choose, but the concept of multiculturism and multicultural representation is inexorably inclusive of Britain's Hindu's, Sikh's and Woganites, so why is it that these don't come into the listings of politicaly correct media?

I'm too lazy to recall the programmes that made me question the proportionality of religious minorities, but even if you've heard all the endless issues of liberty with which the Muslim Council of Great Britain or the Muslim Association of Britain* choose to concern themselves, unless I'm desperately mistaken, I can't recall hearing the Hindu Council UK announcing themselves as the nation's perennial victim.

So to further Mr Blair's speech: Don't ban taboos, ban `winterval`! Don't ban diversity, ban extremism that comprimises ``What being British Means``! Don't ban patriotism, ban exam essay questions that start with ``Imagine you are on a 19th century slave ship``! Don't ban thoughtcrime, but exhonourate herritage and vindicate the progressive liberalism and values we ourselves earned! Teach the nation about William Wilberforce and Emmeline Pankhurst, not the icons of the tyranny to which they were opposed.

Let us remember that Britain is indeed a Great Nation and devolution, multiculturalism, the absolution of the British Empire and political correctness don't water down the traits of liberty that makes Britain Great! But most of all for goodness' sake don't let the persuit of these utopic ideals comprimise their manifestation! What I mean is if the MCB are offended think whether the resolve comprimises the distaste. Similarly, if a Christian objects to something, the question must be asked if what they're offended at is in the interest of the wider conservable value of liberty. Classic examples, I suppose would be winterval, where the introduction of Duckspeak is at the expense of national identity. Another would be of the Christians objecting to the Jerry Springer opera where it was at the expense of art and the enjoyment of many people. Like Jesus Himslef says,

``You are like the man who picks a fly out of his soup then swallows a camel!`` - Matthew 23:24

But this all brings me very nicely in full circle. When you think of multiculturalism, do you think of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists or any other minority [complaining]? Does the word `religion` conjour up any immediate thought other than Christian or Muslim? Does `worship` have any other immediate connotations other than Church or Mosque? Or Does `extremism` have any other perpetrators other than Bible belt Hinnists, or bearded bombers?

I rest my case: In post-Christian Britain, BBC / Home Office Political Correctness gone too far infers biculturalism in the name of multiculturalism, and a dichotomy in the name of liberty.


* who somehow perceived Mr Blair's speech as ``concerning and alarming``.


  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger Richard said…

    Remember. A lot of it just isn't true.,,1967367,00.html

  • At 10:34 PM, Blogger Timothy V Reeves said…

    Some of the problem with Islam is seems to be its strong civic component: its religious program is only partially fulfilled until Islamic law is established. Other religions may be more or less satisfied with devout personel practice, but with Islam salvation is for the nation and not just for the individual. In fact I think you identified this character of Islam in your previous blog on Shria law.

    Anyway, given this trait of Islam, there seems to be an almost inexorable logic behind it that brings it into collision with non-Islamic societies.

  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Helsalata said…

    Multiculturalism = harmony
    In my mind anyway

  • At 11:08 AM, Blogger Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) said…

    helly: Again with the radio 4, someone said multculturalism is more akin to a wall where everyone is a component working together than it is like a pot where coloured paints get added.

    thought that was good analogy

    tim: Not sure if this is what you're tip-toeing around but given this trait of Islam, there seems to be an almost inexorable logic behind it that brings it into collision with non-Islamic societies. I think it's fair to say `Islam does not play well with others`. History shows that Islam (like the ancient Hebrews) is a religion that wants to govern the land in its own methodology. The Qu'an even says things like `bring death to the infadel` and `spread the prophet by the sword` - I'm not saying that to turn anyone against Islam at all, but I do think the ethos of the religion revolves around almost agressive evangelism, not unlike the crusades or the book of Joshua. As such, I Think it needs to be realised by not only the state but the moderate Muslims that Britain will not comprimise its herritage of liberty and freedom for the politicly correct loophole of other faiths getting their own way almost.

    p.s, see what i mean - multiculturalism seems more about AngloIslam than many faithsin our country.

  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Timothy V Reeves said…

    I think you are completely right about the nature of Islam - unfortunately.

  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Timothy V Reeves said…

    I don't want to be unfair on peaceful muslims: I am sure there are many who don't want spread their faith with the sword. However it seems that the Islamic scriptures do readily lend themselves to jingoistic interpretations and unfortunately I suspect there will always be those in the Islamic community who will practice a beligerent form of Islam, so much so that they will even turn their own peacful muslim fellow belivers.

  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Timothy V Reeves said…

    Having said that I think account should be taken of societal/world conditions: Someone somewhere once said that Islam is having a bad time of it adapting to a world where the dominant force is Westernization and its concomitant of “western culture” (Even the Chinese are at last succumbing!). On top of that Islam has recently had one humiliation after another. Hence a rage develops amongst those who believe that in actual fact Islam, and in particular Shari law, is the answer to the world’s problem and should therefore be at the top of the pile and not bottom. The Islamic view is that Islamic culture should dominate rather than be in declension. Remember also Islam’s concept of a great distant and almost proud God – to them the humiliation of Christ on the Cross is an anathema and hence they deny it. Islam is a very proud religion and so taking all this together, the rage of some Muslims is not surprising. Interestingly, I am sure I have identified the Christian analogy of this phenomenon, which surfaces amongst Christian in a particular Christian form consistent with its skew toward humility and self abasement. Christains, who like Muslims, believe that they are center stage in the cosmic drama and yet face increasing marginalisation and hold some doctrines that utterly fail to interpret cosmic conditions (like six day creationism). In the face of puzzlement a malaise develops whereby the believer engages in proactive and confrontational behavior in order to try and reassert the faith center stage. In Christianity, where emphasis is on self sacrifice and humility rather than self assertion and devout pride, this seems to result in a kind preparedness to harm, not others, but rather to engage in self harm and self abasement by deliberately putting oneself in the firing line or by engaging in humiliating acts like falling on to all fours in church meetings and making animal noises.

    Anyway don’t quote me: the above are some speculations that have been going around in my head for some time, but any comments are welcome.

  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) said…

    Indeed, very interesting, Tim. Not many people can have a fair one one-man debate ;-)

    Obviously I'm biased perhaps against Islam in anti-virtue of my Christian faith and cultural background, but I thought the view you just mentioned of the lag time of `adapting to Westernization` was scraping the barrell a little. In the same argument should we justify Robert Mugabe and Yoweri Museveni? Human rights are not something one can culturally side step, whether they're ingrained in the perpetrator's upbringing or not. Islam, in literal form alas, doesn't respect other opinions it opresses womens kills the infadel and doesn't comprimise the culture of its own manifestation for the sake of peace.

    Praise Allah their are moderate Muslims out there to advocate the Westernly-pragmatic side of Islam.

  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Timothy V Reeves said…

    No I am not justifying Islamic terrorism with a liberal excuse. Bottom line is: I am just glad we've got bigger and better weapons than the autocratic states ! - Crude I know, but if we didn't that would be the end of our litlle democractic/free discussion party! The absolute truth (as richard has implied) is that Islamic terrorists, Mugabe et al are just wrong, and will not be appeased, with liberal pleadings.

  • At 11:48 PM, Blogger Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) said…

    I am not justifying Islamic terrorism with a liberal excuse I'm not saying that, everyone knows you're a far right capitolist at heart!

    Thou bring'est up an interesting point though. Does the fact that the inbalance of arms capability mean we should sleep safely in bed at night?

    After all, I believe the only reason N.Korea are arming themselves is to match or surpass the military might of the West. Also the only terrorist armistices we see (whether Al Quaida, IRA, ETA) are just the haitusesseses they use to arm themselves in such a mannor that causes more damage to a nation than can be matched by the victim's state emergency services.

    Does an international inequality of destructive power bring peace by asserting a feudal system or nations?

  • At 11:49 PM, Blogger Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) said…

    Oh my goodness, that tooootally doesn't answer your question does it :S

  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Timothy V Reeves said…

    Peace? Who ever said anything about peace! That's asking too much! It's more realistic to simply aim for situations of less war!

  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) said…

    Peace, IMO, doesn't mean the absence of battle. The cold war wasn't peace and no one died at all. Peace is not living in fear


Post a Comment

<< Home