UK needs a stronger national identity to fight terrorism?
So says the new Prime Minister at any rate, who also says that multiculturalism has failed.
David Cameron has criticised "state multiculturalism" in his first speech as prime minister on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism.
I don't speak British, but this sounds like a push for state sponsored bigotry to me. What's going on?
That article leaves me a little confused about what "multiculturalism" is supposed to mean in that context.
A national identity and promoting particular values as part of that nation makes sense to me. Is this actually something the UK has lacked?
That's some finestkind state-sponsored bigotry right there, all right.In the speech, Mr Cameron drew a clear distinction between Islam the religion and what he described as "Islamist extremism" - a political ideology he said attracted people who feel "rootless" within their own countries.
"We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing," he said.
The government is currently reviewing its policy to prevent violent extremism, known as Prevent, which is a key part of its wider counter-terrorism strategy.
A genuinely liberal country "believes in certain values and actively promotes them", Mr Cameron said.
"Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.
"It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things."
That's what I got out of it, too, so I'm not sure what the problem is. There might be aspects of the politics I don't grasp, but the promotion of a particular set of values that meet the national character and saying all people should support equal human rights just doesn't sound terribly controversial.Originally posted by Peeta Mellark
Is there some sort of subtext here that I'm missing? He specifically stated that he drew a distinction between Islam and extremists.
Will this strengthen his support with his base or weaken it?
Ok, the two faces of multiculturalism.
1. To respect someone's culture, their beliefs and the way they live their life.
2. To allow someone's culture to be more important then your own and that we should bend over backwards so that we fit in with them.
Over the last 13 years, it has been much more of the second option thabn the first. Britain is a very open and welcoming country, always has been but recently the emphasis from the government has been on allowing incoming cultures to sacrosanct and local culture to be forced to accept and change to accomodate immigrant cultures.
Multiculturalism has failed.
Examples of where it has gone wrong. Sharia Law courts are being set up and being used as alternatives to British Law, even though the results would be completely different. Some cultures say it is perfectly acceptable to carry knives or to denigrate women because they are women, but because it is a minority culture, we are told we must respect and allow these things to occur. Any questioning of these view points are immediately described as racist or nationalistic.
"Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.
I will point out the above are not welcome in many cultures that exist in Britain. A shift of government funds from those areas that do not support those freedoms to those that do is most certainly welcome. The government should not be giving money to groups who think it is acceptable to discriminate.
Will it bolster his support, yes. I think it will increase his standing among his own supporters, because it is one of the main fears of Britain, that its culture is being slowly outlawed. The left wing press will stand and declaim such actions, although amusingly enough in the countries whose cultures they want to allow, it would not be allowed.
It was also aimed squarely at groups like the Muslim Council of Britain giving them fair warning that if they do not do more to prevent extremism in their own ranks, their funding will be cut.
However, the principle behind the speech should be taken and it should impact all groups who refuse to respect people's basic rights. Whether they are far right/left groups, or extremists or any kind be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion, they should find no further funds going their way to spread their lies and hate.
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
Excellent post, CIAS. Thanks. The funny thing is, I've often heard people say that that isn't what multiculturalism is and it's just right-wing lies to imply that could ever happen in a country. And yet people enacting multiculturalism that way is the only explanation for why the PM's reasonable stance could ever even remotely be seen as intolerant. Intolerant of hate and inequality, perhaps.
A number of comments, not entirely specific to Cameron's speech:
Is there a list of groups, ie how many are there?, in the UK that have state funding and promote terrorist activities (of any hue)?
Is terrorism all that big an issue in the UK? Granted 7/7 was a terrible atrocity but was also over half a decade ago, no comparable attack has been committed on members of the British public since then. This suggests to me that either a) anti-terror tactics are working successfully or b) there was never all that much of a threat to begin with.
And accepting that there is a significant threat of home grown terror in the UK from Muslim youths, how does bringing in assimilation in whatever form really combat that?
Saying that, I think it is prudent of course, to stymie funding for bodies that promulgate sexist, bigotted, sectarian etc. ideas.
In terms of terrorism, Britain has become a home from home for terrorists due to the leniency and hands off approach when dealing with minority cultures. There are plenty of outspoken leaders who consider conversion of the locals, by force if necessary, as the right thing to do. Also, Britain has become one of the major source for fundraising for terrorist cells around the world. They have moved from blowing people up to financing the battles elsewhere.
Cameron's speech was aimed at those who would sit by and do nothing to confront these extremists, while accepting government funds.
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
Posting rules
Reply with quote
