British PM Cameron Criticizes ‘Multiculturalism’ in Britain

By JOHN F. BURNS
Published: February 5, 2011
LONDON — Faced with growing alarm about Islamic militants who have made Britain one of Europe’s most active bases for terrorist plots, Prime Minister David Cameron has mounted an attack on the country’s decades-old policy of “multiculturalism,” saying it has encouraged “segregated communities” where Islamic extremism can thrive.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Mr. Cameron condemned what he called the “hands-off tolerance” in Britain and other European nations that had encouraged Muslims and other immigrant groups “to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.”

He said that the policy had allowed Islamic militants leeway to radicalize young Muslims, some of whom went on to “the next level” by becoming terrorists, and that Europe could not defeat terrorism “simply by the actions we take outside our borders,” with military actions like the war in Afghanistan.

“Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries,” he said. “We have to get to the root of the problem.”

In what aides described as one of the most important speeches in the nine months since he became prime minister, Mr. Cameron said the multiculturalism policy — one espoused by British governments since the 1960s, based on the principle of the right of all groups in Britain to live by their traditional values — had failed to promote a sense of common identity centered on values of human rights, democracy, social integration and equality before the law.

Similar warnings about multiculturalism have been sounded by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. But, if anything, Mr. Cameron went further. He called on European governments to practice “a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,” and said Britain would no longer give official patronage to Muslim groups that had been “showered with public money despite doing little to combat terrorism.”

Perhaps most controversially, he called for an end to a double standard that he said had tolerated the propagation of radical views among nonwhite groups that would be suppressed if they involved radical groups among whites.

Muslim groups in Britain were quick to condemn the speech, among them the Muslim Council of Great Britain, a major recipient of government money for projects intended to combat extremism. Its assistant secretary general, Faisal Hanjra, said Mr. Cameron had treated Muslims “as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.”

A Muslim youth group, the Ramadhan Foundation, accused the prime minister of feeding “hysteria and paranoia.” Mohammed Shafiq, the group’s chief executive, said Mr. Cameron’s approach would harden the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims, “and we cannot allow that to happen.”

British leaders, particularly from the Conservative Party, which Mr. Cameron leads, have mostly been careful to avoid arguments that might expose them to charges of holding racially tinged views since a notorious speech in 1968 in which Enoch Powell, a leading Conservative, warned of “rivers of blood” if nothing was done to curb Caribbean immigration to Britain.

“We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong,” Mr. Cameron said, speaking of immigrant groups, dominated by Muslims, whose numbers have been estimated in some recent surveys at 2.5 million in Britain’s population of 60 million. Britain’s domestic intelligence service, MI5, has said that as many as 2,000 Muslims in Britain are involved in terrorist cells, and that it tracks dozens of potential terrorist plots at any one time.

Mr. Cameron continued: “We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds objectionable views — racism, for example — we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.”

The prime minister pointed to several steps the government planned that would tackle the rise of extremism. Among these, he said, would be barring “preachers of hate” from visiting Britain to speak in mosques and community centers; stopping Muslim groups that propagate views hostile to values of gender equality, democracy and human rights “from reaching people in publicly funded institutions like universities and prisons”; and cutting off government support for such groups.

The prime minister’s speech came at the end of a week in which Britain’s role as a base for Islamic terrorists as well as the behind-the-scenes pressure applied by the United States for actions that would deal more effectively with the threat have drawn fresh attention.

On Thursday, the government’s official watchdog on antiterrorist issues, Lord Alexander Carlile, issued a final report before retiring in which he said that Britain had become a “safe haven” for terrorists, primarily because of rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, that made it difficult to deport people considered terrorist risks, and other decisions that curbed the application of British antiterrorist laws.

For years, and particularly since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, American officials have been frustrated by what they see as an insufficiently robust crackdown on terrorist groups in Britain, which have been identified in Congressional testimony and elsewhere as a leading threat to American security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/world/europe/06britain.html
 
I tend to agree. There should be one Great Britain...just as there should be one America, one France, etc...

Holding on to ethnic and cultural traditions is one thing, self or otherwise segregating into mini nations within a country is easily a way something like terrorist recruitment and extremist ideology can thrive.

It's not just with islamoterrorist..but it's the same kind of thing that breeds other extremist organizations and acts.

What to do? Stop self-segregating (all of you) and embrace the ideals (all of them) your country stands for. Accept that there are far more things you (we) as countrymen can agree with and stand side by side on than the things those who deal in the currency of divisiveness try to magnify between you (us).
 
I tend to agree. There should be one Great Britain...just as there should be one America, one France, etc...

Holding on to ethnic and cultural traditions is one thing, self or otherwise segregating into mini nations within a country is easily a way something like terrorist recruitment and extremist ideology can thrive.

It's not just with islamoterrorist..but it's the same kind of thing that breeds other extremist organizations and acts.

What to do? Stop self-segregating (all of you) and embrace the ideals (all of them) your country stands for. Accept that there are far more things you (we) as countrymen can agree with and stand side by side on than the things those who deal in the currency of divisiveness try to magnify between you (us).
Easier said than done. Immigrant ghettoisation has many reasons, if you move to another country chances are you would move to an area where there are people of your culture already established. Also there are issues with people selling up & moving because of new immigrant populations moving into areas. Both sides need to learn to integrate, the removal of faith based schools would be a good start.
But to be honest I don't believe in one Great Britain etc. That means there is a fixed definition of what a country's identity is. Yes there are certain values which make a country's identity but culture/society is always an evolving thing. Not all the values & beliefs of Great Britain today are they same as they were 100 years ago. Nor should they be.
 
Germany, US, pretty much all of the Western countries are having the same issues. The "new" waves of immigrants do not want to become part of the cultures they are immigrating to... they want their OWN, but want to reap the "rewards" of being in their new host country. There is the problem in the nutshell.
 
Germany, US, pretty much all of the Western countries are having the same issues. The "new" waves of immigrants do not want to become part of the cultures they are immigrating to... they want their OWN, but want to reap the "rewards" of being in their new host country. There is the problem in the nutshell.
I don't see it as a new issue, the same arguments were going on during previous big immigrations to Great Britain. But despite the minority of immigrants who may indeed adhere to all the worst fears of the domestic population we coped, in fact our culture was enriched by it.
 
I don't see it as a new issue, the same arguments were going on during previous big immigrations to Great Britain. But despite the minority of immigrants who may indeed adhere to all the worst fears of the domestic population we coped, in fact our culture was enriched by it.

Do you think muslims chanting "Behead the foes of Islam" is enriching your culture now?
 
But to be honest I don't believe in one Great Britain etc. That means there is a fixed definition of what a country's identity is. Yes there are certain values which make a country's identity but culture/society is always an evolving thing. Not all the values & beliefs of Great Britain today are they same as they were 100 years ago. Nor should they be.

I believe wholeheartedly in a country having a fixed identity in terms of shared national interests. That still allows the country to be faceless and nameless enough for plurality and individualism.
 

StanScratch

My Penis Is Dancing!
The only ones who were correct about immigrants being dangerous in the U.S. were the Native Americans.

There have always been and always will be nutjobs afraid of immigrants, simply because they are different. The Irish. Welsh, Germans, Chinese, French, Slavs, Slaves, Swedes, Syrians, Mexicans and what have you have at various times been "threats" to our nation...yet, gee, here we remain.
 
No I don't, they are the "minority of immigrants who may indeed adhere to all the worst fears of the domestic population" to which I referred in the post of mine you quoted. So I fail to see what point you are raising that I haven't actually raised. :dunno:

mrs t, you slay me. It is quite hillarious how much you hate Americans but LOVE your Arab friends so much. I wonder...if it were Americans that were migrating to your beloved country instead of these enriching Arabs what tune you'd be singing. You delusional twit.

PS, mrs t has me on his ignore list, so I'll let everyone else ponder how deluded mrs t is. ;)
 
The only ones who were correct about immigrants being dangerous in the U.S. were the Native Americans.

There have always been and always will be nutjobs afraid of immigrants, simply because they are different. The Irish. Welsh, Germans, Chinese, French, Slavs, Slaves, Swedes, Syrians, Mexicans and what have you have at various times been "threats" to our nation...yet, gee, here we remain.

Very true. 700 years ago Jews were blamed for the bubonic plague (black death) and thousands were burnt alive across Europe in the first European attempt at exterminating Jews and the first Irish that landed in the US escaping famine in Ireland were treated like scum.
 
The only ones who were correct about immigrants being dangerous in the U.S. were the Native Americans.

There have always been and always will be nutjobs afraid of immigrants, simply because they are different. The Irish. Welsh, Germans, Chinese, French, Slavs, Slaves, Swedes, Syrians, Mexicans and what have you have at various times been "threats" to our nation...yet, gee, here we remain.

It's not always about being "afraid" of them, but also the fact a lot of Western countries take on more in immigration than they can handle because it gives a strategic advantage to relatively few but powerful people, like cheap labor for business leaders or giving politicians and edge in the "Latino vote" for example. In the past the countries have been lucky enough to garner enough prosperity to overcome much of that, but were are getting into a time when future prospects of continued prosperity are starting to look more bleak and the negative effects of immigrants coming over will be more severe to the people here. We no longer have an industrial revolution around the corner or the afterglow of World War II to our advantage. There is going to be less resources to go around and it's going to get very ugly one way or another eventually unless something changes.

The increasing unwillingness of immigrants to assimilate is also a big issue that gets worse as time moves on.
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
The "new" waves of immigrants do not want to become part of the cultures they are immigrating to... they want their OWN, but want to reap the "rewards" of being in their new host country. There is the problem in the nutshell.
This shouldn't be allowed. Keep your own culture yes, but at the same time integrate. If you just want to live in a little china in London, for example, you should be kicked out of the country to china. If you want to live in a country, live in THAT country. I lived in Greece and Russia and in both cases I assimilated a little with the countries.
I don't see it as a new issue, the same arguments were going on during previous big immigrations to Great Britain. But despite the minority of immigrants who may indeed adhere to all the worst fears of the domestic population we coped, in fact our culture was enriched by it.
^^Yep. Traditional English food anyone?
Yes and only hours before an EDL march :facepalm: The biggest threat to this country are the bankers and politicians, I guess they had to deflect the attention somewhere :dunno:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-operation-far-right-EDL-descends-Luton.html
Sadly correct.
It's a real shame that people blame the immigrants when the corrupt top interests are ruining the country.
Exactly, how unlike the Tories to be persecuting those at the lower end of the social scale! Fucking ConDems! :mad:
^^Yep.
Thankfully our beloved leader is carefully vetting everyone he lets into the country rather than just using an arbitary quota, right? :facepalm:
Do you think muslims chanting "Behead the foes of Islam" is enriching your culture now?
Weird, I live in England and I've never seen THAT happen in England. I doubt any other English person has.
One might almost suspect that you don't know about the country you seem to think is being overrun by Islamists... I only wish this problem was less widespread.
1: the fact a lot of Western countries take on more in immigration than they can handle because it gives a strategic advantage to relatively few but powerful people, like cheap labor for business leaders.

2: We no longer have the afterglow of World War II to our advantage.

3: The increasing unwillingness of immigrants to assimilate is also a big issue that gets worse as time moves on.
1: Yep.
2: It may have been advantageous to you...
3: Yep: Immigrants should assimilate at least partially, not just build a new version of their country in their new home country.


On the face of it the plans look good: People to integrate, terrorism to be reduced.
But I'm sure that sooner or later this will be turned to bad news, just as new labour anti-terror laws designed to stop Islamic extremists ended up being used against harmless environmental campaigners :facepalm:
I strongly suspect that the police will slam the foot down on Moslems and then, evil beggeting evil, equal reaction for action, we'll see a big Islomic bang.
 
In many countries, multiculturalism has been given a chance and has not worked. If only 1% of muslims were extremists, the current problems would not exist. Legions of hate are continuing to harvest.
 
Top