Blair’s Racist Promotion of “Multiculturalism and Integration”

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Blair’s Racist Promotion of “Multiculturalism and Integration”

A Muslim's Response to Tony Blair's “Multiculturalism” Speech

“Our Nation’s Future – multiculturalism and integration” was the title of the Prime Minister’s speech at Downing Street on December 8, the latest in his “Our Nation’s Future” lectures. In it he demand that everyone should subscribe to what he referred to as “shared, common unifying British values”. At the same time he spoke in an openly racist manner regarding what he termed “ethnic minority people” in general, whilst he singled out Muslims, and especially those “originating from certain countries”, for particular attack.

            The main aim of Blair’s speech was precisely to attack particular sections of the population; to state that “multi-cultural Britain” had produced “British-born suicide bombers”, and that consequently “there is an unease, an anxiety, even at points a resentment that our very openness, our willingness to welcome difference, our pride in being home to many cultures, is being used against us, abused indeed, in order to harm us”. The argument presented is then that there must be the correct balance struck between diversity and integration. As in the similarly spurious argument that there must be a “balance” between rights and security, and that to redress an imbalance there must be more security and less rights, so Blair’s argument is in effect that there must be less diversity and more integration, specifically integration around “British values”. Specifically, Tony Blair defines “legitimate” diversity and identity in terms of religions and faiths, which he seems to equate with diversity of cultures. However, Blair’s argument proceeds to define what he means by integration, which “is not about culture or lifestyle. It is about values. It is about integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values.”

            The whole anti-democratic and racist tenor of the argument is borne out by the fact that, even if this argument held any water, Tony Blair does not proceed to investigate or to put forward a procedure for investigating or have an enlightened conception of ascertaining what can be the “shared, common unifying” values arising from the collective of the residents, or even the citizens, of Britain, or even whether it can be said that there are any values which are common to them all. The assertion is that integration around common values (values which he then goes on to stipulate and to define as specifically “British”) is about what “defines us” as “citizens, the rights and duties that go with being a member of our society”.

            This argument betrays not only a contempt for the rule of law, but a contempt for culture and cultures and for the rights of minorities within a society. It is the old colonialist, Eurocentric conception, specifically of the superiority of everything “British”, elevated to the level of a government policy and programme which attempts to make it respectable. As such, it is part of the attempts at providing justifications for the imposition of a political agenda and political culture which legitimises certain values and ideologies and de-legitimises others, to the extent that even to express these values or ideologies is being criminalised or branded as a disorder of thought content or the cause of anti-social behaviour.

            In a global context, Tony Blair often refers to “universal values”. Unsurprisingly, it appears that for the Prime Minister these are indistinguishable from what he is championing as so-called “British values” – that is “belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all”. However, the context of the argument is such that the crisis of attempting to promote and impose such values on public opinion is clear. Glaringly, Blair’s arguments hopelessly mix up the notions of nationality and citizenship, and conflate the reality of national minorities within society with cultures identified with various religions. The crisis of values is such that many are acutely aware of the irony of the 19th century conception of “tolerance”, itself predicated on the chauvinist notion of the superiority of Britain and its “civilising mission” while tolerating inferior peoples, being used to deny even the right of cultures to express their values, to trample on the rights of minorities and to wipe out civilisations and promote anarchy, violence and aggression. In fact, Tony Blair is attempting to identify the values of New Labour, whatever one may think of them, with the values of the “nation”, and make the issue one of law and order, the necessity to “integrate”, when these values are opposed. In fact, it is not hard to demonstrate that these New Labour values are those of a particular form of “representative democracy”, inequality based on safeguarding the dictate of the monopolies and the imposition on the whole world of the “global market” and so on. As for “the rule of law”, it another irony that Blair wishes to champion that which his government and his allies breach with impunity throughout the world on the basis that might is right.

            Blair’s aim is not only to demand that everyone accepts such values but also to argue that these values are threatened by an ideology that is alien, anti-British, Muslim and propagated by people “particularly originating from certain countries”. A clearer expression of Islamophobic racism it would be difficult to find and yet Blair wishes to go even further by using the state to intervene in the affairs of mosques, to withhold government funding from community groups that do not promote these “British values”, and by launching other attacks specifically aimed at Muslims, “ethnic minority people” and migrants.

            These are sinister developments, involving the most racist attacks on entire communities and attempts to set people at loggerheads. They show that Blair and his government are being forced to resort to the most desperate acts not only abroad but at home too. It is a fact that far from subscribing to so-called “British values” most of those in Britain and throughout the world are resolutely opposed to the values of Anglo-American imperialism; warmongering, the doctrine that might is right and that society must be organised according to the needs of the big monopolies.

            In Britain, as elsewhere, the workers and democratic people have fought for and are establishing their own values which include the principle of fighting in defence of the rights of all. It is evident that the question of values has become a battlefield at the centre stage of political developments. It is being used by the government and the establishment to justify its authority, to impose retrogression on society, and to deny the rights of all as human beings. Tony Blair’s conception of “integration” and “multiculturalism” is racist and against the very right of an individual or collective, class or national minority within England, Scotland or Wales to affirm their identity and themselves decide their own future and the future of the polity within which they exist. It hardly merits the description of a political agenda but is crudely based on notions of “Britishness” and all that is alien to “Britishness” which closes the door to all enlightenment and gives the green light to a fascist society. Such retrogression must not be allowed to pass!

By Abdul Rashid, a Muslim living in Britain, December 11, 2006

“When it comes to our essential values – belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage – then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common.”

            “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.”

            “It is a new and virulent form of ideology associated with a minority of our Muslim community.” Mr Tony Blair, December 8, 2006.

            The above are just three quotes from Mr Blair’s speech on December 8, 2006. Over the centuries these British Isles have attracted settlers from all over the world – the Scandinavians, the Danes, the Romans, the French and migrant entrepreneurs and workers from former colonies such as West Indies, Indian sub-continent, Africa, the Middle East and other regions. The intermingling of these peoples with the Scots, Welsh, Irish and the English makes up today’s Britain. These include people of many faiths and none. Britain is both a secular and a Christian country. Christian because its constitution requires it to be and secular because most Christians have abandoned their faith or have diluted the message of Jesus so as to make it (the message) insignificant in today’s society. However, the British do have a sense of justice and they notice it when rights of fellow humans are being violently suppressed in other countries either by our own government or by their rulers.

            So when Mr Blair welcomes lawfully settled people by telling them that they become “an equal member of our community and become one of us”, one could be forgiven to think his remarks must have surely meant the multi-cultural Britain that it is today. Of course he didn’t mean that. Mr Blair has his own definition of Britishness that excludes the largest minority group in Britain – the Muslims. Regardless of the fact the Muslims were trading with King Offa of Mercia in Kent as early as 8th century and one of the first purpose built Mosques in Britain was built in 1889 in Woking; he does not consider Muslims as being part of the “shared heritage”. In addition, Mr Blair does not believe that Muslims are sharing in his essential values such “belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all (and) respect for this country”. It is universally known that there are Muslims working and contributing in almost every sphere of activity in British life – in health care, the legal profession, academia, engineering, civil service, politics and businesses. They have been working hard, paying their taxes and contributing to society like all other citizens, but for Mr Blair this is not enough – they have not integrated into his British society.

            He blames the Muslim community for failing to keep its recalcitrant youth under control. A minority of British youth of whatever racial origin are known to commit horrific crimes, but Mr Blair singles out the Muslims and sees them as part of the “new and virulent form of ideology”. Mr Blair insists that neither extremists nor racists should be allowed to destroy Britishness and he does this by squarely pointing his finger at the Muslims. He probably does not see any racists or extremists in Britain other than Muslims. But he offers no evidence for that accusation.

            Now let us examine some of Mr Blair’s assertions. He talks about values of “the rule of law, tolerance, and equal treatment for all”. It is the propagation of these values that has led to the deaths of nearly three-quarters of a million civilians in Iraq. It is these values of his that have legitimised torture, rendition and detention without trail. It is these values that make him support the tyrant rulers of the Muslim world and it is these values of his that support the existence of illegal state of Israel and its murder and torture of the Palestinians. What sort of values does Mr Blair hold that allows him to raze a country some 3,000 miles away that never threatened Britain? Having done this Mr Blair expects the British people to remain silent and dutifully aqueous like the media. The British (including Muslims) are not ignorant.

            There are a number of studies indicating that the strategy followed by Mr Blair (in concert with Mr Bush) of giving Islam a terrorist label is to deflect attention from the failures of foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and Afghanistan. If Mr Blair was true to his value of the “rule of law” then he would not support the illegal Israeli state and thereby would not need to create a smokescreen to hide behind. A High-level Group (UN) report presented to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on November 13, 2006, has clearly identified the causes of conflict being political not religious. The rationale the British and the Americans have given for blaming Muslim terrorism have been found wanting. For example if 15 of the 19 involved in the 9/11 incident were Saudis then why was no retaliatory action taken against them? Instead the British and Americans went and invaded another Muslim country which was never blamed for breeding terrorists. It had a non-Islamic (socialist) government. So where are Mr Blair’s values, one may ask?

            Mr Blair’s policy on terrorism has blamed madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the spread of extremism and as a result innocent people have been killed in raids on these schools. However, Mr Blair will fully know that the bombers in Bali were not from these madrassas, nor were those who carried out the bombings in Madrid in 2004. Three of the four involved in the 7/7 incident were second generation British. The official report on the 7/7 incident concluded that they were “ordinary British citizens with little known history of extremist views”.

            The UN report clearly identifies the cause of rift between the West and the Muslims. I give two quotes here: “The Israeli-Palestinian issue has become a key symbol of the rift between the Western and the Muslim societies, and remains one of the gravest threats to international stability”, and “Western military operations in Muslim countries contribute to a growing climate of fear and animosity that is spreading around the world.” If Mr Blair was sincere in wanting equality and rule of law in Britain then it would be wise for him to respect the same for other countries. To be a claimant of peace in one’s own country and to plunder and cause civil strife in another or to support with brutal force a country that does not share one’s values does not auger well in a man of principles. Mr Blair wants people who share his values to come to Britain whilst he feels free to sponsor states that not only do not share his values but openly flout them.

            The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust report The Rules of the Game, published on November 13, 2006 ,concludes that “the key to successfully combating terrorism lies in winning the trust and cooperation of the Muslim communities in the UK” and blames the Government’s counter terrorism legislation for creating serious losses in human rights and criminal justice protection. This is clearly harming community relations in Britain.

            It seems that Mr Blair’s reaction to the “new and virulent ideology” is to blame the Muslim community for the problems in our British society and also to hold it responsible for providing the panacea. Mr Blair comes across as he is the only one who can and knows how to defend the public from further attacks. He does this by creating new draconian laws and infringing human rights which even the lawyers in this country are against. Some senior lawyers believe that his measures go far beyond the principle of proportionality. So how is it that such draconian laws are so easily accepted by the public? Because people know that the police will enforce them selectively by racial profiling. So the people who are kept under surveillance, whose words are being watched, who are being arbitrarily stopped, who are being searched, raided, beaten, arrested or even shot are the minorities. The Rowntree report recommends: “Racial or religious profiling, including the discriminatory use of stop and search powers – which ACPO concedes are intended to cause general disruption and deterrence, not actually to catch terrorists – ought not to form part of the counter terrorism strategy. These practices depend on discrimination on a basis of physical appearance or apparent ethnicity or religion, are not effective, create deep resentment and damage the trust of minority communities in the police and other state officials at airports, ports and elsewhere.”

            Mr Blair’s intolerance of criticism and his view that anyone who is not with him is against him creates distrust and alienation throughout society. Wasn’t he so sure of Saddam having WMD that could be assembled within 45 minutes? Well Mr Blair is not the one to eat humble pie.

            In fact, it is these double standards in the application of international law and the protection of human rights that is causing resentment to many Muslims (me included). The actions of collective punishment, targeted killings, torture, arbitrary detentions, and renditions all contribute to an increasing sense of vulnerability in Muslims. The UN report explicitly condemned those who link Islam to violence. Such assertions, they say “are at best manifestly incorrect or at worst maliciously motivated”.

            There is however no denying that in common with other major religions of the world – Christianity (Right wing Christian fundamentalism), Hinduism (BJP), Judaism (Zionism) etc – Islam too has its fair share of radicalism. But launching unilateral wars on the whole of the community and thereby killing hundreds of innocent people only inflames the very sentiments Mr Blair is seeking to eradicate. It is wrong to blame all the British Muslims for a small number of radicals amidst them any more than it is to blame the white community for the extremism of BNP. The Home Secretary’s challenge to the British Muslims to spy on their children (he of course denies he ever meant that, but any discerning reader knows what he meant) was symptomatic of paranoia in the present government. The current strategy to scapegoat the whole Muslim community by putting pressure on them to “conform” is an act of imposing totalitarianism in an otherwise free society. A small number of Muslims have cowed down to this threat, but a great many see through this ploy of buying out our souls for a cheap price. Mr Blair should realise that no society wants to live in permanent state of instability, war and poverty. When unrest happens there is usually an underlying reason behind it. It would be wise for Mr Blair to deal with the causes and not the symptoms of this unrest.