British policy of multiculturalism is a failure, contributing to Islamist extremism

[markabilly]

Also, if the two parties involved in these courts don't like the verdict they can always do what other people do with similar systems, appeal to a higher court.

Its also strange that people really don't seem to have a problem with Jews using a similar court system to sort their disputes out but if Muslims do it, OMG its the end of the world as we know it. Jews have been using their own courts in the UK for 100 years. The Muslims have finally caught up. I think we'll survive....

Actually, I was trying to figure out what was this "passive tolerance" that "muscular liberalism" desperately needed to squash in the opinion of the Prime Minister, and that was the only thing I could find or think of.......did not know the Jews had been getting way with this for a hundred years....gee, I guess that they are in trouble as well---


Otherwise, someone will have to spell out to me about what is all this "passive tolerance" of someone's culture. Note that Muslims seem to believe it is aimed at them, but I am not so sure Mr. Cameron was that specific or should "muscular liberalism" be appled to one cuture but not equally equally to all diverse cultures...

[Rollo]

Did not say you agreed or not, but those were your words announcing the "we europoeans" are not paranoid morons, and all I can say is that right now, I can count two of the them, the PM for Germany and the PM for GB....and of course there is John Howard.......

John Howard is a paranoid moron.

As treasurer he managed to do something which is usually difficult; namely create double digit inflation and double digit unemployment at the same time. As PM he created a government surplus by privatising arguably the then most profitable company in Australia and introducing the GST. And there is the small matter of his complicity in going to war on the basis of outright lies.

Paranoid - tick
Moron - tick

[BDunnell]

Did not say you agreed or not, but those were your words announcing the "we europoeans" are not paranoid morons, and all I can say is that right now, I can count two of the them, the PM for Germany and the PM for GB....and of course there is John Howard.......

I don't necessarily think that Merkel and Cameron are paranoid morons themselves. What both have done, though, is spoken out in such a way as to make the paranoid morons amongst their core political supporters think that they continue to represent their views, while at the same time attempting to make political capital out of the paranoid fears that certain sections of their populations have regarding extremism and terrorism.

[Retro Formula 1]

I'm not too sure how many people on this thread haven't read the Prime Ministers speech but somehow I think they outnumber the people who have.

If not, it's strange that people seem to be lumping Islam (the religion) and Islamic Extremism (a Political ideology) together.

DC said several times that people too often seem to mix up the 2 as has been demonstrated on these boards.

Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Or-

They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.

Or we have the others that cannot read before commenting about Cameron not mentioning the far right.

There is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely reject their argument.

I wonder if the PM reads these boards after reading this next bit

The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us to confront the former. On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction. They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances, and argue that if only governments addressed these grievances, the terrorism would stop

And, a lot has been said about this "active, muscular Liberalism" bit. Can anyone read the paragraph below and disagree with any of it? It seems logical to me. An asperation we should embrace. Not a clumsy statement as has been claimed.

Now, second, we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home. Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. 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 in these things.

I'm not really a Cameron fan but I do like this speech. It's about time a Leader of the UK stood up and dared risk the ire of the limp left by actually talking about some of the basic issues we have rather than leave it to the messages of hate from the Far Right as Blair and Brown did. We are not going to put up with hate on either side and need to take on the preachers of hate whether they're in a Mosque or a EDL rally.

Read the speech. Read the message it offers and take it as a whole rather than pick a line out of context and turn it for selfish reasons to suit a preconceived viewpoint.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/spee...nference-60293

[Malbec]

skc, Cameron's speech only mentions what the far right thinks of Muslims. It does not mention the role the far right such as the EDL or BNP play in society and how they need to be confronted too, another byproduct of multiculturalism.

The speech wasn't about multiculturalism and extremism, it was about Muslims and the extremists within them. Any speech that claims to be about multiculturalism and extremism cannot only focus on one of the parties and ignore the other.

And if the speech was supposedly about terrorism, why ignore the one organised group of terrorists who have managed to kill members of the British armed forces on British soil in the past decade? Why not even mention the continuity IRA except in a historic context?

So if it fails to be balanced in its commentary on multiculturalism and on terrorism how could it be a good speech?

[Hondo]

John Howard should remember the history of his own damn country, and keep his fool mouth shut.

Australia's "monoculturalism" with the White Australia policy, caused the Japanese delegates to walk out of League of Nations talks with regards the preamble to the Covenant for the League of Nations.
The Japanese wanted to insert a racial equality clause into the preamble of the Covenant for the League of Nations and whilst the other nations officially said nothing, they were quite happy for Australia and the then PM to play the role of the ignorant patsy. Billy Hughes refused to have the racial equality clause inserted into the preamble and as such, the Japanese delegates took that as a very strong racially based snub.
The snub probably in part helped to fuel Japan's hostility towards "Western" powers; and ultimately one of the causes of WW2.

"This is a time not to apologize for our particular identity but rather to firmly and respectfully and robustly reassert it,"
Australia's blatant and open racism in the past was quite frankly a disgusting blob on the history of the nation. Thankfully, Mr Howard will become more of an irrelevance as time passes.

Throughout history, including the duration of WW2, the Japanese had been one of the most racist nations on earth, believing themselves to be the only decendence from God. I would be willing to bet the Japanese walked out because they thought they could gain more later by doing so.

[Malbec]

I would be willing to bet the Japanese walked out because they thought they could gain more later by doing so.

Yes they were pushing specifically for an end to discrimination against ethnic Japanese in the US and particularly in California. It was naive of course, they should have realised that had the Western powers agreed to end racial discrimination the whole linchpin holding entire empires together would have collapsed. They would never have agreed in a million years.

[Retro Formula 1]

skc, Cameron's speech only mentions what the far right thinks of Muslims. It does not mention the role the far right such as the EDL or BNP play in society and how they need to be confronted too, another byproduct of multiculturalism.

They are mentioned in passing and utterly rejected. I see this as the correct approach and not to bring focus and visibility to these people. They pray on peoples insecurities and this speech seeks to address those insecurities rather than skirting the issue as has been the traditional approach.

The speech wasn't about multiculturalism and extremism, it was about Muslims and the extremists within them. Any speech that claims to be about multiculturalism and extremism cannot only focus on one of the parties and ignore the other.

We are all allowed to interperet the speech as we see fit but I saw the speech as an attempt to seperate the Muslim faith from extreemists that hijack it. At the moment, there is this view that there are good and bad muslims with not much in between. This is bollox. There are Muslims who follow a faith the same as Christians and Hindi's etc do. There are also preachers of hate and violence called the BNP, Al Queda, EDL etc on both sides. This speech is a bold attampt to clarify this and seek to marginalise the extremists in my opinion

And if the speech was supposedly about terrorism, why ignore the one organised group of terrorists who have managed to kill members of the British armed forces on British soil in the past decade? Why not even mention the continuity IRA except in a historic context?

CIRA They have killed more of their own activists than anyone else. They are an outdated, outmoded criminal factions that has no clear direction, mandate or purpose. Yes, I agree that they are capable of attrocity but if they ever tried, they are so infiltrated with informers that it would be near impossible.

So if it fails to be balanced in its commentary on multiculturalism and on terrorism how could it be a good speech?

It cannot do everything or it would go on for hours. What it has done is send out a clear message about a serious current issue. It's not a panacea for all issues but a beginning to address what is a true threat to our society; ignorance.

[Mark]

The real problem is any time a politician says anything the media take soundbites out of it and make it into whatever fits their own agenda. I'm not saying Cameron was right, but you can only judge these things if you look at the source material yourself.

[BDunnell]

No matter what the detailed content of the speech was — and, yes, I have read it, and I still feel that it is badly-written and appallingly contradictory — it was trailed as the PM saying that multiculturalism has failed because that is how he and his advisors wanted it to be trailed. And this message is meaningless. In what sense has multiculturalism 'failed'?