Cameron, harsh on multiculturalism

The press have reported extensively on David Cameron’s speech at the Munich security conference on 5th February. This speech followed on from the comments the PM made on the tougher rules for immigrants to learn English. Cameron’s speech addressed the apparent failure of multiculturalism and how as a nation we are to deal with the issue of terrorism. Cameron is pushing for a strong national identity based on ‘muscular liberalism’ as a tool for combating terrorism.

Many Labour members and other BAME voice organisations have called the timing of Cameron’s speech irresponsible as he made it on the same day that the fascistic English Defence League (EDL) planned to march in Luton. But Cameron’s speech defended Muslim’s and condemned the rising Islamaophobia in the country: 

“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 wrong.”

However, groups that do not adhere to the ideological values underpinning Cameron’s ideal national identity will not receive funding. Cameron believes Muslim groups that receive funding should be subject to testing and regulation:

"So let's properly judge these organisations:

Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths?

Do they believe in equality of all before the law?

Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government?

Do they encourage integration or separatism?"

This is a dangerous precedent and could lead to the exclusion of groups on the basis of protected characteristics, such as ethnicity and faith. Cameron is undermining the principles of these BAME organisations, creating a hierarchy of values, with British at the top and Muslim at the bottom. He is implicitly casting aspersions about Muslims' values.

This will be made worse with the loss of funding to the equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Cameron claims that multiculturalism has failed and has produced distinct ethnic communities, which he links to the development of terrorism. Terrorism is not a result of state multiculturalism. The answer to tackling terrorism is not monoculturalism, as we have seen in France, where monoculturalism has not solved any integration issues they have had. The answer is much more complex than this.

Evidence from 2008 actually suggests that 43 % of Muslims say that they belong ‘very strongly’ to Britain and 42% say that they belong to Britain ‘fairly strongly’. Trevor Philips, who is most associated with the idea that multiculturalism has failed, with his comments in 2005 about Britain 'sleepwalking to segregation', has performed a volte face. He now claims his evidence was wrong. It seems Cameron is still using this evidence. If the evidence is wrong, then why the fear-mongering about Muslims in society?

The BNRRN questions this perspective. Is the attack on multiculturalism part of the current government’s insistence that BAME people should be able to access generic services; that BAME people are not a specific interest group? As Baroness Warsi has claimed: “We need to move towards a mainstreaming of minority ethnic and religious groups. We need to move towards a place where we don’t treat them as specific interest groups.” This strategy will leave BAME people more excluded and isolated as generic services are not yet equipped to meet BAME peoples’ cultural needs, as we have seen in discussions about BAME people and mental health.

Apart from English language lessons and teaching British history what are Cameron’s proposals to increase integration? There is no guarantee that integration will be achieved through these vague proposals, nor terrorism tackled. There is nothing new in teaching history from a British perspective or English language lessons in the curriculum. Might not this kind of teaching isolate and undermine the worth of migrant pupils whose families are from the nations that Britain dominated under colonialism, rather than forge a sense of British identity and loyalty? Historically the onus for integration has been on the migrant. But as the ‘host’ nation it seems reasonable to expect some more considered and robust proposals for the integration of people who have come to the country in search of a better life for themselves and their families.