Jagged edges

What is this article actually saying? That the tolerance and embracing of other cultures and cultural requirements is another root cause of terrorism? It’s an interesting point of view and one that I was about to lay into until the act of constructing a counter argument forced me to stop and think.

The author suggests that the French are less tolerant of certain aspects of other cultures and that the British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage and that this has led to Britain becoming a hapless nation in the war on terror and radical Islam. London is described as easily the most important jihadist hub in Western Europe and, apparently, one American security group has called for Britain to be listed as a terrorism-sponsoring state though the author fails to supply details on who or what this security group is (never a good sign).

The article mentions the ruling in 2004 allowing schoolgirls to wear a jilbab in state schools:

As a result, by law British schools must now accept the jilbab. Not only that, but Prime Minister Blair's wife, Cherie Booth, was Ms. Begum's lawyer at the appellate level. Ms. Booth called the ruling "a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry."

The article uses this as an example of the ”myriad French-British differences in treatment of radical Islam”. Now, I suppose you could argue that the need or desire for girls to wear a covering religion based ‘uniform’ is an aspect of radical Islam but you would be stretching reality to suggest that this particular example of tolerance causes terrorism. However, the article does not really suggest that. It merely uses it as an example of wrong-way-round cultural dilution and I think that is the subtext of the article and, if that is the case, then I think that the author is not as barking as I first thought.

Cultural dilution is not just a single aspect of multiculturalism, it is the very key to its success. If multiculturalism is to be a policy (and arguments about whether it should be or not can, and will, go on for a long time) that policy must recognise that preservation of identity and of values is an extraordinary dangerous policy aim. It fails to smooth off the edges of radicalism and preserves the very things that cause cultural friction in the first place.

The great thing about mixing cultures over decades and over centuries is that there is a natural propensity for the best things about each culture in the mix to stand the test of time, the worst aspects having been diluted to the point of impotence. Decreeing that individual students can decide their own dress code on the basis of cultural identity so that they might maintain their own values and getting this recognised in case law is bad multiculturalism. Maintaining identity and values is exactly the opposite of what multiculturalism should be, if anything, trying to achieve.

Preventing cultural dilution is exactly where we are failing and jagged edges and tension will be the result.

(Article spotted via Blognorregis).

Some of you may be wondering about my position on this whole multiculturalism thing. Well, here it is. I disagree with a policy of multiculturalism whereby the cultures of immigrants are seen as being automatically equal to British culture.

Immigrants who come here, as my parents did, are striking a bargain with Britain. They take what Britain has to offer (and they find it attractive otherwise immigration would not be on the agenda) and they may have to give up something of their own.

The demands by the young Britain to wear a jilbab in a state school is, in my opinion, overstepping the mark and not appropriate. It breaks the bargain and leads to friction. Heaven knows there were many people at my old state school that wanted to wear their own style of clothing instead of the uniform but, fact of the matter is, no matter how much you believe in a supernatural deity, the devil, Iron Maiden or whatever, you wear the uniform. Taking the school to court is the same as saying "hey, I know this is Britain, but my culture is just as important and, therefore, I am special enough to be treated differently from the way millions of other students have been treated for decades".

No, you are not. And if you think you are you are not as British as you should be.

Boris Johnson has a few things to say about multicultural society and Britishness in his recent posting:

So we have drifted on over the intervening decades, and created a multi-cultural society that has many beauties and attractions, but in which too many Britons have absolutely no sense of allegiance to this country or its institutions. It is a cultural calamity that will take decades to reverse, and we must begin now with what I call in this morning's Spectator the re-Britannification of Britain.

Posted by John at July 14, 2005 09:18 AM | TrackBack