David Cameron has delivered his much-heralded speech in Munich on this subject, the text of which can be found here, the content to which I shall return. Anna Raccoon has a well-thought post on this subject as does The Talking Clock. John Redwood has also offered his views on this subject, the content to which I shall also return.
It would perhaps be beneficial were I to set out my own beliefs on this question of multiculturalism and in so doing, use the analogy of one's own home. Be it one of single occupancy, or of a family, that home has certain rules, way of life and traditions and were another person to be introduced to that home who insisted that those rules, way of life and traditions were changed to suit that person's beliefs, obviously tensions would arise. Were that my home, that person would promptly be shown the door with the accompanying suggestion that he/she found somewhere more conducive to their wants. That, I believe, is a simple solution to what is a simple problem.
Anna Raccoon raises the mnemonic of "When in Rome....." and suggests that the courtesy of respecting the way of life, culture and traditions, which we practise when visiting other countries is one that we can rightly expect from those visiting, or choosing to live, in our country. Is it illogical to suggest that when considering visiting, or moving to another country, that that country's way of life, culture and traditions are researched first and if found to be unacceptable, the journey is not made? Likewise, should an error occur and having arrived the situation is not one first thought, then the logical course of action would be to leave. Is it racist to wish to preserve the culture and traditions of one's own country? Of course not, it is an aim that all countries share. As Anna so rightly says, the British are not racist and if we were, as The Talking Clock writes, why are so many so eager to come to our shores?
Charles Moore has his usual op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, headlined "The days of doing deals with the Muslim extremists are over" - an article which encapsulates all that is the cause and effect of the problem. Why is it that when diagnosing the cause of a problem, the trail always leads back to politicians? Likewise, why is it that the rising effects of a problem are the result of actions taken by those same politicians. Remember, politicians 'signed-up' to Human Rights and in so doing committed the error for which politicians are renowned: failure to 'think the matter through'. What exactly is a human right? If I have the right to set certain rules dictating a way of life in my own home, do I not have that same right where my own country is concerned? Of course if our politicians had taken the course I suggested in relation to my own home, then the problems we have today would not exist. The problem we now have is that, having created the problem of multiculturalism in the first place, all politicians can now do is to resort to their panacea of all ills, namely yet more legislation.
All politicians seem to have what may be termed a genetic fault - the need to be seen being fair to all, something which is impossible to accomplish. John Redwood writes:
"We condemn extremism of all types – we should dislike the religious and political fanatics who think their creed is the only right one to be pursued by violent or dishonest means, but we should also dislike those who think there is a single or pure British way which they wish to enforce."
Why is it extremism to wish to preserve one's culture and traditions? Why should one be disliked for so doing? In an attempt to define 'Britishness' and 'principles', Redwood continues:
"We believe that the majority has the right to prevail, but it does not have the right to oppress the minorities."
Err, once it is accepted that the right of the majority prevails, is not the minority then being oppressed? That, in my view, is a classic example of a politician putting pen to paper (or opening his mouth) without first having engaged brain. Actually, on this point of Redwood's, when exactly were the people of this land asked for their opinions, whereby a majority decision could be expressed? The problem has been caused by the opposite of what Redwood proclaims, namely the problem has been caused by a minority (650) oppressing the majority (60million) - but yet again I digress........
In his speech David Cameron links the problems of terrorism with multiculturalism - which presents the old "chicken and egg" conundrum. As with all politicians, Cameron's speech is but words, words uttered in an attempt to convince the population of our nation that he will act. But how, exactly, can he act whilst remaining a signatory to the Human Rights Convention and a member of the European Union to whom human rights is a core principle? One thing is certain, whatever legislation Cameron produces will result in yet more income for the legal fraternity and yet more 'inroads' into our individual right to think and speak as we wish.
Forgive me, but yet another digress. Is it not ironic that Cameron should raise, as one of the questions that immigrants should be asked, that of:
"Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government?"
Why should immigrants be asked to respect a belief that Cameron does not allow his own people as a result of his insistence that our nation belongs to the European Union? Cameron obviously believes in the charade that our government resides in Westminster, when in fact it resides in Brussels.
To return to the subject of this post: It is, as mentioned previously, just words: there is not one concrete proposal in that speech Cameron could enact without falling foul of human right laws and the EU. I note:
"......we must build stronger societies and identities at home."
Just who is this "we"? The government?
"A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. 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."
What about individual rights? What about the right of two people running a B&B, who for religious beliefs feel they cannot cater for same-sex couples? Who's business is it, theirs or the governments? To quote John Redwood, is that not oppression of a minority? The politicians of a genuinely liberal country do not impose the views of a minority on the majority. The politicians of a genuinely liberal country does not legislate for every problem it encounters. The politicians of a genuinely liberal country does not cede that country's right to self-governance without first having obtained the permission of those they are supposed to represent. What Cameron is proposing is yet more 'social engineering' and more 'communitarianism', both of which are not welcome on this blog, nor I suspect elsewhere!
7 comments:
TBliar=Gordoon McBroon=Dai Cameroid=clegg=Milliput all products of the same asylum. It needs burning to the ground. Now which nation is particularly good at setting fire to buildings and executing politicos?
W: Why look to another nation? We have the Big Society so lets put it to good use!
WfW, I enjoyed reading this post and follow your train of thought entirely. For some time we have been brainwashed - bullied even - into thinking that our own culture and traditions are either worthless when compared with others, or old-fashioned and needing to be modernised. Usually this has come from the Left, though it seems our present government are following in the same vein. If one can respect the culture, language and traditions of other countries - and I do - then one should not be made to feel guilty for respecting one's own. Well said sir, well said!
The hedging is simple to explain. Many of those commenting do not themselves have deep roots in England but have advanced rapidly in Politics since their parents or grandparents first landed on these shores.
They cannot profess too clear a notion of Englishness which might rebound on themselves, so they hedge.
As for Cameron, he makes a speech in a CIA Conference in Munich rather than in Bradford or Oldham. He does so just before the local elections. It is so contrived.
In certain cities the real Minority is White Children who suffer persecution and violence in schools if their parents cannot afford to extricate them.
Try Bradford or Batley or Keighley, it is not White English values that are predominant as in say Witney or Bicester or Hampstead or Sevenoaks. Osama is a very popular name in Keighley
TtR: thank you, much appreciated!
CCTV: You make a valid point. Re Cameron and his motives, I tried to infer as much in my post.
Cameron is obviously trying to say, without actally saying it - presumably for fear of the BBC, Guardianistas and Liebor - what Chancellor Angela Merkel said here in Germany some months ago. Multi-Kulti ist Tot!
Anther name for Multiculturalism is Apartheid, for those who have taken the trouble to look past the obvious abuses of that system, the actual underlying philosophy was quite simple - each population group should be kept separate and allowed to practice their own 'Cultural' identities...
It simply cannot work, and the version imposed by the Liebor Apparatchiks was as pernicious as Apartheid - everyone else's culture was superior to the English and therefore had to be promoted. The writing was on the wall as soon as the Left was allowed to get away with labelling our institutions, companies, police and everything "British" as "Institutionally Racist." They should have been challenged and the lies exposed - instead we allowed the hand-wringing liberals among us to get away with imposing quotas for employment and to promote the "equality" of other cultures.
And so we have "muti" murders among the West African population in London, Rastafereans who claim smoking Canabis is religious and murder being reported as suicide when young women who have "offended" a relative among a certain supposedly superior (to Christianity) faith are killed by their relatives.
Multi-culturalism is a disaster, Britain has to reclaim its heritage. Tolerance is one thing, supine handing over control to an aggressive 'Tenant" is another.
TGM: A good comment and one with which I agree. I am still of the opinion that there is only one way to remove this lot and that is to take to the streets.
On one post I repeated that proposition and asked if there were any volunteers to arrange it. Sadly, answer has come none, so as I commented on Ambush Predator. I will volunteer - but it would be handly to know that there a few behind me - to start with.
Post a Comment