Tony Blair on multiculturalism and integration
December 10th, 2006 at 11:14 pm by David FarrarTony Blair has given a very thoughtful and important speech on balancing multiculturalism and integration. And it is very much a balancing game. A country with no variety is boring, bland and static. But likewise a country with no common shared values and no integration between cultures is a recipe for conflict. The challenge is to get the balance right,
Some key lines from Blair:
We like our diversity. But how do we react when that “difference” leads to separation and alienation from the values that define what we hold in common? For the first time in a generation 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.
Integration, in this context, is not about culture or lifestyle. It is about values. It is about integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values. It isn’t about what defines us as people, but as citizens, the rights and duties that go with being a member of our society.
It is true there are extremists in other communities. But the reason we are having this debate is not generalised extremism. It is a new and virulent form of ideology associated with a minority of our Muslim community. It is not a problem with Britons of Hindu, Afro-Caribbean, Chinese or Polish origin. Nor is it a problem with the majority of the Muslim community. Most Muslims are proud to be British and Muslim and are thoroughly decent law-abiding citizens. But it is a problem with a minority of that community, particularly originating from certain countries.
The whole point is that multicultural Britain was never supposed to be a celebration of division; but of diversity. The purpose was to allow people to live harmoniously together, despite their difference; not to make their difference an encouragement to discord.
We should share a common language. Equal opportunity for all groups requires that they be conversant in that common language. It is a matter both of cohesion and of justice that we should set the use of English as a condition of citizenship. In addition, for those who wish to take up residence permanently in the UK, we will include a requirement to pass an English test before such permanent residency is granted.
Again let us not be foolish, in our desire not to cause offence. Of course the extremists that threaten violence are not true Muslims in the sense of being true to the proper teaching of Islam. But it’s daft to deny the fact that they justify their extremism by reference to religious belief.
We know migration has been good for Britain. We acknowledge the extraordinary contribution migrants from all faiths and races have made. We are a nation comfortable with the open world of today. London is perhaps the most popular capital city in the world today partly because it is hospitable to so many different nationalities, mixing, working, conversing with each other.
But we protect this attitude by defending it. Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don’t come here. We don’t want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed.
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. Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect. The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it.
I will miss Tony Blair when he retires.
Tags: International Politics
December 11th, 2006 at 4:52 am
Blair has been a disasterous PM, a nasty, dishonest piece of work whose only merit is that he despises Old Labour.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 7:11 am
He also took Britain into Iraq against the wishes of the country. He has a name for being economical with the truth.
Vote:The sooner he goes the better
December 11th, 2006 at 7:45 am
“I will miss Tony Blair when he retires.”
Yep, to some degree, if only he hadn’t spent so much time sucking up to that tosser Dubya
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Well, DPF, as so often happens with Tony Blair you have to applaud the sentiment… then cringe when you look at what his Government actually does.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 8:35 am
It appears to me that Don Brash wrote Tony’s speech
There are two themes – one rule of law for all.
And immigrants must subscribe to the host countries basic values.
Of course the left jounalists screamed blue (or red) murder at these thoughts coming out of Brash’s mouth – but they are stolidly silent when Blair says the same thing.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Some of my pommie friends scream “liar” and accuse Blair of too much sucking up to Bush but speeches like that shows he is still a thinker for his country. And can express himself very well.He will be missed.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Owen is quite correct. WHat Blair has said is very close to what Brash said last year and was attacked by Clark over.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 8:59 am
I agree with Blair.
If a Christian were to go to a Muslim country, he’d be killed if it tried to openly practice his religion there or exhort others to join him.
If people want to go to England (or indeed, come to NZ), then, sure, they should be free to practice what they like; it’s when they start demanding that WE change OUR practices (be it in school or whatever) because it offends their religion that I have a problem with it.
If they’re coming into a predominantly Christian country (or what used to be), then they have to adapt to our surroundings and respect our way of life: ‘when in Rome’, etc.
If they want to live in a place where they are surrounded by trappings of their own religion in school and work places, then why did they leave home and come here?
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 9:00 am
The blindingly obvious difference being that Brash was talking about Maori, who are the indiginous people of this country while Blair is talking about Muslims, a migrant group linked to inner city riots and terrorist attacks.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 9:04 am
The only problem DPF, is that Blair is talking about quite different things to Brash. Blair is trying to explain/find suitable policy/attitude to have towards the minority Islamic extremism that is ripping parts of British society apart. Brash on the other hand was trying to elicit votes from a majority ethnic group by claiming a minority group was getting preferential treatment (yech!). Hager’s book has revealed the true extent of the cynicism behind this.
As other posters have said, this speech is quite different substance from the less enlightened thinking that led Blair to follow Bush and is probably much closer to a realistic response to the situation.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Kent and Danyl – you are both confused. I am referring to Don’s speech on immigration where he called for a commitment to common shared core values.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Since most of our migrants are from the UK and have conspicuously failed to burn down any of our cities or blow themselves up on buses the parallels still seem pretty damn flimsy to me.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 9:19 am
So you have “values” police who sit at immigration questioning people?
It’s also interesting to note that the London Bombers were not immigrants into the UK but British born so Blair’s statement “conform to it; or don’t come here” makes about as much sense as anything else he has said recently.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Sorry DPF, but Brash’s biggest legacy on race is Orewa I. The ‘values’ espoused in it echo more loudly than any other speeches he might have made on the subject.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 9:26 am
I think we’re splitting hairs, we all expect immigrants to integrate, accept and respect the host nations laws and customs, but we don’t think it reasonable to demand they abandon their own customs and religion. I’m sure Brash, Blair and clark would agree.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Hugh MacKay in Saturday’s SMH had some wise words on the subject
“One of the conservatives’ current ploys is to characterise multiculturalism as, at best, an unfortunate experiment or, at worst, a cancer in the heart of Western society. Their argument seems to be that multiculturalism gives inappropriate support to “non-mainstream” values, slows down the rate of assimilation of ethnic minorities, and encourages the kind of cultural diversity that makes them feel nervous.
There’s no doubt “multicultural” is an ugly word (“cosmopolitan” sounds like much more fun) and it would be nice to think Robb only wants to replace it because of its linguistic infelicity. Yet it stands for one of the most beautiful ideas imaginable: the idea that in one harmonious society, we could successfully blend people from a rich and diverse mixture of cultural backgrounds – whether ethnic, religious or otherwise.
The miracle is that, right here, we have done it. We have consciously and deliberately brought people here from more than 150 countries and created a brilliant, complex work of art called Australia. The mystery is that so many of us seem unwilling to acknowledge or appreciate what has been achieved.
Part of the attack on multiculturalism is to caricature it, quite unfairly, as a namby-pamby tolerance of everything, including attitudes and practices that impinge on our personal or cultural freedom. With Christmas looming, someone is bound to start complaining about school Christmas plays being banned in deference to Muslims or other minority groups. This must be an urban myth: I can’t find anyone who thinks that would be fair or sensible.
It’s true that cultural diversity runs counter to the human tendency to form self-protective tribes that offer their members comfort and security, and also encourage hostility towards other tribes. Difference – skin colour, ethnicity, religion – can easily be interpreted as a threat to our cultural equanimity and so, in a primitive sense, it’s natural to demonise and distance “otherness”.
The standard Australian practice is to give each new wave of immigrants a hard time. We usually adopt their food before we consider any more comprehensive acceptance. But we have the knack of multiculturalism here. We know that tolerance follows understanding and that a bit of healthy curiosity usually breaks down the barriers of ignorance.
Yes, it’s challenging. Yes, there are inevitable periods of tension and conflict. But diversity isn’t an end in itself: as other nations have found, it can be a way of achieving a rich, stimulating, vibrant, creative society. Some generosity of spirit is required to achieve that, and we occasionally need to remind ourselves that the benefits far outweigh the difficulties.
True multiculturalism is about far more than ethnicity. It’s about a society being committed to the idea of diversity in all its guises – ethnic, religious, political, social, generational. It’s about building bridges across cultural chasms and being determined to master the art of getting to know each other better.
Whenever I hear the word mainstream……”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/an-awkward-word-yet-its-a-thing-of-wonder/2006/12/08/1165081148393.html
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Well said lloydois
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 10:08 am
“The point about these interventions, however, military and otherwise, is that they were not just about changing regimes but changing the values systems governing the nations concerned. The banner was not actually “regime change”, it was “values change”
Tony Blair on invading Iraq.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 10:22 am
“But we protect this attitude by defending it. Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don’t come here”
Serious??? Is that not the most retard George Bush-ist quote ever? What the Hell Tony?
*shudder*
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 11:22 am
I’m disappointed in you David. Blair said almost exactly the opposite seven years ago. Hist hostory is one of setting targets as a replacement fro thoughtful policy and he has provided over an ever increasing curb on freedom. he is the anti-liberal and I’m surprised you could feel anything other than relieft when he steps off the stage.
Oh, and his imminent questioning by Police for selling honours puts Paintergate in the shade.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
David C – What’s so retarded about demanding that immigrants show tolerance? Perhaps you see some contradiction in being intolerant of intolerance? Maybe there is, strictly speaking, although it is no different than hating hatred.
The point is that tolerance should only go so far. No-one would try and say we should tolerate murder, rape, theft, etc. The question is, what should be tolerated, and what shouldn’t. And Tony Blair’s answer to that question sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
It’s more the semantic issue I have with it. The emotive language he uses. It’s funny how ‘immigration’ has been the political hot potato. Brash, Bush, Blair, Howard, it’s just run around the western world. Leaders standup, blow their racist little dog whistles and the rednecks come a’runnin.
“Hot diggety, I do hate them darkies comin’ in with their crazy ideas, and their strange dresses and then them goes and takes me jobs, well I hates it I does”.
Gah.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
David C – ever thought country after country has changed it views on immigration for a very good reason? It’s not a coincidence. And it is regardless of left or right in power.
Kent – I’m sorry but you seem to have a comprehension problem. No-one but you is talking about Orewa. This thread is not about Orewa. No one is referring to Brash’s legacy. I merely made the factual comment that Brash earlier on said much the same as Blair has now said. You somehow though this was rferring to Orewa but it was referring to (obviously) his immigration speech.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
“ever thought country after country has changed it views on immigration for a very good reason?”
That reason I’m sure has more to do with Bush’s war of terror than problems in integrating the vast majority of immigrants. If the host nation invites immigrants in the onus is of the host nation to set up the systems that encourage immigrants to integrate, Frances policy of stacking them in seperate communities was a disaster waiting to happen, Australia has been a little better, other countries including NZ and the US, better still.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
“I merely made the factual comment that Brash earlier on said much the same as Blair has now said.”
While we’re in a ‘factual’ vein, Brash may have said it (more fool he), but as we now know it was Michael Basset who was jerking his chain.
Brash’s legacy – what a hoot.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
“We like our diversity. But how do we react when that “difference” leads to separation and alienation from the values that define what we hold in common? For the first time in a generation 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. ” AINT THAT THE TRUTH,,,cmon say it!, its muslims.
Andrew, i knew youd be in here, I think the war on terror is a good thing and a necessity for the west if we want to keep our democracy, we cannot let these islamic terrorist just keep bombing us, its as simple as that, Good on you Mr Bush & Mr Blair
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Bugger Brash at the moment.Blair’s comment is way more important;Europe’s survival is critical to our own.Blair said too little too late.At least he is out of bed;Clark hasn’t woken up yet.But as we all know,waking is only a preliminary to putting feet onto cold ground and doing the hard business.Sorry Don:I like you but worry more about Muslim extremism than I do about Maori angst.We negotiate with Maori,ad nauseaum perhaps)but there is no obvious negotiation between radical Islam and us.It is not possible.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Bugger Brash at the moment.Blair’s comment is way more important;Europe’s survival is critical to our own.Blair said too little too late.At least he is out of bed;Clark hasn’t woken up yet.But as we all know,waking is only a preliminary to putting feet onto cold ground and doing the hard business.Sorry Don:I like you but worry more about Muslim extremism than I do about Maori angst.We negotiate with Maori,ad nauseaum perhaps)but there is no obvious negotiation between radical Islam and us.It is not possible.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
“there is no obvious negotiation between radical Islam and us.It is not possible.”
You may as well go top yourself now then Mara because you are bound to be disappointed in life and the last thing the world needs is a mind as closed and dogmatic as yours.
Vote:December 11th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
“The miracle is that, right here, we have done it. ”
Vote:Well, it would have been if they had managed to kill off the entire indigineous population when they tried, and hence not left this little blemish on their ‘miracle’.
Australia is more redneck than the Sth. Island.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
The doctrine of multiculturalism in Britain, which is an unrealistic and utopian ideology advocating that a society consisting of vastly different distinct cultural groups are deemed to be of equal status, has now shown to be a failure and has brought havoc in its wake. This doctrine holds that all minority cultures must hold equal status with the majority, and that any attempt to impose the majority culture over those of minorities is by definition unacceptable.
However, instead of advancing a state of cultural equality this ideology, in parallel with human rights legalisation, has engineered minority rights into a formidable tool that chips away at the majorities values to the point that the nation as an overarching framework of shared and binding values and obligations can be undermined.
This cultural misadventure has now come to a head after successive British governments had adopted an astonishingly myopic policy of tolerance toward the ideologues and activists of radical Islam taking shelter under the umbrella of multiculturalism. Britain’s liberal asylum laws allowed the entry of radical ideologues of global Islamism, many wanted by the authorities in their own countries, to set about organizing and proselytizing deep in the heart of Britain’s urban Muslim communities.
Some Muslims have great difficulty accepting their minority status within a British culture rooted in values, which are in some crucial respects different from theirs. Instead, they not only keep themselves separate from British society but also expect it to change to accommodate their own values. Many Muslims don’t accept this is a problem and react aggressively to any such suggestion, claiming it is an attack upon Islam. Moderate Muslims, they insist, are vastly in the majority and the problem, therefore, lies with British ‘islamophobia’. This has created a situation where militant Islamism, the type of Islam that preachers holy war, has taken root and expanded directly under the noses of the British intelligence services to the extent that London has become the European centre for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamist terror and extremism.
After the London tube train bombings and the threat of downing commercial airliners and the on going investigations into some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1600 identified individuals who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts in Britain and overseas it is understandable that the British Prime Minister is now debating the whole question of multiculturalism and integration.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 8:12 am
Sorry, DPF, my knowledge of Brash’s speeches is somewhat limited.
Serum, the Brits have been living with terrorism for decades thanks to the IRA, which was retaliating against British intervention in Ireland. The Muslim extremists who whip up terror in England could be construed as operating for the same reason: to retaliate for British intervention in the Middle East. Because some Irish belonged to the IRA didn’t mean that all Irish were ‘bad’. Similarly because some Muslims get coaxed into terrorist activity doesn’t make all Muslims ‘bad’.
The Romans practised ‘multiculturalism’ 2000 years ago, the Brits built an empire on it and the US followed suit.
I think the big question for Europe is not multiculturalism, but immigraton per se. When your own population is at a standstill and industry is not demanding more workers to feed it, then why allow immigration? Sure there are some capitalists who would like to exploit cheap labour, but the social costs outweigh the benefits (eg France).
I think the issue in Europe is one of needing, finally, to put a stop to population increase. With increasing automization and resource squeezing, population increase is not the answer to growth. China is an excellent example.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Kent,
I hardly think that injecting formalin into the brain of a baby as it’s head crowns in the birthing process, just because its parents already have another child, is really an excellent method of population control.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Whoa! Peter, where are you coming from?
The example of China is that it has a double figure growth rate on top of a zero population growth strategy. How they go about achieving zero is another issue entirely. The European industrial revolution (19th and 20th centuries) which achieved a level of industrialization that China has not achieved yet was accompanied by population explosion. The challenge for continued western growth, is to be able to do it without population growth needing to be a factor, using mechanization, education, efficiency etc. rather than cheap labour.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Kent,
Fair enough. I see you were advocating the principle of reduced population growth and not the barbaric methods that China employs to achieve it.
As an interesting asside, before the industrial revolution England experienced something like a 25% decrease in population due to the plague. The plague was known in some circles as the poor man’s friend, because the reduced workforce allowed the remaining people a lot more freedom to move around and find better employment (breaking the old feudal Lord/Serf relationship). The plague also was not age related, so the population reduction happened without the change in age distribution that is one of the problems that accompanies the birth control method of population reduction.
I’m not advocating a plague as a method of population control though!
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 11:36 am
I might add that China have failed to achieve anything like zero growth, despite their 90% literacy rate and increasing industrialization, so maybe they’re growth is fueled in part by population increase.
AIDs seems to be doing its fair share of population control work in Africa, much like the plague did in Europe.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Kent,
Good points.
The other thing about China is that it is still in the relatively early stages of industrialisation.
They have a huge population that is still involved in very labour intensive farming. These people are moving from agriculture to industry, meaning that the industrial workforce is increasing in the same manner as if there were a population explosion. The same thing happened in England, where the industrial revolution was fueled by an agricultural workforce that was being displaced by the land enclosures act, who needed to move both occupation and location.
The greatest period of growth is usually in the 2nd quarter, and I supect that this is the phase China is going through now. As the percentage of industrialisation increases it becomes harder to maintain the rate of increase.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
One also hopes that the industrialization brings with it increasing education and awareness of democracy (or similar) so that China doesn’t become a superpower under totalitarian control of some megalomaniac. The internet could play a part in that.
Anyway, this is a long way from multi-culturalism in England. If what I suspect is true and Europe is going to shut down on immigration per se, then future growth has to be fueled by increasing mechanization and education rather than cheap labour. Then, rather than manual work, people either design, build, maintain or operate machines. Advancement is measured by the complexity and efficiency of the machines and the workforce.
Human populations cannot continue to expand. They have to stop somewhere.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I’m old enough to remember a lot of discontent in the UK over mechanisation & computerisation, and how this was destroying thousands of jobs & going to hugely increase unemployment.
My view at the time was that it would mainly cause a shift in employment type, because all the computers & machines would need to be designed, built, maintained etc.
The real result is, as you point out, an upskilling of the average population, which is a good thing.
You are right about the finite nature of populations, and the fact that we have drifted a long way from the multiculturalism theme, but it has been interesting nontheless.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Yes, thanks, Peter, see you on another thread.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Its probably as good a time as any to wish you a Merry Christmas, to see if we can spread some peace and good will through the blog & amongst its participants.
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Yeah sure, Merry Xmas and a Multi-cultural New Year to you and to other posters!!
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Yeah sure, Merry Xmas and a Multi-cultural New Year to you and to other posters!!
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Yeah sure, Merry Xmas and a Multi-cultural New Year to you and to other posters!!
Vote:December 12th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Merry xmas Kent
Vote: