« Is Islam due for Reformation? Is Islam able to reform? | Main | Zacht Ei - Doorbakken kan altijd nog. »
August 11, 2005
Rethinking our society
"The time has come, the Walrus said, to think of many things; of shoes, and ships and sealing wax; of cabbages and kings." Thus, in Lewis Carol's famous poem, begins the feast at which the oysters are consumed by their hosts under the guise of a serious debate. I guess you could say that the UK has found itself playing Oyster to the Islamic Walrus ably supported by his sycophantic "Multi-culturalist" supporters. But what is "multi-culturalism"? What is the reality of a "pluralist" society?
To see one in action one would have to look at the Indian State, where, nominally at least, all faiths have equal status and all cultures (which are usually bound to a particular religious view) are equal. But are they? Certainly in some areas it works reasonably well, but dig down and you find certain tensions simmering beneath the surface. Hindu radicals actively attack mosques, and Christians are the target for everyone who has a grudge. In many such "richly mixed" societies you find that to be a member of a particular religion often excludes you from sections of society, certain professions, and any post which would place you "in charge" of someone from a "dominant" faith group.
Is this really the Britain we think we live in? Is it the Britain we want to create? If we are not careful this is precisely what will happen, primarily because the law will be used, and is being deliberately written in a bias against our native religion and culture - ostensibly to "redress" injustices which have more to do with reaction to unfortunate attitudes and behaviours in some immigrant communities than anything else. Do we really need a law such as that imposed by the Australian Federal government which effectively outlaws the expression of anyone's beliefs in public?
A recent leader article in the Daily Telegraph postulates that the "policy" of multi-culturalism is dead. The author states that it died and should die, because: -
"The idea that many cultures could coexist in one country, going their own ways, living by their own values, and cultivating their own disparate and distinct identities, was always a cop-out. But, considering its presumed high-mindedness, it was oddly cynical as well. It seemed to assume that coming to live in a country was like lodging in a boarding-house: new tenants could keep to themselves and do what they liked so long as they didn't make too much noise or block the lavatories. How they lived their lives was nobody's business, not even the landlady's.
Well, as we have apparently now realised, being a country that absorbs migrants involves rather more than taking in lodgers and leaving them to get on with it. Multiculturalism may have been dressed up as cosmopolitan virtue but, at heart, it was a rationale for not really giving a damn, and a cover for the least attractive British traits - intellectual laziness, indifference to the needs of other people, complacency, and contempt for any sort of energetic commitment to a social ideal."
I must say that I agree entirely with her opening statement: -
"Multiculturalism is really taking a kicking. No tiptoeing around anymore. Nobody, so far as I know, has actually gone the whole hog and suggested that the multicultural philosophy was really a form of "separate but equal" development - which is to say, cultural apartheid. But somebody is bound to go there pretty soon. (Come to think of it, I suppose I just have.)"
In fact, I found myself agreeing with a great deal of her argument, particularly when it comes to educating our young folk in civic affairs and in the actual process of government. I would not find the idea of my children and anyone else's being taught to honour the flag or the constitution and to understanding what it actually means to live in a society that exists as a cohesive unit because everyone shares a love of the freedoms that being part of that society brings. Let's face it, if you don't like living here - go live somewhere else! Don't expect the rest of us to change our freedoms for your oppressive idea of Utopia in some sort of fundamentalist dream state ruled by the likes of Abu Hamza!
All of which brings me to my point: simply that British Society has evolved over a long period. It has been, for at least the last 200 years, a fairly enlightened and tolerant society. Yes, that has brought with it some abuses and certainly some aspects that are of perhaps dubious morality, but the concept of a "multi-cultural" society is simply a non-starter. It cannot work, simply because you cannot have mutually hostile cultures sharing the same spaces! As I pointed out in an earlier post on this subject, sooner or later you will run into a problem with the justice system? Which one prevails? The law of the land, or the law according to some religious fanatic? And here I include fanatics of ALL religions.
On my desk is a saying by a great American writer/journalist, H L Mencken, and it sums up the problem of "multi-culturalism" very well because it actually addresses the real problem, twisted morality and ethics as interpretted by a bunch of narrow-minded and intelligence-challenged moralists. It says:
"The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression."
The problem we face with the government's "policy" of multi-culturalism is that it is being driven by fanatics. It is time for reasonable and intelligent people to call a halt to this nonsense and institute the means for addressing a truly integrated and fair society - not this dangerous sham we currently endure.
Posted by The Gray Monk at August 11, 2005 10:37 AM