Lord Taylor of Warwick (BBC)
Is Britain about to reassess the suicidal multiculturalism that allows jihadists virtual free rein? It is unfortunate that this is being addressed as a racial issue, since that plays into the hands of radical Muslims and their apologists, who cry "racism" at any sign of resistance to their agenda. It is, in fact, an ideological issue. Look at the statement from Lord Taylor of Warwick. He has trouble believing that some Muslims are anti-British? I suppose the flag-burning didn't convince him, or the recent statements by Omar Bakri? In Britain as well as in America, it seems as if some corners of liberal opinion are simply impervious to the facts: anything inconvenient to their world view simply didn't happen.
From the Sunday Herald, with thanks to Rosh:
Tony Blair has decided to place the almost-taboo subject of race in Britain at the top of his government’s agenda and ordered a “cross-government assault to tackle abuse of the immigration system”.The Prime Minister has called a “race and immigration summit” for Tuesday, which will be attended by Home Secretary David Blunkett, senior Foreign Office ministers, ministers from the Department of Works and Pension, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith and senior representatives from the security services and top police involved in tackling organised crime.
The summit will also mark the official start of a major policy review of Britain’s post-war approach to multiculturalism. The head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, who is close to Blair, said yesterday that multiculturalism in Britain was “out of date” and encouraged “separateness”.
He said there was an urgent need to “assert a core of Britishness” because multiculturalism in the present political era “means the wrong thing”.
The summit’s aim is to ensure better cross-department arrangements on what Downing Street called “a complex and important issue of policy”.
By taking personal charge of the immigration chaos which has engulfed the Home Office in recent weeks – resulting in the resignation last week of the immigration minister, Beverley Hughes – the Prime Minister is said to believe he can confront a growing undercurrent of racial concern in Britain that could grow to dominate next year’s general election unless his government is seen to improve its handling of immigration, refugee and asylum issues.
Blair taking charge also points to a lack of faith in Blunkett’s ability to steer the Home Office out of the stormy waters it has found itself in recently.
Although a spokesman for Blair said he retained “absolute faith in David Blunkett’s drive and political instincts”, a large question mark now hangs over the Home Secretary’s position.
Any new hint that Blunkett knew of the eastern European visa scam at the same time as Hughes, and Blair’s new-found determination to get tough on dealing with immigration matters, would almost certainly lead to Blunkett’s swift departure from his current post.
Phillips’s comments have provoked the same level of outrage he expressed a month ago when he attacked a similar analysis of Britain’s race problems as “the jottings of a BNP leader’s weblog”.
The Muslim Council of Britain tried to conceal its anger , and general secretary Iqbal Sacranie said: “Multiculturalism is something to cherish and be proud of.” He said Phillips’s comments had been “too Muslim-specific”.
Robina Qureshi, director of a Glasgow-based anti-racism pressure group, said she was “disgusted” by Phillips’s comments and questioned what “Britishness” meant to Scots, Irish and Welsh as well as Asians.
Other Muslim leaders were equally sceptical that Phillips had contributed positively to a new and growing debate on race . The Glasgow MP, Mohammad Sarwar, said: “I don’t have a problem with multiculturalism and a multi-faith society. That diversity is a source of strength, not weakness.”
The former Europe minister Keith Vaz said Phillips had got it wrong. Britain’s multicultural society, he said, was to be celebrated and not exploited. “It is a great achievement and is the envy of Europe.”
The black peer and former Tory candidate, Lord Taylor of Warwick, branded Phillips “too right-wing for me.” Taylor said Phillips’s motivation seemed to be driven by a belief that some Muslims were “anti-British” and he branded any suggestion of abandoning multiculturalism as a “backward step”.
"Some Muslims" are anti-British? It is not possible to be a Muslim, in the full sense, and have loyalty to anything but the umma al-islamiyya. Everyone has to get that straight; learn it, memorize it, thoroughly assimilate it. That is at the heart of Islam, understood by generations of scholars: the Manichaean division of the world between Muslim and non-Muslim. It is really the only division that counts. It does not matter how friendly or helpful Infidels may be; they remain Infidels. It scarcely matters how fellow Muslims behave; they remain Muslims, and to be supported.
Anyone in a position of authority in the Western world who fails to understand this is part of the quisling-class that is slowly but surely surrendering bits and pieces of Infidel sovereignty, and creating the conditions in which Jihad -- and then, of course, dhimmitude subsequent to successful Jihad -- can flourish.
Whatever arguments can be made about "Britishness," it is a fact that Muslim immigration, not Hindu, not Slavic, not Buddhist, not Sikh, but Muslim immigration, represents a permanent and growing threat to the safety and welfare of the Infidels among whom Muslims come to live, for whom they feel no loyalty (and cannot feel such loyalty, to the extent that they remain believing Muslims).
And the consequences of that core Muslim loyalty have to be examined; it is clear that all those who take an oath of allegiance to a Western, Infidel state MUST be committing perjury -- or else they do not really believe in Islam. So which is it to be, and how are we judge those who feign loyalty, from those who have in fact thoroughly jettisoned central tenets of their faith? And how do we know that their "disloyalty to Islam" (and concomitant loyalty to the Infidel nation-state in which they find themselves) will continue -- and unto what generation?
Hugh - I enoyed reading your piece. You have composed in one eloquent post the arguments that I have put forward on this site. I feel better now. Thank you.
If another attack happens against the US, some are saying that there will be huge public displeasure against all Muslims in America. I have a hard time imagining what form that will take.
There would be some violence, but it would be wrong, and must not be tolerated. We cannot become barbarians who would just rush out and hurt random Muslims, even if another attack happens in the US.
I would want the authorities to take appropriate steps, under rule of law -- otherwise we are descending to the level of barbarians.
Now when I consider my local and regional authorities -- police, judges, lawmakers, etc -- I know they are not educated enough about the threat to have the will to take appropriate action. They need to be presented with the evidence we see on this site and sites like it, in such a way that they understand our concerns. Only when there is local and regional understanding will federal authorities feel comfortable in doing something like Tony Blair did. When all that comes together, we may have an appropriate legal framework coupled with the will to enforce. Otherwise we will have no way to respond in a civilized way to another attack.
There already is huge public displeasure with the Muslim community. In Columbus, Ohio the Somalians are irritating everyone. Whites, African-Americans, Asians, civilians, police, everyone.
They haven't been able to acknowledge their surroundings. Paved streets, polite people, They just can't adjust, so the community pays for it. There was a major battering of Somalian students at Westland High School at the end of last year.
Now, of course the race card was played. However, some Somalis believe that they're entitled to behave arrogantly. Unfortunately for them, American students, in this case, weren't willing to tolerate it. I don't believe the Somalis were battered becaue of their race. From what I understand about the story, they took a beating because of their attitudes, insults and all around cocky, stiff necked approach.
More incidents like this will happen, because some people never learn.
There already is huge public displeasure with the Muslim community. In Columbus, Ohio the Somalians are irritating everyone. Whites, African-Americans, Asians, civilians, police, everyone.
They haven't been able to acknowledge their surroundings. Paved streets, polite people, They just can't adjust, so the community pays for it. There was a major battering of Somalian students at Westland High School at the end of last year.
Now, of course the race card was played. However, some Somalis believe that they're entitled to behave arrogantly. Unfortunately for them, American students, in this case, weren't willing to tolerate it. I don't believe the Somalis were battered becaue of their race. From what I understand about the story, they took a beating because of their attitudes, insults and all around cocky, stiff necked approach.
More incidents like this will happen, because some people never learn.
These are the hidden "blessings" of these Islamic attacks. Because they are coming fast and furiously worldwide and because there is now technology that allows us to know what is happening in any part of the world virtually instantaneously, these issues will come to light.
If Muslims wish to live in a parallel universe they can certainly do that. But, they cannot come to the civilized world and behave like savages. The world will not tolerate the agenda of Islam! More and more people-worldwide are becoming educated in that agenda by reading the Qur'an, the hadith and other materials. The truth about Islam will set us all free. Let us hope that happens sooner than later.
Lili