In FrontPage today I discuss the recent controversial remarks by Tony Blair, which turn out to be less than meets the eye (news links in the original):
British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared last Friday that “no distinctive culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom.” He listed “respect for this country and its shared heritage,” along with “belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all,” as the things that “we hold in common” and give “us the right to call ourselves British.”Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor of the Telegraph, termed this a “volte face” and noted that “just eight years ago” Blair “was a multiculturalist champion.” The prime minister’s speech, wrote Johnston, “was the culmination of a long Labour retreat from a cause it once enthusiastically embraced.” It was a retreat, he suggested, made necessary by the force of events: “In recent weeks, Jack Straw, Ruth Kelly, John Reid, and Gordon Brown have all played their part in a concerted revision of the Cabinet’s stand which began in earnest after the July 7 bombs in London last year.”
Blair himself, however, doesn’t seem to have intended his speech to be taken as a rejection of or retreat from multiculturalism. He explained: “It is not that we need to dispense with multicultural Britain. On the contrary we should continue celebrating it. But we need – in the face of the challenge to our values – to re-assert also the duty to integrate, to stress what we hold in common and to say: these are the shared boundaries within which we all are obliged to live, precisely in order to preserve our right to our own different faiths, races and creeds.” In line with this, he called for an adjustment in how multiculturalism was to be understood: “it is necessary to go back to what a multicultural Britain is all about. The whole point is that multicultural Britain was never supposed to be a celebration of division; but of diversity.” He rejected the separatism and relativism that would make for the Balkanization and atomization of British society and rule and law: “The purpose was to allow people to live harmoniously together, despite their difference; not to make their difference an encouragement to discord.”
Consequently, he called for grants “to promote integration”; an end to forced marriage (which the British failed to outlaw last summer); adherence by all groups to the rule of law (in other words, no Shari’a in Britain: Blair said, “Nobody can legitimately ask to stand outside the law of the nation. There is thus no question of the UK allowing the introduction of religious law in the UK”); restrictions on preachers coming from outside of Britain (which will do nothing, of course, about home-grown British jihadists such as the July 7 bombers); citizenship as part of the national curriculum (with “religious education in all community schools” that “should be broadly Christian in character but that it should include study of the other major religions”); “vigorous” enforcement of “legal requirements” for madrassas; an English requirement for permanent residency; and more.As positive as all this is, it is rather astounding to realize that these measures, as mild as they are, have not been undertaken long ago, or that anyone would think them controversial. It is disappointing that Blair defines, at least in this speech, Britain’s national character almost exclusively in terms of the “tolerance” that “is part of what makes Britain, Britain.” He speaks in a somewhat confused manner about a placard that a Turkish protestor held aloft at a demonstration against the Pope’s recent visit there: “Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God.” This placard, says Blair with evident admiration, occupied “an altogether higher plane of theology.” He added: “Most Christians are hugely surprised to be told that the Koran reveres Jesus as a prophet.” In this he demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of the fact that Islam’s reverence for Jesus as a prophet is a manifestation not of Islamic openness to Christianity, but of just the opposite: it is a manifestation of a supremacist theology that strips Christianity of all legitimacy and presents itself as the replacement and corrective of Christianity’s deification of Christ. In light of that, Blair would do better to speak not of “the rich Abrahamic heritage we share in common,” but of the necessity for Muslims in Britain to reject this supremacist doctrine, which because of the political character of Islam leads ineluctably to what Blair calls the “warped distortion of the faith of Islam” – that is, the Islam that believes it has a right and duty to impose Shari’a in Britain.
Blair, breaking new ground as the first non-Muslim Grand Mufti of Britain, affirmed that “of course the extremists that threaten violence are not true Muslims in the sense of being true to the proper teaching of Islam.” He did not, however, inform his audience where this “proper teaching of Islam” could be found, or call upon any of the mainstream Sunni schools of jurisprudence to repudiate the doctrine, which they all hold, that the Islamic community has the responsibility to wage war against the non-Muslim world in order to impose the rule of Islamic law. But Blair could not be expected to speak about this, even if he knew about it: discussion in Britain of the elements of Islam that give rise to violence and fanaticism have thus far been dismissed as “racism,” despite the patent fact that Islamic jihad supremacism is a religious and political ideology, and not a race at all. That’s why the end of Blair’s speech had an ominous tinge: “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.” Clearly by “extremists” he meant jihadists, but by “racists” it is likely that he meant the most vocal opponents of the creeping Islamization of Britain. After all, the Blair government attempted to pass an “incitement to religious hatred” bill that would have criminalized “abusive or insulting” behavior toward a particular religion. Certainly Islamic jihadists and their allies have characterized honest discussion of the violent elements of Islamic theology and tradition as abusive and insulting, truth notwithstanding; Blair’s bill would make deviations from his polite fictions about “the proper teaching of Islam,” no matter how careful, scholarly, and respectful, into criminal offenses.
As Johnston notes, however, the force of events has already compelled the Labour leadership to qualify its hitherto no-holds-barred support for multiculturalism, and has led Mr. Blair to affirm British values to the extent that he did on Friday. It is likely that this process is not over, and that reality will force new concessions from these leaders. As events rush on, they will increasingly see that Blair’s watery vision of mutual tolerance is not enough to ensure national self-preservation, and that multiculturalism must be discarded altogether in favor of a forthright and unapologetic assertion of British and Western civilization as something worth defending, and as something superior in numerous particulars to the alternative offered with increasing stridency by the Muslim immigrants in Britain. At that point, if it is not too late, it will be impossible to criminalize discussion of the violent elements of Islamic theology and tradition, for discussion of them will be an obvious national necessity, inextricable from the defense of the nation. If it is not too late, we may hope that Britain may then reemerge not just as a geographic location for anything at all and nothing in particular, but as a dynamic exponent of the Judeo-Christian civilization that has always been the focus of Islamic jihad efforts. And at that point it will be finally understood that the new defense against the jihad will be what truly gives British subjects the right of which Blair speaks: “the right to call ourselves British.”
As disappointing as this speech might be this is probably as good as it gets from a Western leader in this day and age. Nobody will confuse Blair with Churchill in the history books, that's for sure.
Having a bet each way now but I'm afraid the horse has bolted.
Excellent article.
I hope that the United States can learn from Blair's mistakes. We cannot continue a course of multiculturalism, until all cultures respect human and civil rights.
Islamonazism is using our multiculturalism as a weapon to divide and conquer the West.
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Oh, ya mean multi-cult-ism? It's poison...it's a cancer.
Yep, it's been ripping us apart for decades now.
It's inherently contradictory to our creed...
Ours= "E Pluribus Unum"
multicultis= "E Unum Pluribus"
Balkanization of our country however has led to some pretty stiff backlashes...otherwise we end up like the balkans last decade.
Just which Culture is it that won't integrate in Britain , and has the highest Unemployment as a result, and then has rallies in the streets promising the destruction of the UK?
I'll give you one good guess
It's the one that blames everyone else for it's self imposed hardships.
This is just what we've needed -- an unapologetic and Churchillian declaration -- a defense of the British system -- a warning to her foes...
Er, wait...
Nevermind.
It's the same thing in France. they WILL not integrate and then hate their adoptive land for the hardships not integrating brings.
Integrate does not exist in Islam. Now if someone said DOMINATE ,well then they'd have no problem with that. Islam suffers from a Superiority complex tha simply is not backed up by their Deeds and their advances. They have not evolved with the world.
President Bush needs to say what Blair didn't.
If President Bush is a Born again Christian as claimed. Then I have no doubt that he hasn't been enlightened as to what Islam is about.
Politics, especially those of Europe, Force the problem to be addressed in a Secular, Progressive, Democratic view point. To the exclusion of other factors.
I have not meet a secular progressive yet who is willing to give religion any credibility. Let alone consider it as anything that could possibly motivate one to violence. Most have not considered reading anything about the subject.
Don't fool ourselves. Iran is what is keeping us in Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam was an National Security Issue.
Now Iran is the Issue.
Let Ineedajob dig the whole we will stick him in.
If the Saudis don't keep us supplied with oil. Even help pay for Iran. They will be next.
If Egypt closes the Suez Canal. It will be like picking numbers at your local Deli.
Ineedajob is giving all the ammunition necessary to make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt what a threat he is.
The president delaying his speech until some time in January. Coupled with his point man Blair (who is a much better public speaker) Changing his tune. says a lot. Especially given the nature of British politics.
Particularly eye-catching was:
"As events rush on, they will increasingly see that Blair’s watery vision of mutual tolerance is not enough to ensure national self-preservation, and that multiculturalism must be discarded altogether in favor of a forthright and unapologetic assertion of British and Western civilization as something worth defending, and as something superior in numerous particulars to the alternative offered with increasing stridency by the Muslim immigrants in Britain." -- R. Spencer
Well written article with a superb analysis!
Sorry, but this too good to leave out:
"If it is not too late, we may hope that Britain may then reemerge not just as a geographic location for anything at all and nothing in particular, but as a dynamic exponent of the Judeo-Christian civilization that has always been the focus of Islamic jihad efforts. And at that point it will be finally understood that the new defense against the jihad will be what truly gives British subjects the right of which Blair speaks: 'the right to call ourselves British.'" -- R. Spencer
In the final analysis every culture has some claims to supremacism (Indian, Western, Chinese, Islam, etc.) and that is what males them worth studying and by analysis we find out what what is true and what is false in such assertions. The current Western Supremacist assumption is based on Multiculturalism (which means that Saudi Arabia is inferior). It's a stealth-supremacist dogma.
However, we may learn from Saudi Arabia (e.g.)that they understand what culture is about by being intolerant of everything that is not about Islam, but that its total intolerance cripples the free mind. Saudi Arabia may be a guide to understanding the nature of culture, but their disregard of individual rights of conscience and freedom of mind may tell them why the Islamic world produces less new science than Israel.
Multiculturalism is a supremacist dogma that needs to be challenged. Karen Armstrong's "mosaics" dogma-template is actually insulting to Islam and promotes ignorance of Islam and demonstrates a demented understanding of culture.
Robert understands culture, Hugh understands it, the Jihadists understand it. People like Armstrong are peddlers of "mosaics". All cultures are not equal and many aspects of Islam are dangerous to the free mind. Multiculturalism is dangerous to the free mind.
Isn`t it frightening that someone in Blairs
position can be so naive !
Altogether now AAAAAAWWWWWWWW, poor Tone ...guess
what.
They don`t like you , they despise you even more than i do.
They don`t like it here but hey you get free
money here...they despise you for that too probably.
After all that bending over backwards to
accommodate them too , Tone must know enough about Islam to fill the rear of a postage stamp.
Isn`t it frightening that someone in Blairs
position can be so naive !
l dont think its so much as naive, its just plain politician doublespeak. they are so use to being all things to all people, they cannnot make a judgement and stick to it, they just might lose a vote here and there!
Tony Blair's embarrassing admiration for the inclusion of Isa/Jesus in the Qur'an gives further evidence that this man is a theological lightweight, or, at best, willing to spin unpalatable truths so as to create a shared ground between Christianity and Islam, even if this is blatant fiction.
There was a time when he was marketed as George W. Bush's brother in faith; however, to me that image evaporated the moment I read that he and Cherie would send their ... nail clippings to a healer to have them divined or whatever.
And then he claimed to have read Mein Jihad twice, and found it (IIRC) "beautiful."
Fool me once....
Good for you Tony and your people. The only way ahead for any progressive society like the UK. One next monumental step for mankind is to start kicking pathetic Muselimes out, the racists pigs.
“It is not that we need to dispense with multicultural Britain. On the contrary we should continue celebrating it.[...]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.”
Could Mr Blair please explain why I am meant to celebrate the rapes (just one aspect of Islam I know)? Not all diversity is good. Not all diversity promotes 'living harmoniously', what about the rapes? Is that harmonious? In light of uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, this just is not going to work and I am not going to celebrate it.
Beslan: holding children hostage, shooting their fathers in front of them, shooting children in the back as they run, what a nice cultural practice, celebrate the diversity:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1316935651894423094
Child raped, celebrate the diversity:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6170279.stm
Rory Stewart's "The Places In Between" has, toward the end, a chapter entitled "Blair and the Koran." It shows most, if not quite all, of Blair's fatuity. It stops short of completing the job, because Stewart does not let loose with the real contents of Qur'an and Hadith (in fact he fails to mention that Blair overlooks, or appears not to know about, the Hadith and Sira, as if the Qur'an were all that mattered). I would guess that this is not Stewart's fault, but that his publisher did not want him to be too explicit on the subject of Islam. Nonetheless, he does a good job of blowing up Blair, his pretensions, his claims to understanding Islam, his everything. And Blair is not the worst political figures England now has to offer; he is one of the semi-acceptable ones.
Faint praise damning is that with?
I think Hallmark Greeting Cards thought momentarily of using:
"When you care to send only the very semi-acceptable."
I hear you EnglishBlondie. The Beslan massacre was hideous in the extreme! The rapes also seem to be flourishing everywhere the Religion of Peace is found in Europe. I think even Fjordman lost count.
Diversity indeed.
"And Blair is not the worst political figures England now has to offer; he is one of the semi-acceptable ones." - Hugh
That is a troubling thought!
Oh, ya mean multi-cult-ism? It's poison...it's a cancer.
Yep, it's been ripping us apart for decades now.
It's inherently contradictory to our creed...
Ours= "E Pluribus Unum"
Posted by: jcom972
Which means, as Algore famously explained in the 2ooo campaign, "from one, many." Just remember, as bad as Bush is, it could have been worse.
I think Mr. Blair is in a quandery: He still likes the idea, the myth, of multiculturalism, but also sees that it is destructive when put into action. I think he is in the process of waking up, but has yet to reach the point of realization that one of his favoured policies is fundamentaly flawed.
Many people have another, similar quandery: They claim to tolerate and respect all religions, even those they may think wrong. Yet when they see the fruits of adhering to Islamic principles, they cannot believe that the core of a major religion is so misanthropic (human-hating). They cannot quite believe an anti-human death cult could have a billion or so followers. To ease their shattered perceptions, they try to label those who follow the teachings of Muhammed as radicals, extremists and such, while nominal (in name only) Muslims they call moderates.
Not all diversity is good. Not all diversity promotes 'living harmoniously'
Posted by: EnglishBlondie at December 13, 2006 08:02 PM
I briefly worked in a prison. The prisoners were very diverse: Some were extortionists. Some hurt people for fun. Some were drug dealers. Some were rapists. Some were murderers. They were a very diverse bunch. They lived in a fascade of harmony because of the punishment they would recieve for doing otherwise... For some reason society did not celebrate their diversity.
What do the people in the UK think about what is going on?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2006/12/08/ublview08b.xml
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4922&start=0&tstart=0&&&&edition=1&ttl=20061211164037
Hopefully, the politicians are starting to notice that most people want a stop to muslim immigration.
Borg, I read many of the comments about multiculturalism and I was surprised at the almost unanimous opposition to it. If the Brits have been this opposed to the multiculti experiement, why did they consistently elect pro immigration governments? I thought most Brits loved multiculturalism, at least until the terror attack of last July.
Anyway, it's always encouraging when irate citizens abandon political correctness and say what they think. As one person said, "they can arrest me for saying this, but they can't arrest me for thinking it." Multiculturalism will eventually destroy any society. It might take a while, but it is inevitable.
I hope the Western world wakes up and reverses its suicidal tendencies. I guess I'm just a freak because I have never felt one iota of guilt for the sins of my ancestors. I have never felt indebted to any member of a minority group. The fact is, the white race is the only real minority in the world and the social engineers are working desperately to facilitate its extinction. What do you think third world immigration to Western countries and multiculturalism are all about?
Joseph and St David, King of Georgia,
To celebrate 'all diversity' would mean that one would have to celebrate everything (child rape, child murder, gang rape, etc.). However, such people are rarely consistent. They rarely celebrate the diversity if you object to their views.
With luck this means that the threat to re-introduce the incitement to religious hatred act, made after the acquital of BNP leader, Griffin, will be quietly forgotten. It also looks like the steady chain migration of first cousins from Pakistan and Bangladesh mignt be slowed down a bit.
Blair thinks with his focus groups and the message that being identified with the Muslim community is losing labour more electoral support than their bloc vote is worth, must have come across. Their attempt to blackmail him over foreign policy, feeble response to calls for the discouragement of 'radicalisation of young Muslim males' and a succession of foiled bomb plots haven't helped their cause, either. It's also possible that Muslim criticism of the Pope annoyed him as well. His wife is a Catholic and it has been said that he will convert after retiring from office.
Personally I think criticism of Islam by the Christian church is what the situation desperately requires to precipitate a real turn in the tide. If only some high up in the C of E would voice some disquiet about specific aspects of Islamic theology.
Funny people politicians - whilst m. Blair renounces multiculturalism (well sort of) in England, one of the most avid opponents of multiculuralism in France - the right winger m. Le Pen seems to be embracing it wholeheartedly - well if this article is anything to go by anyway:
http://iht.com/articles/2006/12/13/news/france.php?page=1
Ah those policitians - what they won't do to gain a few extra votes. I think even m. Le Pen has woken up to the demographics of la France d'aujourd'hui.
http://www.thisisaberdeen.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=148331&command=displayContent&sourceNode=148314&contentPK=16160412&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch
Somewhat related, more evidence of the BBC being pro-Islamic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6175893.stm
It's not the subject of the article, but the line "the prophet Ibrahim's willingness" that gives the clue. Note the transliteration of the name "Ibrahim". Since the BBC is an Englih newspaper, one would assume that the standard English name "Abraham" would be used.
There is no author or country listed, so I do not know whether the article came from a Muslim author or country. In the absence of that information, I have to ask why the BBC feels the need to use the transliteration from the Arabic, instead of the standard English spelling (tranliterated from Hebrew).
I wouldnt hold my breath waiting, though. The CofE are so in thrall to the 'inter-faith' dialogue brigade (a division of the diversity battalion, I believe), there is no hope for them, although the ex Arch Druid of Canterbury, Lord Runcie, has been upsetting the current leadership by making speeches that are, by their standards, inflammatory speeches about the Religion of Peace™, in support of the Pope.
"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.”
So Mr Blair and his people made a mistake, but hey, their intentions were good. Aren't they always? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why Blair and his generation thought they had the right to use my nation as a lab rat to test their sociology theories on, and why they were allowed to get away with it, is beyond me. It astounds me that a man can live to his age and know so little of human nature. It angers me that his generation enjoyed liberties which my generation and my children will likely never enjoy. And still he believes he is entitled to the trust of the people. That this man is considered fit for public office is a testament to the decline of Western civilisation.
"You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"
Ole country song.
This reminds me - Anyone seen Granny Weatherwax around here lately?
Diversity in Oslo, what a celebration:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1754
How about this for cloche, "Great Britain is toast."
or, "Multiculturalism is a disease" I don't know.
Ya see, the way the cultural thing works best is when the culture can have it's own country with it's own moral values, customs and laws because these day, multiculturalism is a very dangerous thing.
It is natural that eventually one culture will, has to be one of the imports, will out number all of the others due to birthrate alone but if it is a really parasitic lot like the muslim crowd, a certain number of the indigenous population will be turned as well. Depending on the morays of the new dominate culture, some new policy regarding multiculturalism will be made and some folks are going to wonder why or how it could happen..don't ask me, I don't understand any of it.
Are you liberal folks following this? I don't want to run past anyone or leave you confused about this deal, its too important.
Now then, when the decision is made, and the new dominant culture is Islam, anyone... how about one of you liberal types, do I see any hands from the libs? Do one of you care to speculate on what the new rules will look like? Uh, lets see, no hands, OK then, I will just tell you. The new rule will be convert to Islam or die. Unless, got to have some way out of this deal, some how, some way, the Muslims in good old Great Britain are different than the good old Muslims I read so much about in the rest of this stinking world we are so rapidly screwing up.
Thailand, Somalia, India (kind of broke that one up into two countries), I think thats enough for the average man (and besides I haven't finished my research so I don't know about other unless you you count every country that there ever was in the middle east), but not the libs running the UK. Those sweethearts are thinking with an odd set of understandings. They want to go against the grain, against experience and history. They want to try it again just knowing that their Muslims are different than those in the rest of the world.
"Stupid is as stupid does." God, I love that one. Its good for so much.