Muslims must embrace our British values, David Cameron says

Source: Telegraph UK

British Muslims must subscribe to mainstream values of freedom and equality, David Cameron will say as he declares that the doctrine of multiculturalism has “failed” and will be abandoned. Entering the debate on national identity and religious tolerance, the Prime Minister will declare an end to “passive tolerance” of divided communities, and say that members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values.

To be British is to believe in freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality, he will say. Proclaiming a doctrine of “muscular liberalism”, he will say that everyone, from ministers to ordinary voters, should actively confront those who hold extremist views.

He will also warn that groups that fail to promote British values will no longer receive public money or be able to engage with the state.



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8305346/Muslims-must-embrace-our-British-values-David-Cameron-says.html

all people must respect the "freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality" of all. I don't think you can force people to believe in values, but you can require them to respect those values. Seems fair enough.

How about those Egyption protesters giving the military flowers and taking time for prayers.Seems like that is what we all need to aspire to.

Equal rights for all people, including women, would be a nice start.

I think that Cameron is just worried about the sectarian divisions among people living in England.

We also require people who live in the US to respect the rights of others. We struggle to define those rights, but most of us agree that diversity means living and letting live, not setting a standard of beliefs and then trying to bully others into agreeing with us. It is tough being an atheist in the US, but no one is suggesting that you should be required to believe as they do as long as you, as an atheist (or a Catholic or an Evangelical or whatever), respect the rights of others to their own belief.

I think that is all that Cameron is suggesting.

left in the dust. And it's about time. Good post, JD.

certain behaviors and punish violations of the legislation and/or genuinely persuade people to your POV.

ETA: Or withhold money. IOW, you may be able to impact behaviors, but you can't legislate or force what people believe, think or feel.

"in freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality,"

I'm not sure what this never-had-a-job-in-his-life PM is thinking British values are, but I think most of the public feel that their values are what is being undercut by the current government.

Sadly, I think the real answer is even simpler: most asians in Britain vote for Labour and other socialist parties, and will never vote for the Conservatives, so this is just him telling them to go fuck off.

WTF "British" values is he referring to? Makes me feel like exiling myself all over again, if I hadn't done so already.

it is not only American Conservatives who are irony challenged:

"groups that fail to promote British values will no longer receive public money."

and now from the latest in UK slash and burn budget cuts:

"Commenting on reports today (Friday) that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) budget is to be cut substantially, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Reducing the EHRC funding over the next three years is bad news for the most disadvantaged groups in society - the very people who will be hardest hit by public sector spending cuts.The Commission's report How Fair is Britain revealed ingrained inequalities unacceptable in an advanced society in the 21st century." http://www.tuc.org.uk/index.cfm

I wonder if one of the British values Cameron supports is the right to assemble and to protest without being kettled.

As I predicted here: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4704969&mesg_id=4705409

British 'commoners' are very keen on telling Muslims they must integrate more into British society.

As an example, I give you the comment in the report of this in The Sun, the sister paper of The News of the World (NotW is a Sunday paper):



And their editorial on it:



Far from this being a 'truth' that 'slipped out' because Coulson has gone, this is Cameron indulging the widespread suspicion of Muslims.

It'll be interesting to see how Cameron's cabinet member Baroness Warsi reacts, since she said this just a couple of weeks ago:

be "real", if you know what I mean? It's like he's in his own bubble of inbred snobbery with no-one to rein him in when he feels like just letting something off his chest.

I posted the Warsi article here when it came out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4703447 That generated a couple of 'interesting' comments, to say the least.


Re The Sun and The News of the World; they are aimed at the lowest common denominator demographic in England. Do you think he's really shaping his image just to attract them on purpose, or could these incidents be him just going hell for leather without a care in the world because small minded bigotry and stereotyping is *normal* to him.

No snark involved, that's a genuine question.

and that Coulson would have fully encouraged him to give it. It appeals, as you say, to the lowest common denominator demographic, which is, as well as Sun/NotW readers, Mail readers, Express readers, Telegraph readers, many Times readers, and a lot of people who don't read newspapers at all.

It's not him 'shaping his image' for the first time, though - you can find him attacking 'state multiculturalism' 3 years ago (after Coulson became his communications director).

"British values" talk, David.

And "British values" were not something to emulate in the treatment of detainees in Northern Ireland during the unrest there in the last half of the 20th century. You might want to rephrase.

Evidently he means the new British values, my friend. The british people do evolve. I am sure they would never treat prisoners the way they did during the troubles. The British lap dog attitude towards the US, and its cooperation and enabling of US abuses is also a thing of the past, I'm sure. I even hear they may be considering being more like the Germans and Swedes. Imagine that.

If he means democratic values he should say that and not muddy it up with nationalistic language.

And even though the British people have evolved, there are plenty of people who still have memories of British colonialism and empire. It was not that long ago and memories are not erased so easily.

'To be British is to believe in freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality, he will say.'

Tell that to certain Tory MPs and voters, and to the columnists of the Daily Mail and similar!

If everyone in the UK believed in 'equal rights regardless of race, sex and sexuality', then Cameron probably wouldn't have been elected PM. Or at any rate got 36% of the vote, which in our electoral system seems to mean the same thing!

BBC, 11 Aug 2005: ""

Muslims who criticise the 'decadent' nature of British society are right, a group of Conservative MPs has said.

In a letter to The Spectator, the six newly-elected MPs support criticism of the UK's "lawlessness, family breakdown ... binge drinking" and "brutishness".

Brian Binley, Peter Bone, David Burrows, Philip Davies, Robert Goodwill and Mark Harper represent a "new generation" of Tory MPs, they say.

They blame "woolly-minded" liberal thinking for society's sliding values.

Politics: whatever's most convenient for your present agenda, I suppose.

Back in America, The New York Times picked up this story: "British ‘Multiculturalism’ Criticized": "...Mr. Cameron said the multiculturalism policy — one espoused by British governments since the 1960s, based on the principle of the right of all groups in Britain to live by their traditional values — had failed to promote a sense of common identity centered on values of human rights, democracy, social integration and equality before the law."

Edited on Sat Feb-05-11 05:39 PM by LeftishBrit
If David Cameron truly 'stopped tolerating extremists' and demanded respect for 'equality of the sexes' from all - he would lose quite a lot of Tory votes, and a significant number of Tory MPs.

To be grudgingly fair on Cameron, he does not seem to have, or like, extreme social conservative views himself (as opposed to extreme economic conservative views, which he sadly does). But when has he ever denounced such extremists as Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn or Ed West? Or such an extremist group as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children - not only anti-abortion but extreme religious-right all round; just take a look at their blog? Ironically, their social views are very similar to those of the most socially conservative British Muslims.

ETA:

See this from 2005, where six Tory MPs explicitly endorsed conservative Muslim social views and condemned 'decadent' social liberalism in Britain.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4141294.stm

Every single one of the signatories is still an MP. David Burrowes is Chair of the Conservative Christian Fellowship. While Cameron does not endorse their extremism, he has certainly never denounced it either!

And another post:


3. When will Cameron explicitly denounce this extremist?
Edited on Sat Feb-05-11 05:58 PM by LeftishBrit
http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/12/ugandan-chur...

'Ugandan Church faces Totalitarian Liberal Activism...



Rturning to Uganda, the situation is much the same. Westerners are radicalizing gay Ugandans and Ugandan culture, and Ugandan parents are worried about their children. The Archbishop of Uganda spoke for them when he warned that ""I am appalled to learn that the rumours we have heard for a long time about homosexual recruiting in our schools and amongst our youth are true.

For these families, as for others in traditional Asian and African societies, traditional family life and customs are not just 'traditional' but sacred. Minimizing or replacing them is a violation of the sacred. When such attempts are being engineered by powerful forces from outside, in ways that are reminiscent of colonial powers imposing their agendas, traditional societies feel they must resort to legislation to protect their sacred traditions, particularly those to do with the family.

How can the church stand with traditional Ugandans while it also promotes a modern democratic society which has an important place for individual rights? How can the church draw back from the excesses of the West where the primary sacred value is in the individual's right to choose and express his or her choice publicly and traditional forms of family life sanctioned by religion are not sacred, only those sanctioned by secular law?...

There are many in England who are tut-tutting about this issue in Uganda. But what would they say to these fearful parents? Moreover, what have they done to support the black Christians in this country who are victimized and marginalized when they refuse to register same-sex civil partnerships or counsel the "marriage' problems of those in same-sex relationships? Are they aware of the massive social engineering project presently being foisted on this country which is stripping heteronormativity from the culture and re-writing its history (e.g. like Jesus, Churchill was gay), and if so, what are they doing about it?

SOURCE: Virtue Online
Chris Sugden | Evangelicals Now'




Chris Sugden is not just some nutty RW blogger. He is the executive secretary of the very misleadingly named Anglican Mainstream and director of academic affairs of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies (which is rather too close to my doorstep for comfort!) He was, for a while, a member of the General Synod of the Church of England, though he fortunately lost his bid for re-election in 2010. Fortunately, his views are *not* mainstream in the C of E, and he is a rebel - but he has influence. And he is among those who might be said to share having David Kato's blood on their hands.

I am waiting for Cameron's official denunciation.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=797

Is this a ringing endorsement of liberal values in Britain?

Yet, despite her direct attack on Cameron for failing to defend 'Biblical values', I am quite sure that he won't denounce her for her extremism!

The English have one of the nosiest nanny-state governments in the so-called "free world" (which the white western nations have self-styled themselves as, so as to let themselves feel superior to those they trample over), and have spent most of their national history invading and repressing cultures around the world. Forget "around the world" (though Mr Blair's fine work in Iraq should be noted), drive to Wales, Ireland, or Scotland and see the results of "British values" on display. Do "the Muslims" really have anything to learn from arrogant chumps like Cameron?

Or was that Aethelred the Unready? :)

And then quickly stuff it right back.

but let's note that Britain is no longer an imperial power; that even if we date national history from 1066 and ignore pre-Norman English history, England did not spend *most* of its national history 'invading and repressing cultures arounnd the world' (about a third of its national history would be more accurate); and that the Empire ended before Cameron was born.

I think that he asking for trouble

Multiculturalism has failed. If you don't want to be 100% British, French, German, American, etc. then stay in your home country.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-vallely-how-monocultural-does-the-prime-minister-want-us-to-be-2205077.html

The idea that the culture of different ethnic groups should be nurtured and celebrated, as the basis for social harmony, has been the cornerstone of Britain's attitude to its minority communities for more than three decades. Multiculturalism was never popular with the Little Englanders of the right. But in recent years it has increasingly been attacked by the liberal left.

The shift began after the traumatic terrorist attacks of 9/11. Many of those who like to think of themselves as liberals then began exhibiting a new intolerance, demanding that minorities should assimilate more. Multiculturalism must not be allowed, as the Prime Minister now says, to encourage different cultures to live separate lives, sometimes behaving in ways that run counter to "our" values. But he, like so many illiberal liberals, has resorted to caricature to make his case, citing practices like forced marriage as an example, a practice that is, as distinct from arranged marriages, generally condemned as unacceptable in most minority communities.

Some of Mr Cameron's practical measures will be uncontroversial among minority groups. Few will object to a requirement that immigrants should learn English or that the school curriculum should celebrate "a common culture", if it is common. Ethnic communities with unusually high levels of youth unemployment will welcome the National Citizen Service to bring 16-year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together.

The truth is that Britain has had too little multiculturalism. And serious multiculturalism requires policies such as the "racial identity nurturing" to be found in schools with large black populations. ... Multiculturalism is about creating a highest common factor society. David Cameron's approach will doom us to a lowest common denominator one.

I can't disagree with the sentiment. It sounds to me as if he's speaking of muslims who subjugate women, expect them to wear Burqas, not get an education, etc., all in the name of faith. That is counter to western civilization's concept of individual freedom and rights for all. I don't think he's talking about freedom to worship in a mosque, pray several times a day, etc. I think the principle of individual freedoms and rights would apply to any group, whether immigrating into the country or already existing there. That is, it's a crime to deny people certain rights or freedoms in certain countries. It is no defense to that crime to claim that a person's faith requires the father to, say, kill the daughter because she is going to school.

There must be some issue going on there that prompted this. I can't disagree with the sentiment. France is struggling with this, too, and passed the law banning burqas or something. It's just counter to the ideas of advanced civilizations. They didn't have to move there. They could've moved to a country that doesn't believe in individual rights and freedom. But if they want to prosper because of the society, they have to follow its laws. Sounds fair to me.

Sadly some multi-culturalists have bought into the relativist argument that "historically oppressed people" have the right to live their culture as they see fit. So they become apologists for the anti-gay and anti-female policies of some non-western people.

The White Man's Burden

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

'Equality', especially in its economic sense, is something that most Tories set themselves firmly against!