British PM says multiculturalism has failed

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110205/wl_uk_afp/britainattackssecurityislammunich;_ylt=AjtxV6oh3w0Erk747Zl9Xxx0bBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTM4cTdmN3BtBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDExMDIwNS9icml0YWluYXR0YWNrc3NlY3VyaXR5aXNsYW1tdW5pY2gEcG9zAzQEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDcG1zYXlzbXVsdGlj

LONDON (AFP) – Prime Minister David Cameron will condemn Britain's long-standing policy of multiculturalism as a failure Saturday as he sets out his vision for how to combat home-grown Islamist extremism.

In a speech to the Munich Security Conference, Cameron will signal a marked change in policy towards Britain's ethnic and religious minorities, saying the "hands-off tolerance" of those who reject Western values has failed.

He will urge a "more active, muscular liberalism" where equal rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and democracy are actively promoted to create a stronger national identity, according to an advance copy of his speech.

"If we are to defeat this threat, I believe it's time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past," he will say.

It is Cameron's first major speech on Islamist extremism, an issue of major concern for governments here ever since four home-grown suicide bombers attacked the London transport system in 2005, killing 52 people.

The prime minister, who took power in May 2010, will argue that "under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream".

He says this had resulted in a lack of national identity in Britain which had made some young Muslims turn to extremist ideology.

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," Cameron will say.

"A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values.

"A genuinely liberal country does much more. It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.... It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society."

Cameron will clearly distinguish between Islam the religion and the political ideology of Islamist extremism, saying they "are not the same thing".

But he will argue that non-violent organisations which present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community but are ambiguous on Western values should no longer receive state funding, and should be banned from university campuses.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Why_Me

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The Brits are getting ready to kick some ####### !

[^_^ 5,021]

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," Cameron will say.

He is right. It's important to not confuse immigrant lifestyles/ideologies that are harmless and exotic with those that are actually dangerous. When the Irish came to America and St. Patrick's Day with them, that was no challenge to classical liberal values (which is different than political liberalism as understood in contemporary America) and was rightly embraced by America. However, when immigrant groups from Africa or the Western/Southern Asia bring honor killings and female genital mutilation, those are not things we ought to be accepting (much less embracing) as they clearly do stand in opposition to classical liberalism.

Of course, the institution of slavery was as illiberal as it gets. But that wrong has been righted and just because that wrong was once committed does not (and should not) require us to embrace other things that are in clear violation of classical liberal values.

[Danno 1,228]

Nothing like closing the barn door... after the horse is out.

[^_^ 5,021]

Nothing like closing the barn door... after the horse is out.

The horse isn't the problem. The behavior of the horse is.

Witness the sea change (for the good) in how racial minorities are treated in this country today versus in the 1950s. How do you think that happened? The racists and their families weren't exiled. They were educated. An environment was created and nurtured that made it clear to everyone that burning black churches was wrong. It took some time but it has caught on, in case you haven't noticed.

The UK can do the same. In fact, they must. Muslim men who beat their wives and kill their daughters must not simply be imprisoned, they must be shamed and humiliated. It can be done.

[Danno 1,228]

The horse isn't the problem. The behavior of the horse is.

Witness the sea change (for the good) in how racial minorities are treated in this country today versus in the 1950s. How do you think that happened? The racists and their families weren't exiled. They were educated. An environment was created and nurtured that made it clear to everyone that burning black churches was wrong. It took some time but it has caught on, in case you haven't noticed.

The UK can do the same. In fact, they must. Muslim men who beat their wives and kill their daughters must not simply be imprisoned, they must be shamed and humiliated. It can be done.

Get serious AJ, what percentage of the US population in the fifties were involved in burning churches?

Even your American example is weak.

On your broader point you might be right, in time, things in the UK will evolve into a unified people, I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

[^_^ 5,021]

Get serious AJ, what percentage of the US population in the fifties were involved in burning churches?

You are difficult, you know that?

Any reasonable reader would realize I was referring to the overt racism that existed in the 50s which is more or less gone today. Burning churches was an illustration of that.

But no. You can't be reasonable. You have to nit pick.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Well, duh--you copy a policy which failed disastrously elsewhere (in this case Canada), you expect different results?

(edit: it was Brown, of Labour who did the copying--and Cameron of Conservatives only highlights this grotesque failure of his predecessor).

[Boiler 43,434]

40 years too late.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Rhetorical nonsense. Cameron has no balls. This will be good for a bit of chestbeating, not much else

[tmma 467]

The Dutch tried it--and are regretting it now, apparantly

[Danno 1,228]

You are difficult, you know that?

Any reasonable reader would realize I was referring to the overt racism that existed in the 50s which is more or less gone today. Burning churches was an illustration of that.

But no. You can't be reasonable. You have to nit pick.

Not meaning to be difficult.

Society is changing all the time, consider the station of minorities 60 years prior to the 50's (1890) and you will see remarkable improvement between then and the 50's as well.

This idea that "we educated" the masses to think right is way over blown in my opinion, it had some effect, no doubt, but things were changing and would have continued to change as a natural progression.

One might also point out, it was "big gov" which caused much of the offensive harm to begin with. What right does the State have telling a private bus company (most were) or an eatery who they can serve or where they seat their customers?

WHat gives the State the right to tell a hotel who they can cater too?

The reason overreaching Government did it was because they knew the social engineering they desired would crumble without laws to enforce it.

So we have two forces at odds: Society naturally changing or evolving and Big-Gov, thinking it knows best..... creating laws trampling the rights of private property and the right of free associations to stop it.

[peejay 327]

I never understood why multiculturalism is needed and why government imposes it on its own people through active government policy. Most people were and are quite happy without it. It causes a lot more problems than it is worth for the people it is imposed on. Why is it necessary and/or is it even necessary?

[Peikko 1,575]

He is right. It's important to not confuse immigrant lifestyles/ideologies that are harmless and exotic with those that are actually dangerous. When the Irish came to America and St. Patrick's Day with them, that was no challenge to classical liberal values (which is different than political liberalism as understood in contemporary America) and was rightly embraced by America. However, when immigrant groups from Africa or the Western/Southern Asia bring honor killings and female genital mutilation, those are not things we ought to be accepting (much less embracing) as they clearly do stand in opposition to classical liberalism.

Of course, the institution of slavery was as illiberal as it gets. But that wrong has been righted and just because that wrong was once committed does not (and should not) require us to embrace other things that are in clear violation of classical liberal values.

I am not sure who is arguing in favour of honor killings and genital mutilations, among other things as acceptable behaviours in either the UK or the US society, in fact such things are illegal and punishable and I see no push to change these laws at all, none whatsoever.

[Peikko 1,575]

I never understood why multiculturalism is needed and why government imposes it on its own people through active government policy. Most people were and are quite happy without it. It causes a lot more problems than it is worth for the people it is imposed on. Why is it necessary and/or is it even necessary?

There are many things you don't understand, but because you don't understand it doesn't make it a bad idea.

That said, government does not impose multiculturalism, it allows it by, for example, not mandating religious observance and allowing alternate religions to be practiced. Most cultural phenomena are very benign, the foods that people habitually eat, the music they listen to, the religion they adhere to, the clothes they wear, the family values they hold dear. None of these things presents a threat to the fabric of society, in fact a lot of these things provide a richness to society that corporate culture threatens to eliminate with everyone wearing the 'gap' uniform