Friday 26 February 2010

The failure of 'multicultural' Britain.

It's a shit day when you think it might be better to be French, but reading today's Evening Standard, that's the conclusion I've drawn. Issues of race and integration continue to cloud daily news coverage, as Britain's all-embracing approach to 'multiculturalism', and discriminatory attitude to racial equality, lurches towards an inevitable disintegration of common sense.

First of all there was the good news:

Police Commander and President of the National Black Police Association, Ali Dizaei, was today found guilty, by a jury, of 'misconduct in public office' and 'perverting the course of justice'. As a result he has been sentenced to two years in prison. This might sound like bad news, but should he have been found not guilty, his claims that he had been singled out because of his colour, would have been to some degree vindicated. This would have been bad news.

On his arrest, the National Black Police Association (NBPA), released a statement which declared: "It is outrageous that the CPS [Criminal Prosecution Service], for the second time in four years, has commenced prosecution against the president of the National Black Police Association, Commander Ali Dizaei. This has not happened to any other senior police officer in the history of the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] or the CPS." In response to the accusations levelled against Dizaei, the NBPA called for black Londoners to boycott recruitment for the Metropolitan Police and Dizaei himself launched a case of racial discrimination against the force.

The NBPA and Commander Dizaei now both look rather silly, while the Metropolitan Police Service has been vindicated in its assertion that Ali Dizaei was not fit to wear a uniform. Dizaei was not accused because he was black, he was accused because he was guilty; the fact that a jury has confirmed this is a blow to those who would seek to falsely and frequently claim 'racial discrimination' in an attempt to silence their critics.

The second piece of good news comes in the form of Adam Afriyie, Conservative MP for Windsor. He also happens to be black, but as he points out, this isn't important. Having grown up on a council estate in Peckham, he is now a multi-millionaire, as well as the Shadow Science Minister. When questioned about why he is reluctant to discuss his position as the Tory's first black MP, he replies: 'I consider myself post-racial...I don't see myself as a black man. I refuse to be defined by my colour or pigeon-holed in that way'. Discussing the 12 black and Asian candidates who are standing for the Tories, in winnable seats, at the next election, he says: 'If my role has been to encourage that trend, then I'm proud to have played a part. But it's the merits of the candidates that count, not their colour. If there'd been all-black shortlists, I'd never have stood'.

Adam Afriyie MP is everything Ali Dizaei is not. Where Ali Dizaei defines himself by his colour, choosing to play the race card in answer to his critics, Adam Afriyie transcends his, proving what can be achieved by anyone of any colour in this country.

Afriyie also attacks the notion that black people should warrant special treatment; his assertion that "If there'd been all-black shortlists, I'd never have stood", strikes at the heart of the 'Diversity agenda' which infects this country. In an echo of George Orwell's famous critique of communism, that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", the establishment has declared that equality is paramount, therefore we must discriminate in favour of black people, or women, or those of a minority sexual persuasion etc. You are not first a person, judged on merit. No. You are first a black man; then a person judged on merit. Such a notion is not only criminal, it is insulting to those who who would wish to transcend the pigment of their skin and be judged as a person, along with all other people. The Diversity agenda perversely acts to reinforce racism, encouraging a person's colour to be considered as an important and note-worthy factor.

Those, like Afriyie, who refuse to be defined by race, are the true heroes of the struggle for equality. Dizaei's proven guilt is a blow for all those who believe a man's colour should render him immune from legitimate criticism.

Now onto the bad news.

Sir Mota Singh QC, Britain's first Asian judge (now retired), has said in an interview with BBC Asian Network that he believes Sikh children should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers to school. He argues that it is their religious right. The ridiculousness of this statement is undermined only by the sad fact that the British press have considered it to carry enough weight to bother publishing it. Unfortunately this is actually a pressing issue. Last year a Sikh boy was withdrawn from a school in Barnet because the school had banned him from carrying his kirpan (dagger).

In a similar vain, a bus company today 'had a word' with one of its Muslim drivers for pulling over to pray mid-journey. According to reports, 'The driver of the No 24 in Gospel Oak stopped without warning, left his cab and rolled out a jacket as an improvised prayer mat in the vehicle's aisle. Removing his shoes, he knelt to face Mecca and began chanting during a prayer session that held up the bus for more than five minutes. Passengers were unable to get on or off the vehicle'.

Now, if our society is going to continue in a smooth and workable fashion, some decisions must be taken. Do we live in a country where someone should be able to carry a knife to school or stop a bus mid-journey in order to fulfil their daily prayer quota, or do we not? It is no use continuing as we are, muddling through on a case-by-case basis; firm legislation needs to be put in place, to ensure that everyone knows what is acceptable and what is not.

It is not a case of suppressing freedom of religious expression; it is simply about ensuring that a set of laws are in place which allow us all to exist peacefully together. The 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and State states: 'The Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion'. As such, all religious symbols are banned from the French state education system. There are no exceptions. After all, why should religion be elevated to a position of special dispensation from the laws which govern us lowly non-believers. Why is it any more legitimate for someone to claim they should be allowed to do such-and-such because their holy wad of paper tells them to, than it is for me to say I want to carry a gun because I've decided to. Ironically of course, that's exactly what's happened in America, where the right to bare arms has been virtually deified. The respect which religion is afforded is outrageous. Thankfully the Anglican church, in its typically English-tea-and-crumpets way, doesn't kick up a fuss about its supposed rights and status. It is Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Sikhism, and perhaps to a lesser extent, Hinduism, which are the culprits here. The respect and special treatment which they demand for the largely imbecilic scribblings of their holy texts is the driving force behind a whole raft of human misery. To take one brief example, one of the principal factors in the ongoing dispute over Palestine and Israel, is the belief, by certain groups of Jews, that Abraham promised them the land around Hebron, in the West Bank. As a result of this perceived 'religious right', they are continuing to occupy the West Bank and expand their settlements, with an unashamed view to fully 'Jewifying' the area. For them, there is no room for debate, or discussion, or negotiation, or compromise. It has been promised to them, by God.

Thankfully, I don't live in Israel, so while the insanity there vaguely troubles me, I don't have to deal with it on a day-to-day basis. What I do have to deal with on a day-to-day basis, however, is catching the bus and one day sending my (possible) future children to school. I would like to board that bus in the knowledge that it will go from 'A' to 'B' without taking a lengthy detour down Prayer Mat Street. I would also like to send those possible future children to school safe in the knowledge that none of the other children are carrying knifes. Just a personal preference you know, maybe I'm fussy, I don't know. Anyway, it would seem to me, that the way to ensure the smooth running of our country is to establish a concrete set of laws which dictate what is acceptable and what is not. Religion should receive no dispensation. I personally believe in compulsory voting, an initiative which would undoubtedly be rejected by a minority of Muslims who consider democracy to contravene the word of God. Well I'm sorry, if you don't want to live in, and contribute to, a liberal democratic country, where homosexuality is legal, men and women are equal, and capital punishment is banned, then go and live in Saudi Arabia, under Shari'a law, where all your dreams will come true. I find the notion that someone would choose to live in a country whose laws contradict one's own dearly held beliefs, baffling in the extreme. If you can't accept it the way it is, then leave.

There is a widespread deception that we live in a multicultural society. We don't. We live in a plurality of mono-cultures, each of which fail to integrate or assimilate into the mainstream. Perhaps this is because there is no mainstream within which to assimilate. If our government is incapable of passing a law which outlaws the carrying of knives in public by those of a particular religious persuasion, then surely 'the mainstream' must be an incredibly impotent, fragmented, and worthless entity. We need a universal code by which we can all live, and as a democratic, liberal, and secular individual I believe that code should allow every citizen to go about their business without suffering the negative influences of other people's religion.

Perhaps it would surprise you to know that Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality (he's also black, but that shouldn't matter), has called for the government to reject its support for multiculturalism, claiming it was out of date and legitimised "separateness" between communities, and instead should "assert a core of Britishness". When a newspaper described the Notting Hill Carnival as "the triumph of multiculturalism", Mr Phillips pointed out that "carnival can hardly be said to represent the everyday culture of most of London's communities." In response to this comment, Ken Livingston, then mayor of London, accused Trevor Phillips of trying to "move the race agenda away from a celebration of multiculturalism" and "pandering to the right" so much so that "soon he'll be joining the BNP" - which really just goes to show what a misguided fruitcake Ken Livingston is.

If the Commission for Racial Equality is arguing that the multicultural dream is falling flat on its face, then perhaps someone should sit up and take notice. The problem is, no one in power has got the backbone to stand up and say what needs to be said about our confused and disintegrating society, for fear of being labelled a foaming-at-the-mouth Nazi by some tool like Ken Livingston.





No comments:

Post a Comment