Tony Blair formally declared Britain’s multiculturalist experiment over

Hopefully, the British take back their country by force. God be with them!

hilip Johnston, Telegraph (UK), Dec. 8, 2006 Tony Blair formally declared Britain’s multiculturalist experiment over today as he told immigrants they had “a duty” to integrate with the mainstream of society.

‘No culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of the UK’

In a speech that overturned more than three decades of Labour support for the idea, he set out a series of requirements that were now expected from ethnic minority groups if they wished to call themselves British.

These included “equality of respect”—especially better treatment of women by Muslim men—allegiance to the rule of law and a command of English. If outsiders wishing to settle in Britain were not prepared to conform to the virtues of tolerance then they should stay away.

He added: “Conform to it; or don’t come here. We don’t want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed.

“If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us.

“The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means.”

Mr Blair’s volte face—just eight years ago he was a multiculturalist champion—was the culmination of a long Labour retreat from a cause it once enthusiastically embraced. 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.

Mr Reid, in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday on GMTV, said he was “sick and tired” of the sort of the “mad political correctness” that led to Christmas being devalued. “I think most people just find this completely over the top and I would rather have a bit of what I call PCS—Plain Common Sense—than PC—Political Correctness,” the Home Secretary added.

Although Mr Blair, speaking in Downing Street, said the diversity of cultures in Britain should still be celebrated, the whole tone of his speech was against the ideology that became known as multiculturalism.

“The right to be in a multicultural society was always implicitly balanced by a duty to integrate, to be part of Britain, to be British and Asian, British and black, British and white,” he said.

The suicide bombings in London on July 7 last year had thrown the whole concept of a multicultural Britain “into sharp relief” and had highlighted the divisions in society. While it was right that people should enjoy their own cultures, they should do under a single set of overarching values.

“Integration is not about culture or lifestyle,” said Mr Blair. “It is about values. It is about integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values. It isn’t about what defines us as people, but as citizens, the rights and duties that go with being a member of our society.

“Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other faiths have a perfect right to their own identity and religion, to practice their faith and to conform to their culture. This is what multicultural, multi-faith Britain is about. That is what is legitimately distinctive.

“But when it comes to our essential values—belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage—then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point no distinctive culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom.”

The speech was greeted with a mixture of anger from Muslim groups and scepticism from his political opponents. A spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain called it “concerning and alarming”. He added: “Mr Blair should be investing in our society to help the deprived, rather than investing millions and billions in illegal occupations which had not helped to promote multiculturalism in this country.

“Rather than standing up and lecturing us, it’s time he puts his money where his mouth is.”

Dominic Grieve, Conservative spokesman for community cohesion, said the speech was a “remarkable turnaround”. He added: “Many of the problems in relation to the issues he addresses are at least in part the consequence of a philosophy of divisive multiculturalism and political correctness that has been actively promoted by the Labour Party over many years at both national and local government levels.”

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, which has campaigned against historically high levels of immigration, said: “We certainly have a duty to integrate but the Government has its own duty to promote suitable conditions in which this is possible.”

He added: “The massive levels of immigration which they have deliberately stimulated in recent years makes effective integration almost impossible.”

Mr Blair said he was optimistic that integration was possible while conceding that Muslim extremism posed a problem both to cohesion and security. The fact that other cultures and religions all got on together harmoniously proved it was possible. But his specific proposals were aimed directly at the Muslim community.

He suggested that women were not treated well and should be allowed access to mosques. “Those that exclude the voice of women need to look again at their practices. I am not suggesting altering the law. But we have asked the Equal Opportunities Commission to produce a report by the spring of next year on how these concerns could be practically addressed, whilst of course recognising that in many religions the treatment of women differs from that of men.”

There was also no question of Islamic Sharia law being imposed in any part of the country, though there was room for the agreed settlement of civil disputes by religious courts, something that happens in the Jewish community.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/08/ublair208.xml

 

Mr. Blair is a pretty smart man. I agree with him if the above is indeed something he said. Here in America we are experiencing the same realizations ourselves and receiving the same reactions. And we must ignore the distractors as Mr. Blair is doing. The trend in America for quite some time has been to interpret our ideas of freedom to be solely indicative of individual rights, rights that make every person practically a nation unto themselves, and that everything our system of democracy has been set up to represent is that individual and especially the protection of individual rights. The biggest supporters of this interpretation of discriminate and seemingly limited security under the law are lawyers, the very people who manipulate the laws to achieve individual redresses. However, this is all done at the expense of, indeed it actually removes the very foundations of societal rights, the rights of all of us as a unified, self-governing republic consisting of diverse, but inter-dependent parochial entities. This is precisely the predicament that the more advanced nations have found themselves facing and that Mr. Blair very eloquently addresses. In short, we have placed individual rights over societal rights, and you cannot run a diverse nation that way. The distractions I mentioned earlier are the self-serving, sole agenda people and concerns that untilize todays lawyer-driven notion that has interpreted our Constitution and laws outside of the intent of our founding fathers democratic concept of E Pluribus Unum, From Many, One! They conveniently turned it around and have used our courts to support their notion. We are the land OF many. And now we have arrived at the consequence of allowing our country to be otherwise concieved as the land FOR many. To me the first allows for the existance of a place where there is the unity, or gathered society of diverse humanity AND their individuality, in other words a nation, and the latter just proposes a place for individuals to congregate and be just that, individuals. Lawyers love the latter because it gives them fertile ground for the seeking, defining and protection of individual rights, that equates to a zillion rights to defend. But our primary rights are as a nation! Without that, our individual rights have no place to exist. You can't dance on air!

 

A "melting pot" model of a Multi-ethnic state has just as many as a multicultural one.

 

i always thought that multiculturalism meant a melting pot. oops. did anyone ever think multiculturalism not in a melting pot style would ever work? to me it seems pretty improbable it ever would.
i would say however that most immigrants i come in contact with are pretty good at fitting in to british society. but i suppose im not from any of the key areas

 

Spooner and Tramp - What's with the vague statements? Please back up what you wrote with something that at least gives some sort of definition of a position or says what you think.

 

Hopefully the British take their country back by force? And perhaps set a president for everyone around the globe who needs to take thier country back by force from whatever version of imperialism they have been overrun. Great idea!! The current situation in the UK is just a case of the Empire striking back.....

 

what i meant was that if you try and get lots of totally different cultures trying to live in the same political/geographical space its really unlikely it ever going to work out. so much so that i had always presumed multiculturalism to mean different cultures all merging in to one. and that where I live this seems to be what is happening, but then i dont live in a part of the UK that is known for being culuturally divided anyway

 

You need to push MUCH harder. Race is directly tied into culture. One would have to in deep denial in failing to see the deep and tragic failure of multi-racial societies. If racial/cultural diversity is strength then this would mean that racial/cultural homogenuity is a weakness. Can China remain Chinese if only Indians lived there? On the same token, can Europe be Europe if Europeans are displaced by the 3rd world.

This is a disturbing inversion of reality. Doublespeak at its finest: War is Peace, Perversion is Decency, Diversity is Strength, Ignorance is Knowledge.

In Great Britain, it's not really a matter of culture, but that of race. Each race, as a group aggregate is a living organisim with its own behaviours, customs and traditions. Its not something one can fight. Great Britain is the land of Anglosaxons, Celts and the Welsh. Everyone else does not belong and must and will leave.

As Shakespeare said

"This dusky eve harkens
forth a thousand actions..and pray be wellborn,
without defeat...onward all..
if we live, we live to tred on kings,
if die..brave death,
no like men of steele, follow me close
and forward towards Victory."

 

Blair also said that the 1960's liberalist dream was over the man is a money grabbing ****. Personally I never trusted that guy one bit - he went to a top school and got in charge of a party that traditionally was vehemently opposed to that snobbery and upper class attitude. Personally I think that man has left only one legacy for this country and that is a state that is so divided we are at each others throats.
We pushed the labour party to power on the back of John Smith. It was his working class optimism and his integrity that put labour where it got.
Then they killed him ! Because and precisely because he was a socialist with about 80% support throughout the country. Then they put the tossers blair an brown on the stage who aree merely stooges for the conservative party. This is a coup thats happening in this country and the anarchists and other left wing are gonna kick off big time - you can call me whatever you like but one thing I aint is politically disconnected.
I know it will happen given that the when the labour party collapses this country is screwed - as soon as labour are finished - thats when the trouble will hit - because its all about the money and you will be shocked at how much they have stolen and invested in their own accounts - they have robbed us blind THEY ARE absolutely corrupt - when this party is over - compare Blairs bank account then to his bank account before he had 1 year in office - if you can. That man is a thief and so iare they all in the parliament all 600 of em !
and labour will shock the country with how soon their party is over - you see if I'm not wrong
The only reason blair is off the stage is because of cash for peerages - and the fact is that all money they can screw has been taken - now he's off because he got what he wanted - the money