|AR Articles on Britain|
|Whites as Kulaks (Jan. 2002)|
|Report from Britain (Sep. 2001)|
|Oldham Erupts (Jul. 2001)|
|No Representation (May 2001)|
|The Racial Transformation of Britain (Aug. 2000)|
|Black Crime in Britain (Apr. 1996)|
|Search AmRen.com for Britain|
|More news stories on Britain|
Quick, somebody buy a wreath. Last week marked the passing of multiculturalism as official government doctrine. No longer will opponents of this corrosive and divisive creed be silenced simply by the massed Pavlovian ovine accusation: “Racist!” Better still, the very people who foisted multiculturalism upon the country are the ones who have decided that it has now outlived its usefulness — that is, the political left.
It is amazing how a few by-election shocks and some madmen with explosive backpacks can concentrate the mind. At any rate, British citizens, black and white, can move onwards together — towards a sunlit upland of monoculturalism, or maybe zeroculturalism, whatever takes your fancy.
That multiculturalism really is officially dead and buried can be inferred both from Ruth Kelly’s comments last week and, indeed, from the title of the commission that the government had convened in the wake of the July 7 terrorist attacks last year and to which her observations were made.
In fairness, Kelly, the communities and local government secretary, merely posed the question as to whether the creed had resulted in division and alienation. “Have we ended up with some communities living in isolation from each other?” she asked. That she was speaking wholly rhetorically is evident from the title of the commission: the Commission for Integration and Cohesion. You don’t get either of those things with multiculturalism: they are mutually exclusive.
It has all been a long time coming. Some 22 years ago Ray Honeyford, the previously obscure headmaster of Drummond middle school in Bradford, suggested, in the low-circulation right-wing periodical The Salisbury Review, that his Asian pupils should really be better integrated into British society.
They should learn English, for a start, and a bit of British history and a sense of what the country is about; further, Asian (Muslim) girls should be allowed to learn to swim despite the objections of their parents (who did not like them stripping down even in front of each other). Muslim kids should be treated like every other pupil, in other words.
For these mild contentions, Honeyford was investigated by the government, vilified as a racist by the press, ridiculed every day by leftie demonstrators outside his office and was eventually hounded from his job. He has not worked since.
Perhaps it will be a consolation to him, as he sits idly in his neat, small, semi-detached house in Bury, Lancashire, that he has now been comprehensively outflanked on the far right by a whole bunch of Labour politicians, including at least one minister, and indeed the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. Then again, perhaps it won’t.
It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of this shift. To give you an example of the lunacy that prevailed back in Honeyford’s time: then, the Commission for Racial Equality was happy to instruct Britain’s journalists that Chinese people were henceforth to be described as “black” because that, objectively, was their subjective political experience at the hands of the oppressive white hegemony.
I don’t suppose they asked the Chinese if they minded this appellation or derogation — the question would not even have occurred.
By definition, people who were “not-white” — from Beijing to Barbados — were banded together in their oppression and implacable opposition to the prevailing white culture and thus united in their political aspirations. People from Baluchistan, Tobago and Bangladesh were defined solely by their lack of whiteness.
This was, when you think about it, a quintessentially racist assumption, as well as being authoritarian and — as the writer Kenan Malik puts it — “anti-human”.
We are not born with a gene that insists we become Muslim or Christian or Rastafarian. We are born, all of us, with a tabula rasa; we are not defined by the nationality or religion or cultural assumptions of our parents. But that was the mindset which, at that time, prevailed.
This is how far we have come in the past year or so. When an ICM poll of Britain’s Muslims in February this year revealed that some 40% (that is, about 800,000 people) wished to see Islamic law introduced in parts of Britain, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality responded by saying that they should therefore pack their bags and clear off. Sir Trevor Phillips’s exact words were these: “If you want to have laws decided in another way, you have to live somewhere else.”
My guess is this: if such a statement had been made by a member of the Tory party’s Monday Club in 1984 — or, for that matter, 1994 — he would have been excoriated and quite probably would have been kicked out of the party. “If you don’t like it here then go somewhere else” was once considered the apogee of “racism”. People who did not like it here were exhorted to exert their political muscle and change the status quo.
Similarly, Kelly, in her address to the commission that I mentioned earlier, said the following: “There are white Britons who do not feel comfortable with change. They see shops and restaurants in their town centres changing. They see their neighbourhoods becoming more diverse.”
Quite remarkable stuff, really. And motivated, I suppose, by the Labour party’s unhappy experiences in Barking and Dagenham, where the indigenous white working class voted en masse for the British National party at the last council elections. Margaret Hodge, Frank Field and Anne Cryer had earlier warned that resentment was growing swiftly within Labour’s traditional, but neglected, inner-city and white-flight blue-collar vote. But can you imagine it being uttered by anyone to the left of Ron Atkinson, the former television football pundit, 10 or even five years ago? It has the faint whiff of Enoch Powell about it.
Multiculturalism insisted that communities always changed, were in a permanent state of flux and that if you were white and lived in Oldham or Burnley or Tower Hamlets then you had better get used to the idea quickly.
This was a doublethink because the same latitude was not extended to the host population; while it was accepted that immigrants would naturally wish to band together and preserve their cultural identity, when the white working-class communities made similar protestations, this was regarded, once again, as evidence of an antediluvian racism. Your fish and chip shop is now a halal butcher? Your daughter’s school now has a majority of Urdu-speaking children? Good! Celebrate the change! Get over it.
One assumes that Kelly would still be telling the white working class to get over it were it not for the BNP’s inroads into the Labour vote (where they have candidates who can read without moving their lips over every word) and, of course, the presence within our midst of people who are possessed of such a loathing of our culture, of our very existence, that they wish to kill us all.
It has transpired that this was the final triumph of multiculturalism — to create within British society a sizeable body of people who have been assured that it is absolutely fine not to integrate because, if we’re honest, the prevailing culture is worthless: oppressive and decadent. People who are, as a result, perhaps terminally estranged and who have been relentlessly encouraged in their sense of alienation.
The news that the bombers of July 7 last year and those who allegedly plotted to blow up a whole bunch of aeroplanes were British born apparently came as a shock to the government. Well, it did not come as a shock to those of us who viewed multiculturalism as both dangerous and inherently racist.
It seemed, to people like Honeyford, a simple case of cause and effect. In the end, it is not the mad mullahs at whom we should direct our wrath, but the white liberals who enabled them to prosper. That the creed has now been binned should be a cause for celebration; but don’t for a moment expect an admission that they got it wrong in the first place.
(Posted on August 28, 2006)
Dipesh Gadher, Times (UK), August 27, 2006
An associate of Abu Hamza, the hook-handed cleric, has defied Tony Blair’s ban on glorifying terrorism by praising the July 7 bombers and describing how he would “love” to kill British troops fighting in Afghanistan.
Abu Abdullah said he supports suicide bombers using “household chemicals” to attack the West and believes the prime minister is a legitimate target for assassination because of his foreign policy.
Abdullah, a former spokesman for Hamza, who was jailed this year for his hate-filled sermons, said the 9/11 attacks were a “deserved punch in the nose” for America. He argues that high street banks ought to be destroyed because they charge interest, which is against the tenets of Islam.
Blair, when announcing the ban in the wake of last year’s London bombings, said Britain was tolerant but that there was “a determination that this very tolerance and determination should not be abused by a small fanatical minority”.
Abdullah, however, is apparently being allowed to operate unchecked by the authorities five months after a law was passed making it a criminal offence to glorify terrorism.
Abdullah, 42, is the self-styled “emir”, or leader, of a radical group called Supporters of Shariah, which Hamza founded when he ran the Finsbury Park mosque in north London.
After Hamza was jailed for seven years in February for inciting his followers to murder non-Muslims, Abdullah has taken over a movement claiming up to 3,000 sympathisers.
Abdullah is barred from preaching in most mosques but he has been spreading his views in private meetings or “study circles” at low-key venues, such as community centres in London and the home counties.
Unlike other so-called preachers of hate, Abdullah, a former youth football coach, was born and bred in Britain.
The fact that he remains at liberty to espouse his values — including rampant anti-semitism and homophobia — will fuel the concerns of foreign governments who have for years perceived Britain to be a “soft touch” on combating Islamist extremism, with some referring to the capital as “Londonistan”.
Earlier this month David Cameron, the Tory leader, criticised Blair for failing to do enough to clamp down on fundamentalists. Despite the introduction of legislation in March, nobody has been charged with the “glorification” offence.
Rachel North, a survivor of the King’s Cross Tube attack, said: “Given what we know about the roots of radicalisation, I’m surprised that this man has not yet been investigated and charged if he has committed a criminal offence.”
Abdullah, whose real name is Attila Ahmet, is of Turkish Cypriot origin and was born and raised in London. Before converting to Islam about eight years ago, he was a football coach in the Bexley youth league and was known to his colleagues as “Alan”.
Asked what he thought of the 7/7 suicide bombers, Abdullah said last week: “I wasn’t against them. We don’t celebrate each other . . . but these are my honourable brothers in Islam.” He described the attacks, in which 52 innocent people died, as “a wake-up call”. “Sometimes the innocent have to pay the price . . . of course it is solving things,” he said.
Abdullah claimed suicide attacks are “halal”, or lawful. “The martyr that goes amongst his enemies is going to shield his people,” he said.
“He doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction, he only has household chemicals . . . The West is escalating their killing of Muslims [in the Middle East and Afghanistan]. We have a right to defend ourselves. If I had the means to go back there [Afghanistan] and kill an American or British soldier then I would love to do so.”
Abdullah, a married father-of-four who lives in a terraced former council house in south London, warned of further attacks in Britain if the government did not change its foreign policy. “Those who are fighting Islam are targets: Tony Blair, the army, the police — they are bursting in, shooting innocent Muslims,” added Abdullah, referring to the botched Forest Gate police raid.
Some of his most inflammatory comments were directed at Israel and America. Asked if he shared the views of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, he said: “Absolutely. I don’t recognise Israel. The [Jews] are a treacherous people.” He also claimed it would be justifiable for terrorists to fly a passenger jet into the White House because President George W Bush is “a scalp that needs to be taken”.
Abdullah recently appeared on CNN, the news channel, to claim the deaths of some 3,000 people in the 9/11 attacks were “like a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of Muslims that have been killed” around the world.
During the same interview he praised Osama Bin Laden — “I love him more than myself” — but last week he suggested that the 9/11 attacks were actually carried out by Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.
Geoffrey Bindman, a human rights lawyer, said: “If Abdullah is praising the 7/7 bombers, it could be argued that he’s telling people to go out and do the same thing.” He said the preacher’s anti-semitic remarks could also leave him open to charges of inciting racial or religious hatred.
Multiculturalism in Britain