Active, Muscular Liberalism

Max Wind-Cowie

That's what David Cameron is calling for in a brave and perceptive speech in Munich today.  His diagnoses of the problem in Britain is entirely correct - the soft tolerance of evil by our political class, the unwritten rule that so long as you renounce violence your hatred of gays, women and other religions will be quietly brushed under the carpet.  His solution to this terrible and amoral approach is encouraging.  He calls for an end to the programme of engagement and state funding of extremist, Islamist but pacifist groups - a programme that the previous Government made the centre-piece of its counter-terror initiatives.  From now on, Mr. Cameron claims, Government will be considerably more discerning in who it deals with, who it supports and who it funds - putting an end to the perverse lunacy of using taxpayers' money to buy off those who hate us in the hope that it will prevent them from detonating bombs on our busses and our trains.  

The truth that David Cameron appears to have realised is that it is not enough to oppose Islamist terror, we must oppose Islamism itself.  Simply saying that you don't wish to be violent does not make you a 'moderate Muslim' - moderation is about acceptance, tolerance and openness.  If we only do battle with the few Islamists brave or stupid enough to attack us physically then we will be treating only the symptom, never the cause.  We will fail to win the war of words and of ideas, the evil that drives some young men to violence will continue to be pumped into Britain's Muslim communities and our society will continue to disintegrate.  Cameron's recognition of the futility of treating only violence as the problem - when the problem is evil ideas and despicable beliefs - gives us hope that now, finally Britain will fight back against the systematic undermining of our values.  It may be too late, we may be too relativist and self-loathing a society to now succeed, but it's got to be better than cowering in the corner and begging Islamo-fascists to be nice to us.

Many will ask, in the wake of Cameron's call for 'active, muscular liberalism' what exactly that means.  Our 'About' statement tells you what we believe it to mean - A Muscular Liberal is someone who believes in liberal values and believes that those values must be defended and promoted.  Here in the West we benefit from living in liberal cultures which tolerate our differences, accept non-conformity and encourage inquiry and debate.  But too often, that liberalism also makes us soft.  We think that because we tolerate difference we have to tolerate those who violently disagree with our way of life.  We imagine that because we accept non-conformity we have to accept cultures which refuse to conform to our basic standards of decency.  Muscular Liberals know that our free and fair civilisation is fragile and that it requires active defence.  We also know that the best way to defend our values is to spread them.

Muscular Liberals believe in engaging with the world and in arguing passionately for Western, liberal values.  We are opposed to the cultural relativism of the old Left - the idea that we must accept barbaric, oppressive behaviour out of cultural sensitivity.  We are equally opposed to the cynical 'realism' of the old Right - which seeks to describe geopolitics as a constant, amoral battle for supremacy.  For us, foreign policy is about aggressively promoting the shared values of the Western world.  A more open, democratic, liberal world would be safer, more secure and more prosperous for all.  It always serves the West's political, economic and strategic interests to promote those values.  Muscular Liberalism is not new - it traces its heritage through Bush and Blair to Theodore Roosevelt and Lord Palmerston - but it has never been more necessary than in our increasingly fractured and dangerous modern world.

We end our mission statement with a call to action - 'Join the fight for liberal values today!'.  Well, today the Prime Minister echoed that call.  It is up to all of us to ensure that we fight for what is right, stay strong in the face of ever increasing relativistic tolerance of evil and demand that our Government reject Islamism in all its forms.  Of course, we have been doing that for years.  But the difference between today and yesterday is profound - we now have a Government committed to that same crusade, committed to openly denouncing the threats we face and committed to Muscular Liberal values.  

Comments

The PM's speech could have been written by the war-party, hawkish nutters that run this site. If you xenophobes have influence on our joke of a government then Im even more scared than before

Where in the speech was war even mentioned Anpnymous? Or indeed in this blog? What a load of rubbish - to all those people crying into their Guardians about Cameron's speech I ask what is it about gay bashing, woman bashing and religious violence you like? And if you don't like it then what the fuck's wrong with saying so?

Anonymous it is not 'xenophobic' to dislike being attacked by those who have contempt for your values, ideals and principles. Nor should it be 'scary'.  The real question is why so many people are prepared to tolerate intolerance and hatred from Islamists while - with breathtaking chutzpah - accusing the likes of this site of some form of prejudice.  I am appalled by illiberalism and so I criticise it - you, it seems, are simply appalled by any confident defence of openness and tolerance.

Well done David.  In today’s society it takes real courage to speak up against the the divisive doctrine that is multiculturalism and the tyranny which is Islam.  Now bring on the debate and let’s see who has interpreted the Qur’an correctly the fundamentalists or the ‘moderates.’

Courage is the word Michael - especially seeing the hatred, scorn and hysteria poured upon him from the Left today.  Hopefully, though, he has done enough to help advance the debate so that shouting 'racist' at anyone with genuine concerns about the impact of Islamism becomes unacceptable

Furthermore, being branded as a racist will not silence critics of multiculturalism any more!  The worm has turned and about bloody time!

Basic conceptual/coherence-related problem with this muscular liberalism: liberalism holds that the good society is one that does not enforce upon everyone some particular ideal of the good life but instead allows differentiated parties to live as they see fit. In my view, this muscular liberalism presents us with something of a paradox: the illiberal assertion of liberal values. Bit of a theoretical mess. 

Basic enforcement problems re: muscular liberalism: where does one draw the line re: legislation? how can one justify persecuting non-violent extremists? 

I commit to toleration not because I am a nihilist but because I am a believer in freedom of conscience. It doesn't matter, so long as individuals belonging to our democratic and plural society refrain from committing violent acts. 

 

By defending our liberal values in such a manner? Actually destroying them.  

 

 

 

 

 

Muscular liberalism seems to present us with something of a paradox: the illiberal assertion of liberals values.

 

 

 

I was pleased and amazed that finally a politician had the guts to be truthful about multiculturlism and invites all those who believe in liberalism to stop apologising for our civilised values.

If you live in Britain and appreciate our values on women's rights, gay rights, and racial equality - then why would you be at all concerned with what David Cameron said? Only a coward or someone who does not want our society to be run in this way would attempt to silence the debate by crying "Racist!"

Those that live here and refuse to integrate will have a problem with the speech...obviously because it means they might have to either change or leave! Then there is the bleeding-heart extreme left who wish to continue pandering to this West-hating attitude - these people are worst of all as they are like children playing with guns.

In my opinion, you could still be a Muslim and integrate in this country I have no problem with that. This is why I hate those who cry "racist" to silence a necessary debate. You would of course have to be the kind of muslim who successfully manages to cherry pick the mysogony, homophobic and backwards mentality of Islam but somehow Christians manage to do this with their religion and we do not have radicalised Christians spreading hate and still managing to receive finance for it from the UK

1. "If you live in Britain and appreciate our values on women's rights, gay rights, and racial equality - then why would you be at all concerned with what David Cameron said?"

I live in Britain. I endorse women's rights, gay rights, and so on. That said, I am not sure that these are "British" values. Moreover, I am not sure that all Britons share in these values. So, what makes them "our" or "British" values? Indeed, are they really "our" values? Who is "our"? How do we go about imposing "our" values? Seems like the state has to get involved at some point. Worse still, the nation state. There's enormous differentiation re: normative commitments and the UK. Homogeneity? Cultural coherence? That's not what the world is like, or what cultures are like. People disagree re: "British" values or the "right" values, they abandon or retain specific customs, norms, and so on - cultural complexes evolve over time, and they are always porous and never self-sufficient, isolated entities. 'Tis what pluralism means. Precisely why it's proven impossible to come up with discrete, tangible notions of "Britishness" or "British values." Fortunately, the archaic nationalist paradigm is being torn asunder by the intellectual furies of empiricism and coherence - pity it remains so popular. 

2. "Those that live here and refuse to integrate will have a problem with the speech...obviously because it means they might have to either change or leave!" Why should they have to integrate? And integrate into what? Who isn't integrating? What is 'the West'? 3.  "You would of course have to be the kind of muslim who successfully manages to cherry pick the mysogony, homophobic and backwards mentality of Islam but somehow Christians manage to do this with their religion and we do not have radicalised Christians spreading hate and still managing to receive finance for it from the UK."Ok. So: 1. People are not entitled to their own opinions or views. You want everyone to agree with you. Great. How are you going to bring that about? 2. We have plenty of radicalised Christians spreading hate, and some churches do receive funding from the government. 

 

What about freedom of conscience? The rights of individuals to associate with like-minded persons? Freedom of expression? The liberal tradition of toleration? As I said above, all looks like a recipe for tyranny. 

You are needlessly taking the defence, is this because you are a Muslim and the moment you hear any criticism of your faith you run to the defence?

If you really do believe in modern values of equality then again why would you feel the need to complain or defend an end of society that doesn't deserve to be defended?

The fact is there ARE a growing number of Muslims that under the labour government got away with openly spreading hate against not only Britain but against the West in general. This is not to be tolerated or pandered to.

I'm not saying some British people haven't necessarily moved with the times either and they too may think women do not deserve education and to choose a husband of their own kind deserves death.. but these people are not respected either.

We have to stop standing saying "well there's no point in addressing anything or anyone". We have to say to the Muslim world that if you wish to live in the West that's fine by us providing you play by the rules. The rules are Religion is private, you are free to be spiritual, that's fine by us. But as soon as you make demands on us to impose Sharia Law,change our foreign policy, wearing of the vale (a political act already banned in the public sphere in Turkey and Tunisia) - we say to them this is not the deal. We should assert that and see what happens

 

I am an atheist. It's not a "needless defence." I am defending the basic freedoms of conscience, association, and expression. To be frank, I am no friend of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. That said, I am of the view that these beliefs ought to be challenged in an open, democratic, and discursive context. I will not endorse coercion or imposition. 

As an activist, I commit to equality, freedom, and so on. I will do my best to persuade others that equality, freedom, and so on, are good things. That said, as a citizen of a liberal and democratic political community I also commit to the freedoms of conscience, association, and expression. In other words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

We live in a liberal and democratic political community. I really do not care if someone speaks out against the West or the UK. I will tolerate anyone that is non-violent.

Banning veils won't solve anything. Serious infringement on the rights of individuals to live as they see fit. No wonder Le Pen and the EDL endorsed Cameron's speech.  

 

Craig I think you are absolutely right.  Muscular Liberalism isn't about going after particular faiths or communities but about asserting unapologetically that racism, misogyny and homophobia will not be respected, tolerated or pandered to in our society.  Yes that means confronting the BNP - who are vile proponents of a secular fascism that is close in ends to Islamo-fascism.  But we must be even handed and attack Islamic fascism too.  That is what Cameron was saying, and what you are supporting, and what this site stands for.  The idea that liberalism must mean intellectual uncertainty and weak values is corrupt and nihilistic nonsense - it is time for us to fight for the liberal values that have made this country such a wonderful place to live for the vast majority of people.

Thank you Max. Annonymous, I have to give up on you at this point as I do not feel I can reason with people that support the notion that it is ok to spread hate as long as it's not breaking the law. That attitude is absolutely retarded to the point of seeing about 1 inch in front of your face and proof that being an atheist does not necessarily make you a smart person. Obviously you have learned nothing from history, this was the exact 'passive tollerence' that led to the Nazi's being ignored enough to get into power.

You are are quick to critise views of politicians and the likes of EDL (as am I) but why you feel that hate breeding extremists are should be free to do the same I don't know.

Do you really believe that violent extremists are way different from non-violent extremists? The effect that the latter has on impressionable people that can eventually turn them into the former

Do you really believe that that people like Abu al-Masri should be freed from jail? After all he hasn't actually been caught commiting any violent offenses he's only been found guilty for "strirring up racial hatred"... which by your thinking is his surely his individual right!

AND BEFORE ANYONE JUMPS ON THE BAND WAGON AND ACCUSES ME OF LABELING ALL MUSLIMS AS TERRORISTS - of which for gods sake I am not saying... I am simply saying there has to be safe limits on tollerence when it the behaviour of the individual contradicts our Western values. Religious privilage is not an excuse and that goes for ALL RELIGIONS

The
successes of the NSDAP had little to do with toleration. Rather,
economic, institutional, and other factors were most influential. I
feel that this becomes obvious when one considers the extent to which
far-right parties are active and successful today. The BNP, American
Nazi Party, and their equivalents, are not nearly as successful as
the NSDAP, in spite of being accorded the same freedoms of
expression, association, and conscience. Ironically, the most
successful far-right European parties – Jobbik and the FPO –
operate under systems where "liberalism" and nationalism are very
muscular, and where there are restrictions on the freedoms of association and expression. I am not sure that hate speech breeds extremism. I like to think that state education goes some way towards making people intelligent and critical enough to see through the absurdity of hate speech. The fact that the vast majority of Britons, as well as British Muslims, are not extremists seems to prove my point. We shouldn't treat adults like children. "
Do you really believe that violent extremists are way different from non-violent extremists?"Yes. Moreover, the difference is crucial because legislating against non-violent extremism is dangerous, tyrannical, and difficult. Where do we draw the line? Legal theorists, judges, and many parliamentarians agree with me.  

"The effect that the latter has on impressionable people that can eventually turn them into the former"Evidence please. "Do you really believe that that people like Abu al-Masri should be freed from jail? After all he hasn't actually been caught commiting any violent offenses he's only been found guilty for "strirring up racial hatred"... which by your thinking is his surely his individual right!" Yes. He should however be monitored if he is deemed to pose potential security threat. And it is his right. He's stupid, ridiculous, and repulsive. But it is his right. I much prefer the idea of challenging him and his ideas in an appropriate context, rather than sweeping them under a legislative carpet. We have to discredit rather than prohibit. Far more effective in the long-term too. " I am simply saying there has to be safe limits on tollerence when it the behaviour of the individual contradicts our Western values."But what are our Western values? Westerners disagree re: normative commitments, morality, and so on. Diversity inheres to all complex societies. Presumably, then, you believe that nihilists, radical leftists, and so on, ought to be trodden on too?

Muslim community is shocked at the honourable British prime minister's speech in Munich about multi-culturalism.  The messages from the EDL in Luton and from Munich were the same. While alcohol-slurred chants of "E – E – EDL" and anti-Muslim hate speech too foul to reprint here could be heard up and down Luton's town centre streets, another more urbane voice added its plum tones to the cacophony. British Prime Minister David Cameron gave a landmark speech setting out his vision for British Muslims.  Does the government mean to say that it will not engage with any Muslim group or mosque that believes, for example, that homosexuality is a sin? Does it mean that any Muslim school that teaches the differing shares of inheritance to which Muslim men and women are Quranically entitled will be denied government funding? Does it mean that parents who do not wish their child to participate in mixed-sex physical education lessons, music lessons or sexual education lessons are closet terrorists at worst and an enemy of British society and values at best?

I was at a loss to understand why Cameron made the comments he did as they were as daft as his Happiness Index . But what worried me about them is the increase in discrimnation they could cause against ‘ordinary’ members of minority groups which is about the most effective form of recruiting-sergeant I can think of. His message is that Muslims are not wanted. He contradicts himself when he says we don't tolerate racism in Britain after making a highly racist speech! When all around is going wrong, the economy is not turning round and no plan B in place........lets do what Britians have always done; blame ethnic minority comunities. I think Cameron was very un-wise to go down the path he did. Majority of Muslims, for that is what he was attacking, already live to British way of life. There is no danger of Sharia laws taking precidence over British. And why do Brits when they migrate abroad not integrate with the natives? We have British gettos in France, Spain, Italy etc. Yet they fail to often learn the language. One rule for one eh Mr C?   I still don't understand which 'British values' Mr. Cameron was talking about. The only core values that the British leaders have are hypocrisy and bigotry.  Looking at their not-so-distant past, they looted the world, occupied lands, never gave freedom to people, never even taught them democracy, never had any elections held in the occupied countries and gave no one any freedom of speech in the occupied countries.David Cameron is a wolf in BNP and EDL skin. He is spouting his Islamaphobic claptrap because he is a racist and a bigot. And because he is pandering to idiots in the hope of gaining a few votes from the Nazi BNP and UKIP. In his long, pathetic speech about multiculturalism, the PM never even mentioned the EDL, either.

The greatest threat to UK is the failure of the economy. Cameron wants  to blame the Muslims diverting attention from the real problems in the same war Hitler wanted Germany in the 1930s to blame the Jews. So as you wait in a dole queue, angry and furious about the loss of the factories or businesses in your town, you won't blame the bankers who are bleeding the economy with bonuses., or the fat cats who are finding loopholes so that they dont't pay taxes. But you will blame the Muslims, despite the fact they are also victims of the criminal economic lunacy.
 
British society was and still does not believe in the process of Multiculturalism. Perhaps he should instead say “Britain has failed at multiculturalism”. It's individualism and globalisation that are undermining a strong national identity.The outcome of globalisation is Multi-culturalism. The reason multiculturalism has been failing becase the government policy has not been a multicultural policy - it has been an integration policy where all people are melted into one culture. It is the uni-culture that has failed as it does not allow for respect of different cultures. The majority of Muslims in the UK are well-integrated and support and promote democracy, equality and British rule of law. British schooling has been trying to force Muslim children to learn, speak, read and write English only so that they could become notoriously monolingual Brits. There is no arrangement for them to learn Arabic, Urdu and other community languages. They have been  vicitim of racism because British schooling is the home of institutional racism and native teachers are chicken racists. A Teacher Union once called Muslim schools as Osama bin Laden Academies. Even Baroness Warsi claimed that prejudice against Muslims is widespread and socially acceptable.

A survey last year of the first-ever study of Islamic interfaith relations across the world, carried out by Gallup and the Coexist Foundation, challenged the view that the country’s 2.4 million Muslims are largely intolerant of the British way of life. British Muslims were found to identify more strongly with the UK than the rest of the population, and have a much higher regard for the country’s institutions. 77% said they strongly identified with UK. The ultra Orthodox Jewish communities of Stamford Hill, who live very segregated lives and do not mix at all with mainstream or other communities. Their children do not go to mainstream state schools for example. But they live peacefully side by side with a very large Asian Muslim community.The vast majority of Muslims feel British, they are not always seen as British by wider society. It is harder to integrate and ‘belong’ to a society if you are not accepted and you encounter discrimination

British PM has urged migrant Muslims to assimilate or in other words f...off. They must adopt British values of anti-social behaviour, binge drinking, drug addiction, teenage pregnancies and abortions, gun and knife culture and racism.

Is there a real problem with the children of migrants NOT learning English? Or is this something from the Conservative Central Command Random Policy Generator.
Highly skilled migrants from outside the EU are essential to British economy. I would have thought that 'highly skilled' meant they would have a reasonable command of the English language as do most EU workers. they have not come here to change their way of life they are here because their skills are badly needed for the economic prosperity of the British society. And the Brits who go to work in say Germany or other EU countries. How many have a good command of the language when they arrive. A few may be but most will learn very little or none at all. They send their children to English medium schools instead of local schools. There is a difference between speaking/knowing English and English being the first language. So a Fenchman or an Italian will know English but may be speaking their language (mother tongue) at home. Their kids are unlikely to know English until they start going to school. Are these parents expected to teach their children 2 or more languages? I know the trouble getting them to speak and make logical sentences, let alone different languages. I wish people thought intelligently before they went about migrant bashing.Perhaps English people could learn to read and write their own language as well please Dave. How about teaching the British how to speak it first can't understand half the northerners, Scottish and welsh. Native parents teach their children English. Funnily enough, every immigrant I know can speak at least some English as well as one or more other languages, whereas young English kids, who've been raised on television and hardly know how to have a conversation, can hardly master their own language, let alone anyone else's. You people love to blame everyone else, but the rot set in right here at home: it's not government's fault, it's not immigrants' fault, it's yours, for your laziness, your smugness, and your arrogance.
Migrants learn the language properly, and ultimately, can read and write it better than the English children. I would wager that many Brits would fail a language test as well. As for you can only live here if you speak the language, may I ask how many of  Brits living in Spain have taken the trouble to learn the language of the country they live in? The Brits in British-themed resorts in Spain  get angry when the waiters don't speak fluent English and there's no fish and chips on the menu. Aren't the British supposed to have an innate sense of irony?
How many English nationals living in SPAIN can actually speak a word of Spanish?? ....You guessed right. Not many. So what is the Prime Minister talking about?? How about a rule that British people must teach their children (correct) English? Most of the immigrants have better grammar and spelling than some of the native-born parents round here.I am wondering if David Cameron knows anything about language learning; it appears not. Children under the age of about 10 can very easily learn a new language quickly if immersed in it (as they would be by going to school). Many  migrant children born in the UK didn't speak English until they went to school. It didn't affect their education/life chances; they all went to University and now have good jobs (oh and they're bilingual). In addition, a friend who has taught in East London schools told me that if parents don't speak English perfectly they should NOT speak English to their children as then the kids start school with bad English, which has to be unlearned. If a child can speak one language (whatever it is) correctly, then they can learn a second without a problem. It is beneficial if children learned their 'mother tongue' first before English. Who cares if English isn't a first language as long as it is spoken competently? Some migrants who have been in the UK a long time may well have a different language as their first language but actually speak English better.
 
The whole world belongs to Muslims. A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. He/she does not want to become notoriously monolingual Brit. He/she must learn and be well versed in standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for highier studies and research to serve humanity. At the same time he/she must learn and be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with his/her cultural roots and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry.
 
Speaking English does not promote integration into British, American and Australian societies, and broaden opportunities. English speaking Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist, thanks to English language. English language is not only a lingua franca but also lingua frankensteinia. Human right also covers linguistic right. Cultural and linguistic genocide are very common. British schooling is murdering community languages like Arabic, Urdu and others. English is today the world killer language. Linguistic genocide is a crime against humanity and British schooling is guilty of committing this crime. IA
London School of Islamics Trust

Iftikhar, your anger at Cameron's speech is palpable but extreme and ill-informed.  For a start there is absolutely no contradiction between explaining that Britain does not tolerate racism and promising to cease relationships with extremist Islamists - in fact they serve one another.  Extreme, political Islam is heavily racist in its attitudes and priorities.  The anti-semitic hatred that is par for the course in many extremists Mosques and organisations (and, indeed Islamic schools) is a classic example of precisely the kind of racist demagoguery that Cameron is insisting we must not permit.  He is right to insist on this.  Britain is not, and has not been, a culturally racist nation.  We were at the forefront of the fight against slavery and went to war with Germany, in part, because of their genocidal impulses.  Of course the story of the British Empire is not one of unalloyed benevolence.  But the idea that we have no right to comment on, or act upon, moral and tolerant values now because of something that has happened in the past is the worst kind of nihilistic relativism.  It is also, by the way, incredibly racist.  You surely don't believe that because of the alleged sins of my great-grandfather's generation I should be barred from engagement in ethical, moral and political questions?  Do British people in some way inherit the guilt you ascribe to our ancestors?  And if so, do the same odd rules apply to the descendants of Persian empire builders or Iraqis whose parents and grandparents participated in the wholesale genocidal slaughter of Kurds?

You assert that 'British schooling has been trying to force Muslim children to learn, speak, read and write English only so that they could become notoriously monolingual Brits'.  The question of language education in British schools is indeed cause for concern - but the reason for insisting that the children of migrants learn English is simple, straightforward and entirely reasonable.  Children unable to speak the language of their community will suffer from reduced academic attainment, reduced employment opportunities and will experience frustration as they attempt to access services etc.  What is more they hinder integration more widely.  If their community begins to offer services, custom and education in a native and non-English language then that serves to alienate english-speaking neighbours.  That is a very real source of conflict, ignorance and inter-cultural strife.  

You ask, in your opening paragraph, 'Does the government mean to say that it will not engage with any Muslim group or mosque that believes, for example, that homosexuality is a sin?'  I, for one, very much hope so.  Of course Muslim groups, like Christian, Jewish and other faith organisations, must be free to believe in what they like.  Privately.  When it comes to endorsement, resources or assistance from the state their beliefs surely must reflect the tenets of British law and the widely held views of the vast majority of British people?  Gay equality is protected under British law and the Government has a statutory obligation to promote equality.  Please explain why I, as a gay man, should see my Government invest time and resource in organisations which - contrary to the law and to the moral view of the vast majority of my countrymen - object to my way of life?

I think you betray your real feelings on British people and British values when you say - 'You people love to blame everyone else, but the rot set in right here at home: it's not government's fault, it's not immigrants' fault, it's yours, for your laziness, your smugness, and your arrogance'.  It is normally considered to be both racist and offensive to refer to an ethnic or national group with the term 'you people'. Your descriptions of British people as lazy, smug and arrogant are vile, racially motivated and belie your deeply held hatred for this country.  You claim repeatedly that Muslim children must be spared learning english and integration and state that 'The whole world belongs to Muslims'.  That is not the case.  However, large swathes of the world do indeed 'belong to Muslims' and are happy to enforce precisely the kind of racist, homophobic social controls that you appear to hanker after.  I would suggest, considering your dislike of Britain and your deeply held contempt for British people, that you seek out one of those places so that you can live happily there and avoid all of us nasty, tolerant, colour-blind folk that irk you so.

The government should not offer its support to any cultural or religious groups. It should not support the Anglican communion, nor should it support or fund English, Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh, or Cornish culture. It most certainly should not fund divisive and sectarian faith-schools with the taxes of the law-abiding and non-religious majority. Similarly, the government should not promote British values (whatever these are - I personally cannot think of any exclusively British values). Nor should it promote any other values. It should let the people decide - up to a point. With respect to culture and religion, all that the government should do is keep the peace and leave individuals to believe, act, and live as they see fit within the confines of the law. In sum, it should be a liberal government with respect to culture and religion.  

I'm fascinated by the idea that 'British values' must be exclusive in order for them to be worthwhile.  Tolerance, openness and democracy are not only found in Britain - obviously.  But why does this mean that they should never be promoted? It seems oddly self-defeating to claim that we can only promote things that are unique to the UK!


Liberalism holds that the good society is one that does not enforce upon everyone some particular ideal of the good life but instead allows differentiated parties to live as they see fit. I wouldn't call that anomic or nihilistic. British values don't have to be "exclusively British" in order for them to be worthwhile. Only a nationalist would argue otherwise. Toleration, openness, liberty, and democracy are splendid and worthwhile things. But 1. being tolerant, open, liberal, and democratic means allowing Islamist, racist, and other nefarious groups to exist, means allowing them to participate in elections, to express their views. 2. a liberal democratic or social democratic government ceases to be liberal when it infringes on the freedoms of association, expression, and conscience. That's the real problem - muscular liberalism looks like an assertive and occidental communitarianism. Brian Barry would love it. 

Then why say 'whatever these are - I personally cannot think of any exclusively British values'?  I simply do not agree that liberalism demands that we tolerate Islamist or racist groups.  There is a difference between tolerating those things that do no harm and tolerating those that do.  Homosexuality, ethnic pluralism and gender equality do no harm.  The abuse of people because of their sexuality, ethnicity or gender does do harm - it hurts people directly and it undermines our social fabric.  Liberals are opposed to domination - either by businesses, the state or by particular groups.  Islamism and fascism share their desire to dominate others and compel them to live under a totalitarian ideology.  If liberals wish to protect non-domination then they must be active in struggling against dominating and totalitarian movement that seek to do harm.

 

I
said that I personally cannot think of any exclusively British values
because I reject ideas of cultural homogeneity, mainly out of
epistemic, hermeneutic, and other commitments. I think that notions
of cultural homogeneity are divisive, exclusive, and dangerous, and I
personally feel that the Coalition is wondering down a dangerous
communitarian/nationalist path that asserts the fictions of social
holism. I want to live in a plural society where there is room for
individuation and freedom of conscience. 

 

I'm
against psychological and physical abuse. If a parent is abusing
their child the state should intervene. That said, I am not convinced
that expressing opinions or beliefs in the public space is abusive,
or whether imparting these beliefs in relatively private spaces is
abusive. Incidentally, I fully agree that women, homosexuals, and so
on should not suffer discrimination in the workplace. Nor should they
suffer discrimination at the hands of government. Nonetheless, I feel
that independent associations - political parties, faith groups,
families, and so on - should be free to discriminate. Providing, of
course, the individuals facing discrimination are given the
opportunity to leave said association. On these grounds, the only
real problem I can see with radical Islam is apostasy. I was
actually disappointed with the decision of the BNP's constitution
because it resulted in clear violations of individual rights.

 

You
are entitled to disagree re: definition and liberalism. I personally
feel that liberalism is first characterised by its commitments to
toleration and non-interference. It did, after all, emerge from the
crucible of the Reformation. I personally feel, too, that it is
republicanism, rather than liberalism, that argues against
domination. 

 

I'm
not sure that all of Islamism is totalitarian. It's actually pretty
diverse, with a spectrum ranging from Erdogan to Osama Bin Laden.

 

Muscular
liberalism implies the domination of others, compelling them to live
in a certain way. And that's why I don't like it. I say no to
domination and coercion on the part of governments. 

 

Salaam Tolerance in Britain is an illusion.
 
Everybody should live together and love each other like the brothers and sisters they are. Stop this artificial human division, which all it does is create wars and wars and wars. Nature has already made enough variety of human beings: many different skin, eye and hair colours, different types of hair, from very small to very tall people, an infinite gamut of degress of intelligence, etc, etc. That's enough variety. The problem isn't Muslims not adapting to British culture, it's Brits showing much disrespect and scorn to those who are of any Islamic background. even if an Muslim was well versed in English, knew the customs etc. would they still get employment? No. Would Brits treat them as a decent human? No.So why would they want to integrate into a culture that is constantly tearing them down?  God doesn't want the whole world to be Muslim but that the duty of Muslims, Jews and Christians is to compete in doing good works to please him. Unfortunately, we all seem to be killing each other instead. May it soon change! 

It is easy to say" Go back to where you came from",but do not forget that British Muslims are actually born and educated here. They are in the unenviable position of trying to combine two diffent worlds. That is no easy.

We live in a shrunken world and millions of people are on the move; one of our biggest challenges is how we learn to live in proximity to difference – different skin colours, different beliefs and different way of life. According to a study by COMPAS, Muslims born and educated were given the impression of outsiders. The perception among Muslims is that they are unwelcome in Britain is undermining efforts to help them integrate into wider society. Most of them say that they have experienced race discrimination and religious prejudice. Muslims and Islam is promoted a fundamentalist and separatist by the western elite, which have negative impact on community and social cohesion. The number of racist incidents occurring in London Borough of Redbridge’s schools have reached their highest levels since record begin. http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

 
A City or a locality, where Muslims are in majority is a ghetto. There is a tendency for people of similar backgrounds to live together in neighourhoods. The term”ghettoisation” is inappropriate. The original ghettos in Europe during the middle ages were set up by law to confine the Jewish population to one area of a city. According to a research by an Australian academic that Muslim communities in Britain are being increasingly ghettoized in a trend that set back hopes of assimilation by years. Britain has now eight cities in the top 100 most ghettoized cities. The people from the Pakistani community in Bradford and Oldham and Leicester had trebled during the decade. A report by an academic Dr Alan Carling, that Bradford risks becoming a front line in the global clash between the West and Islam. But Islam and Muslims do not clash with the concepts of pluralism, secularism and globalisation. The native flight from Bradford’s inner-city wards showed clear evidence of an increase in segregation in the city since 1991. Native parents are avoiding sending their children in state schools where Muslims and other minorities are in majority.  The dominance of Pakistani Muslims in the city has meant that Bradford has become bi-cultural. 
 
 Immigrants are the creators of Britain new wealth, otherwise, inner cities deprived areas could not get new lease of life. The native Brits regard such areas as ghettoes. Integration is not religious and cultural, it is economic and Muslims are well integrated into British society and at the same time they are proud of their Islamic, linguistic and cultural identities, inspite of discrimination they have been facing in all walks of life. According to UN, 80% of British Muslims feel discriminated. They are less burden on social services. Immigrants made up 8.7% of the population, but accounted for10.2% of all collected income tax
 
 It is often quoted by the Western media that Muslim schools ghettoizse the children, and even lead to their radicalisation if they are not integrated. There is no evidence that faith schools lead to a “ghettoized education system. In British schools, pupils are encouraged to focus too much on their similarities rather than their differences. The integrationist approach merely results in Muslims feeling that their faith, language and culture is not respected.
 
A report by the Institute for Community Cohesion found that native parents were deserting some schools after finding their children out numbered by pupils from ethnic minorities. Schools in parts of England are becoming increasingly segregated. The study focused on 13 local authorities. Many of the schools and colleges are segregated and this was generally worsening over recent years. This is RACISM because British society is the home of institutional racism. My statement regarding Muslim schools where there is no place for non-Muslim child or a teacher is based on educational process and not on racism. Muslim children need Muslim teachers during their developmental periods. For higher studies and reserech, Muslim teacher is not a priority.
There is no end to act of terrorism, forced marriages and honour killing, as long as Muslim children keep on attending state schools with monolingual non-Muslim teachers. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school. There are hundreds of stat and church schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be opted out as Muslim Academies. IA

Liberalism holds that the good society is one that does not enforce upon everyone some particular ideal of the good life but instead allows differentiated parties to live as they see fit. I wouldn't call that anomic or nihilistic. British values don't have to be "exclusively British" in order for them to be worthwhile. Only a nationalist would argue otherwise. Toleration, openness, liberty, and democracy are splendid and worthwhile things. But 1. being tolerant, open, liberal, and democratic means allowing Islamist, racist, and other nefarious groups to exist, means allowing them to participate in elections, to express their views. 2. a liberal democratic or social democratic government ceases to be liberal when it infringes on the freedoms of association, expression, and conscience. That's the real problem - muscular liberalism looks like an assertive and occidental communitarianism. Brian Barry would love it. 

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <span> <div> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.