![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
philosoraptor42This is my previous extra-long confused post, re-cut to make more sense and be FAR more readable:
Baroness Warsi and the National Secular Society
The BHA recently criticised comments by two prominent political figures: Tony Blair (for whom I feel no explanation is required) and Baroness Warsi (whose comments can be found here). Baroness Warsi is a Muslim politician in the Conservative party.
The National Secular Society quoted Baroness Warsi's description of "state multiculturalism" where she defines it as follows:
Both are united against "state multiculturalism" - whatever the hell that is.
So where did the term 'state multiculturalism' come from?
When I initially tried to uncover the origins of this strange term "state multiculturalism" it seemed to be traced back to Munira Mirza, who is currently employed by the Mayor of London as London's "director of arts and culture".
One blog seems to have made the serious mistake of thinking that Mirza's think tank "Policy Exchange" agreed with the rather alarmist news stories which came out their report. Actually Mirza has taken special care to distance herself from these stories and has written in some detail how the very idea of thinking of Muslims as a "community" is problematic.
Now we might be fooled into thinking that Munira Mirza and Baroness Warsi are in agreement when Warsi criticises the Young Muslims Advisory Group. After all, they are an instance of a religious group being given an ear by the government. Surely Munira Mirza would wish to criticise this in the same way that she criticises the Muslim Council of Britain. It's a set of unelected figures enlisted to speak for Muslims as a whole. Doomed to failure, right?
Well Warsi's comments are particularly damning. Her response to the creation of the Young Muslim Advisory Group is as follows:
Munira Mirza. She didn't create the term "state multiculturalism" and she'd never say anything so stupid.
Anyway, with a bit more research we quickly discover that "state multiculturalism" is a term created by the conservative party leader, David Cameron. Baroness Warsi is a conservative MP, so it's not surprise that she is getting her cues from the party leader.
Problems with the Conservatives' critique of 'state multiculturalism'
Part of David Cameron's criticism of "state multiculturalism" includes his criticism of the inclusion of Sharia in UK law. (Talk about opportunism. The Archbishop of Canterbury's controversial comments were quite recent at the time.) To help sort this out I think this quotation from Inayat Bungalawa might help (who I've somewhat criticised in the past):
This photo comes from a neat little Daily Mail article, proudly announcing "Cameron vows to copy wisdom of Thatcher as he says he will limit immigration to 50,000 a year". - No worries about state multiculturalism then, is there?
David Cameron's accusation of "state multiculturalism" is, of course, no different from the old criticism of secularism by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. The problem is that the proposals are full of hot air:
In the end, this whole "state multiculturalism issue within the conservative party is against immigration. Baroness Warsi rightly notes how well-established Muslims are within the UK. It seems like another case of that all too common pattern of established groups with foreign origins suddenly taking on-board the same fear of immigrants which preceded them. The sentiment is "I'm comfortable now. Don't let anyone else in thankyouverymuch." That's how a man who strongly promotes segregating faith schools can criticise the government for not allowing for enough cultural integration in society. That's also how a Muslim conservative politician can comfortably echo the past comments of Margaret Thatcher:
In her speech she begins by noting the need to continue to support Bosnia, she follows this up by highlighting the extremism from Anjem Chowdhury, who heads a group called Al-Muhajiroun which protested against British troops, and the extremism from the English Defence League, who recently demonstrated against the building of a mosque and have support from the British Nationalist Party. So far so laudable. It is unfortunately here that her talk goes downhill and she goes on to fall for the “religion is being persecuted” line, as the National Secular Society rightly note.
Nevertheless, after the tirade against so-called 'religious persecution' is over, Baroness Warsi makes a very good point:
Baroness Warsi doesn't wear a headscarf, but on the other hand if anyone wanted to know where all the moderate Muslims speaking out against Islamic extremism could be found, here's another one to add to the list:
All this having been said, if Baroness Warsi wants to give a greater voice to the respectable British Muslims, why is she so opposed to a group which specifically aims to give voice to young Muslims? The answer, it seems to me, is simple. It's because she is a member of the opposition.
Baroness Warsi's absurd examples of persecution. (The bit the National Secular Society were absolutely right about.)
I couldn't finish without this list of daft examples of "persecution of Christians". It's worth noting that Warsi never actually uses the 'p' word here. Also, claims that Christians are hard done by tend be a little more subtle than the blatant lies you often hear within the US.
Far from simply "talking about God" the five year old daughter of the receptionist absolutely terrified another child by telling them they would go to hell. The teacher stepped in and supported the traumatised child, as is only right.
She then picks on Evan Harris:
- Honorary president of Delga, the Liberal Democrats' LGBT group since 2000.
- Vice-president of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA).
- Chairman of the all-party kidney group.
- Vice chairman of the groups on refugees, malaria, AIDS, heart disease, lupus and brain tumours.
- Treasurer of the groups on Israel and Council of Christians and Jews.
Oh my goodness, what an anti-religious scoundrel he must be!
His big secular achievement recently was winning National Secular Society's award for Secularist of the Year for his work in abolishing the blasphemy law. I'd like to hope that Baroness Warsi is not interested in getting the blasphemy law reinstated, but who knows?
Perhaps Baroness Warsi was misled by the following section of the Lords debate by Baroness O'Cathain:
I'm not sure why a child would be offended by a lesson on the empire. Actually in the past it was quite subversive to give a proper history lesson concerning the Empire while schools were celebrating "Empire day". Unfortunately there's a more right-wing element who seem to think the British Empire was a wonderful thing we should have held onto (despite not really having the money to do so after WWII ended). This blogger points out that Pakistan is in a bad state today, seemingly forgetting the iconic struggle of Mahatma Gandhi and the racist bloodshed that took place at the hands of the British before he achieved independence. There are plans to put the British Empire more fully into the history curriculum, but I can see no reports of concern about offense and I very much doubt that the British Empire will be portrayed in a positive light by most sensible history teachers.
And what's worse. The person buying into this BS is in that tiny green sliver...
So yeah, a load of old nonsense. Sadly the same can not be said about bigotry against muslims. The first two articles I found after a quick google both notably speak of attacks against Muslims "increasing" or "rising" suggesting that sadly such attacks are becoming a way of life here in Britain....
Baroness Warsi and the National Secular Society
The BHA recently criticised comments by two prominent political figures: Tony Blair (for whom I feel no explanation is required) and Baroness Warsi (whose comments can be found here). Baroness Warsi is a Muslim politician in the Conservative party.
The National Secular Society quoted Baroness Warsi's description of "state multiculturalism" where she defines it as follows:
"Firstly, when we as Conservatives talk about multiculturalism we are not talking about the building of temples, or synagogues or mosques in any neighbourhood. For us that is religious pluralism and it is a defining British characteristic that began with the non-conformists.The National Secular Society then respond by saying:
"For me, state multiculturalism, as I like to define it is forcing Britain’s diverse communities to still define themselves as different, patronisingly special and tempting them to compete against each other for public funds."
"We have been saying this for the past ten years. So far so good."Sorry, but no it's not bloody good! Why the hell shouldn't religious groups compete for public funds just like everyone else? It's actually in this criticism of "state multiculturalism" that Baroness Warsi's criticism of secularism is most clear and obvious. She doesn't think that religious groups should compete against each other along with all the other stances vying for public attention. Instead she thinks religions should be granted priveledges by default.
Both are united against "state multiculturalism" - whatever the hell that is.
So where did the term 'state multiculturalism' come from?
When I initially tried to uncover the origins of this strange term "state multiculturalism" it seemed to be traced back to Munira Mirza, who is currently employed by the Mayor of London as London's "director of arts and culture".
One blog seems to have made the serious mistake of thinking that Mirza's think tank "Policy Exchange" agreed with the rather alarmist news stories which came out their report. Actually Mirza has taken special care to distance herself from these stories and has written in some detail how the very idea of thinking of Muslims as a "community" is problematic.
Now we might be fooled into thinking that Munira Mirza and Baroness Warsi are in agreement when Warsi criticises the Young Muslims Advisory Group. After all, they are an instance of a religious group being given an ear by the government. Surely Munira Mirza would wish to criticise this in the same way that she criticises the Muslim Council of Britain. It's a set of unelected figures enlisted to speak for Muslims as a whole. Doomed to failure, right?
Well Warsi's comments are particularly damning. Her response to the creation of the Young Muslim Advisory Group is as follows:
“To select a group of twenty two young people, however talented they may be, to advise the government on ‘Muslim issues’ is patronising and deeply concerning.”However, when we recognise from Mirza's report in the Policy Exchange that the most extreme Islamic voices are from young, British-born Muslims, surely it makes sense to ensure that this group have a public platform? This lowers the likelihood that young Muslims will feel disenfranchised by their society in the future and therefore lowers the chances that they will be enlisted by extremist groups. This is why we can find Munira Mirza criticising the creation of a Muslim Police Association because it "reinforces tribalism and division", but can find no response from her regarding the Young Muslim Advisory Group. I think it should also be noted that Munira Mirza, unlike Baroness Walsi, still has good things to say about New Labour's multiculturalism. Certainly she thinks there were flaws which need to be addressed, but that's all part and parcel of progress.
Munira Mirza. She didn't create the term "state multiculturalism" and she'd never say anything so stupid.
Anyway, with a bit more research we quickly discover that "state multiculturalism" is a term created by the conservative party leader, David Cameron. Baroness Warsi is a conservative MP, so it's not surprise that she is getting her cues from the party leader.
Problems with the Conservatives' critique of 'state multiculturalism'
Part of David Cameron's criticism of "state multiculturalism" includes his criticism of the inclusion of Sharia in UK law. (Talk about opportunism. The Archbishop of Canterbury's controversial comments were quite recent at the time.) To help sort this out I think this quotation from Inayat Bungalawa might help (who I've somewhat criticised in the past):
"I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish.David Cameron says quite specifically, according to the Daily Mail (and I'm inclined to believe them on this occasion):
"So that is why you have sharia council, that is why you have Jewish courts. It is a truly voluntary arrangement.
"There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."
"...the Conservatives would unveil detailed proposals in the coming months to ensure that all immigrants learn to speak English."Except that we don't need those proposals, do we? In order to gain British citizenship immigrants are already expected to learn English. *slapface*
This photo comes from a neat little Daily Mail article, proudly announcing "Cameron vows to copy wisdom of Thatcher as he says he will limit immigration to 50,000 a year". - No worries about state multiculturalism then, is there?
David Cameron's accusation of "state multiculturalism" is, of course, no different from the old criticism of secularism by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. The problem is that the proposals are full of hot air:
"He attacks multiculturalism, for its idea that Britain was something of an hotel, welcoming guests who paid their taxes and giving them some services in return, but giving no one a sense of belonging and therefore responsibility. Instead, all citizens need to make more of an effort to put down community roots.And, of course, preventing religious believers from getting stuck in individual hotel rooms doesn't stop Sacks from promoting faith schools like nobody's business, even to point of scare-mongering Jews by telling them their Jewish identity is at stake:
"But, when we ask him for examples of how to go about doing this, he demurs. “My argument is really a kind of direction-finding exercise,” he said. “We need a strong concept of the common good, a sharp distinction between state and society.”"
OK, well, what does the “common good” mean for faith schools? He led the drive for more Jewish schools in the early 1990s, by alarming the Jewish community about their imminent demise. “I decided to use shock-horror tactics,” he said. “And since then we’ve built more Jewish day schools than ever in our 350-year plus history.”
Yet in his book he writes that while faith schools benefit those lucky enough to attend, “it is not good news for all-of-us together”.
That sounds like a clear admission that his evangelical support for faith schools is at odds with his desire for integration. “That’s a very good point,” he said, then answered an entirely different question. We asked again if Jewish schools are compatible with integration. “Of course, yeah.”
In the end, this whole "state multiculturalism issue within the conservative party is against immigration. Baroness Warsi rightly notes how well-established Muslims are within the UK. It seems like another case of that all too common pattern of established groups with foreign origins suddenly taking on-board the same fear of immigrants which preceded them. The sentiment is "I'm comfortable now. Don't let anyone else in thankyouverymuch." That's how a man who strongly promotes segregating faith schools can criticise the government for not allowing for enough cultural integration in society. That's also how a Muslim conservative politician can comfortably echo the past comments of Margaret Thatcher:
"I don't wish to have what they call a multicultural society. I hate these phrases. Multicultural society! A multicultural society will never be a united society."What should the National Secular Society have praised Baroness Warsi for saying?
In her speech she begins by noting the need to continue to support Bosnia, she follows this up by highlighting the extremism from Anjem Chowdhury, who heads a group called Al-Muhajiroun which protested against British troops, and the extremism from the English Defence League, who recently demonstrated against the building of a mosque and have support from the British Nationalist Party. So far so laudable. It is unfortunately here that her talk goes downhill and she goes on to fall for the “religion is being persecuted” line, as the National Secular Society rightly note.
Nevertheless, after the tirade against so-called 'religious persecution' is over, Baroness Warsi makes a very good point:
"British Muslims are found in every walk of life, as doctors, nurses , teachers, as soldiers in the British armed forces, as parliamentary candidates and dare I say members of the House of Lords."This is too easily forgotten and it's important that she stated it. Muslims perform important roles in the UK, Baroness Warsi included. They receive these positions because of good education and suitability for the post. Baroness Warsi also cannot be hooked into the whole 'hatred of women' nonsense since she chairs a charity which specifically helps women in countries around the world. (Quite different from Anne Widdecombe who abandoned Anglicanism for Catholicism the moment women were let into the priesthood.) It's worth noting that the National Secular Society do not fail to note this either, though their response seems a little flippant: "Of course we have to be careful about generalisations that demonise innocent people."
Baroness Warsi doesn't wear a headscarf, but on the other hand if anyone wanted to know where all the moderate Muslims speaking out against Islamic extremism could be found, here's another one to add to the list:
"We as a nation throughout our history have had to deal with extremism in all its guises, with groups that promote both hatred and violence.As we can see Baroness Warsi had many important things to say and my counter-criticism to her tirade against "state multiculturalism" must not undermine that. Sadly Baroness Warsi's references to persecution of Muslims, unlike the so-called Christian persecution I dealt with above, are very real indeed. It actually seems very strange to me that the National Secular Society should decide to take issue with Baroness Warsi's criticism of Islamophobia while totally agreeing with the her criticism of "state multiculturalism". This is why I often find myself happier to be associated with the British Humanist Association than the National Secular Society. The BHA often seems to be more tuned in to the real issues and less likely to make this kind of mix up.
"And this summer, we were reminded again why that fight continues.
"The protests against our troops led by Anjem Chowdhury and Al-Muhajiroun in Luton were truly disgusting and quite rightly condemned by us all.
"And we also rightly condemned recent violent demonstrations led by the English Defence League, and their nasty friends in the BNP.
"These groups of extremists represent two ugly faces of the same coin, and for them, hatred of the ‘other’ isn’t just a scourge, it is a political philosophy.
"They have a simple, yet dangerous goal – to drive a wedge, to spread hatred and to sow the seeds of division.
"Conference, during the Second World War, British and Commonwealth soldiers, including my two grandfathers, fought side by side to defeat fascism in Europe.
"So over 65 years later we are NOT going to tolerate fascism on our soil.
"Conference let me say this loud and clear. There is nothing Muslim about Anjem Chowdhury and Al-Muhajiroun.
"There is nothing English about the English Defence League. And there is certainly nothing British about the BNP."
All this having been said, if Baroness Warsi wants to give a greater voice to the respectable British Muslims, why is she so opposed to a group which specifically aims to give voice to young Muslims? The answer, it seems to me, is simple. It's because she is a member of the opposition.
Baroness Warsi's absurd examples of persecution. (The bit the National Secular Society were absolutely right about.)
I couldn't finish without this list of daft examples of "persecution of Christians". It's worth noting that Warsi never actually uses the 'p' word here. Also, claims that Christians are hard done by tend be a little more subtle than the blatant lies you often hear within the US.
"...then the Baroness goes on to fall for the “religion is being persecuted” line. She trots out all the supposed cases of “persecution” against Christians that the Christian Institute likes to keep repeating"So what are these "supposed cases" then?
"...how appalling that in Labour’s Britain a community nurse can be suspended for offering to pray for a patient’s recovery."Well the patient actually complained about the nurse's comments, so they didn't find it appalling. The NHS had released a document on the subject clearly explaining why offerings of prayer could be seen as pressuring, so this was a clear case of an employee breaking the rules:
"The document, Religion or Belief: A Practical Guide for the NHS, states that “Members of some religions . . . are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.If Stephen Green (the guy who managed to get the blasphemy law repealed in the UK by launching a frivolous case against the director general of the BBC) is one of your main supporters, it's time to throw in the towel. Here's his statement on this issue:
“To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures.”
"Or a school receptionist could face disciplinary action for sending an email to friends asking them to pray for her daughter."
“It’s discrimination. It seems like open season on Christians. Christians are going to have to wake up to the fact we are in a spiritual war. It’s disgraceful behaviour to treat a five-year-old girl like this. These people will stop at nothing. My initial reaction was, ‘Oh no, not another one’.”What actually happened? A quick scan of news reports on the issue would suggest that a five year old was told off for talking about God in school and when the receptionist sent an email asking for prayers of support, she was brought up on it by the headmaster. Thankfully the Christian blog Ekklesia have a reputation for being interested in the facts and they are able to clear up the issue here.
Far from simply "talking about God" the five year old daughter of the receptionist absolutely terrified another child by telling them they would go to hell. The teacher stepped in and supported the traumatised child, as is only right.
Philosopher Steven Law pointed out on his website that the original Telegraph story "omits one crucial detail - that the schools objection was not to a child talking to another about God and Jesus, but to one child scaring another to tears with threats of eternal damnation - thereby putting a very different spin on the story."Discipline in regards to the email was unsurprising since the email was misrepresenting and discrediting fellow employees at the school. The receptionist wonders how the headmaster came upon the email and the answer ought to fairly obvious. - It's because she sent it from the school computers. Yet for some reason we are supposed to consider the headmaster's reaction to this highly unprofessional behaviour "religious persecution". Oh give me a break!
She then picks on Evan Harris:
"The scepticism of senior Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris driving this secular agenda has now grown to become an ideology permeating through many parts of the public sector."Oh no she didn't! Evan Harris is an absolutely awesome MP and holds the following titles:
- Honorary president of Delga, the Liberal Democrats' LGBT group since 2000.
- Vice-president of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA).
- Chairman of the all-party kidney group.
- Vice chairman of the groups on refugees, malaria, AIDS, heart disease, lupus and brain tumours.
- Treasurer of the groups on Israel and Council of Christians and Jews.
Oh my goodness, what an anti-religious scoundrel he must be!
His big secular achievement recently was winning National Secular Society's award for Secularist of the Year for his work in abolishing the blasphemy law. I'd like to hope that Baroness Warsi is not interested in getting the blasphemy law reinstated, but who knows?
Perhaps Baroness Warsi was misled by the following section of the Lords debate by Baroness O'Cathain:
"Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I am not going to read through it all. But, the Minister having said that she does not believe that this is directed towards secularisation of the state, perhaps I may read from the critique. The letter from the most reverend Primates stated that abolition is not a sign of secularisation. Dr Evan Harris said in response:Lord Thomas of Gresford corrected this at the time, pointing out that the full quote reads:
“It should be seen as a secularising move, and with pride”.
"I rest my case."
“It should be seen as a secularising move and with pride by both religious and secular people—because it removes a layer of religious privilege in, and religious censorship of, society which is no longer seen as appropriate”.I'd like to think that Baroness Warsi would not wish to support Christian priveledge, but it's not unknown for people of minority religions to support the existing religious priveledge when speaking against secularism (presumably with the hope that the dominant religious groups will throw them a bone). There was an example of this in an infamous CNN panel on "atheist discrimination" (featuring no atheists) where a Jewish woman was happy to insist that America should be viewed as a "Christian country" in which both Muslims and atheists should be kept out of the spotlight and mandatory prayer in schools should be brought back.
So when some misguided liberal tries to downgrade Christmas…Where do they get this nonsense from?
Or a school tries to ban the nativity play, or a child is not taught about the empire in case it offends.Um, actually in most schools teachers are choosing for themselves not to have nativity plays because it doesn't reflect the diversity of their school. That doesn't rule out an end-of-term play which all students can get involved in. Now perhaps I'm missing something, but a google search for nativity play bans is coming up with nothing but bans on cameras in nativity plays due to fears about paedophiles, not bans on the plays themselves. (That said, there is one random story from The Sun about younger children not being allowed to watch a nativity play for fears that they'll put off the performers. *Oh noes! Religious persecutions!*)
I'm not sure why a child would be offended by a lesson on the empire. Actually in the past it was quite subversive to give a proper history lesson concerning the Empire while schools were celebrating "Empire day". Unfortunately there's a more right-wing element who seem to think the British Empire was a wonderful thing we should have held onto (despite not really having the money to do so after WWII ended). This blogger points out that Pakistan is in a bad state today, seemingly forgetting the iconic struggle of Mahatma Gandhi and the racist bloodshed that took place at the hands of the British before he achieved independence. There are plans to put the British Empire more fully into the history curriculum, but I can see no reports of concern about offense and I very much doubt that the British Empire will be portrayed in a positive light by most sensible history teachers.
And what's worse. The person buying into this BS is in that tiny green sliver...
So yeah, a load of old nonsense. Sadly the same can not be said about bigotry against muslims. The first two articles I found after a quick google both notably speak of attacks against Muslims "increasing" or "rising" suggesting that sadly such attacks are becoming a way of life here in Britain....
