This is an excellent critical assessment of the British model of multiculturalism from Thomas Amico:
''[E]xtending citizenship to include common social rights was a tool of nation-building, intended in part to construct and consolidate a sense of common national identity and culture.''
Instead, extending British citizenship became what has been described as Londonistan -- a contract with Islamic fundamentalists.
Are you wondering what is happeing to the British Way of Life? Edward Turner argues that in the UK politicians and academics are debating in favour of the rights a culture (of Islamists in this case) rather than the rights of the individual.
Turner's article is here <<Right of a culture became more important than the right of the individual>>.
During the British rule in India, observes one writer, the elites of Indian society opposed British General Sir Charles Napier's move to ban Sati (burning of widow on her husband's pyre) by arguing that he failed to understand the native culture. Sir Napier remarked:
''You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
We should judge a culture (which Islamists in Britain are trying to defend), goes on the author, by the following four objective standards:
You can read more of this piece by clicking <<Multiculturalism Be Damned>>.
The year 2006 witessed some of the fiery debates on the issues surrounding British multiculturalism. While the Islamists and their leftist friends used the threat of Islamophobia on those who tried to bring a critical perspective on their ideological agenda, those of us genuinely worried about the Western values that inform the British way of life finally succeeded in creating a meaningful debate on multiculturalism.
One writer, Deborah Orr, lauded Jack Straw for unveiling the attempts to veil the debate:
''[The] debate about the cross of St George was worth having, if only because it served to raise the curtain on more troubling issues about multiculturalism and integration. Debate about the veil - itself a veiled attempt to talk about radical Islam's place in a modern secular society - was proven to be necessary simply by the way that such a huge reservoir of opinion was unleashed by Jack Straw and his disingenuous article in a local newspaper.''
This year, as Jonathan Petre wrote in The Telegraph, Christians succeeded in pre-empting British multiculturalists in their industrial mission to de-Christianize Christmas. Little do these secularists realize that their blind multiculturalism actually creates stereotypes of minorities, thereby destroying community relations.
Dr Ataullah Siddiqui, vice chair of the Christian Muslim Forum, was accurate:
''Those who use the fact of religious pluralism as an excuse to de-Christianise British society unthinkingly become recruiting agents for the extreme Right.''
And more:
“They provoke antagonism towards Muslims and others by foisting on them an anti-Christian agenda they do not hold.”
Indian blogger S Ramakrishnan on multiculturalism:
''At least most non-Western religions (like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainsim, Zoarastrianism, Shintoism, or Confuscianism) and quite compatible with the modern way of life, from what history tells us....However the same cannot be said of Islam or Sikhism. Islam brings with it a dangerous and alien culture from the sands of Arabia.''
Read more here on the imperative of the West.
This is a good piece from John O'Sullivan:
''Immigrant groups, in particular Muslim immigrants, have a clear interest in multiculturalism since it is the justification for the government grants that go to Muslim organizations and for the creation of ''faith schools'' paid for by the taxpayers but run by mullahs. The second group is middle-class left-wing intellectuals who have a deep faith in cultural equality as the only basis for a decent society.''
Read the full writeup by clicking here.
Fahad Ansari has this to say:
The government’s latest arrow in its quiver of Islamophobia is what is supposed to be a community project for promotion of a more ‘moderate’, ‘peaceful’ version of “Islam”. <<read more>>
Do I need to say who finds peaceful Islam disturbing?
I happened to read, belatedly though, Conservative MP Paul Goodman's analysis of radical Islamism:
''Like communism and like fascism, those other modern ideologies, Islamism divides not on the basis of class or of race, but on the basis of religion. To this politician, it has three significant features. First, it separates the inhabitants of the dar-al-Islam - the house of Islam - and the dar-al-Harb - the house of war - and, according to Islamist ideology, those two houses are necessarily in conflict. Secondly, it proclaims to Muslims that their political loyalty lies not with the country that they live in, but with the umma - that is, the worldwide community of Muslims. Thirdly, it aims to bring the dar-al-Islam under sharia law.''
She needs no introduction. Melanie Phillips has said in clearest terms how Islamists are eating into the British way of life, without being challenged by those who want us to believe them that they are campaigning for civil liberties for all of us. Amir Taheri, author of Holy Terror, comments on Melanie Phillips's Londonistan:
"In this groundbreaking study, Melanie Phillips shows how Britain’s imperial policy of “benign neglect” towards radical Islamist groups in the 1980s and 1990s came close to malign complicity in the activities of some of the most determined terrorist organizations ever to emerge in Europe."
Londonistan is available from Amazon.co.uk
This weblog exists to track British Multiculturalism and its ideological ramifications insofar as they are emerging as a threat to British Way of Life.
