From the Independent, published 28 November 2006
It is claimed that community
relations are deteriorating. Far from it.
Multiculturalism
versus its opponents is simply one manifestation of the age-long struggle
between liberty and its opponents. It is not about personal
differences of opinion but between the values of an open and a closed society.
The
principles on which multiculturalism rests are not new. The foundations of
liberalism and multiculturalism were outlined with great clarity in what
is justifiably the most famous political essay in British history, John Stuart
Mill's On Liberty. In Mill's original formulation: "The sole end for
which mankind are warranted ... in interfering with the liberty of action
of any of their number is self-protection ... the only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a ... community, against
his will, is to prevent harm to others." This, the classic formulation
of liberalism, is, of course, what is frequently paraphrased as, 'You should
be able to do anything you want provided it does not interfere with others'.
Its
basis is simple. Every individual who exists is unique, and wishes to pursue
their life in a different way. The individual must be able to choose
for themselves. Those who oppose "multiculturalism" - that is,
the right to pursue different cultural values subject only to the restriction
that they should not interfere with the similar right for others - are merely
playing the same roles as those who previously thought Protestants should
be prohibited from practising their religion in Catholic countries, that
Jews were not entitled to vote, and atheists should not be allowed to be
MPs. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with an assertion that there are
no universal values. The very statement that people should be able to do
only such things that do not interfere with others is clearly an assertion
of a universal value. It merely states that insofar as they do not interfere
with others, people should be able to choose freely which values they wish
to pursue and they may not have these imposed on them. A person, for example,
may wish to wear a yarmulke, a turban or a hijab or none - they are free
to choose.
What is prohibited is one group or person imposing their will on
others. The endorsement by Christian churches of slavery was a barbaric infringement
of the rights of others, regardless of whether its acceptance was a "cultural
norm" - as it was. Female genital mutilation is another such imposed
act of violence and equally should not be tolerated. Multiculturalism merely
asserts that the right of a person to live their life as they wish includes
the cultural dimension. If they wish to live in the most (supposed) classically
of "English" styles - tea at 4pm, eating fish and chips or going
to an English pub - they should be able to do so. Likewise if they want to
live a more Jamaican lifestyle or to organise their life more around Buddhism
or Judaism.
Currently, it is claimed that community relations in Britain are
deteriorating and that there is an increasing polarisation in society threatening
our safety
- therefore the classic values of liberalism and multiculturalism should
be abandoned. It is striking that those who participate in this campaign
are forced to falsify their evidence, invariably a sign that an argument
is not merely wrong but intellectually disreputable. For example, the claim
that we are "sleepwalking into segregation". Or the approach reflected
in the CRE's conference this week, including sessions such as "Rivers
of Blood: Did Enoch Powell get it right?"
A recent study by Dr Ludi Simpson
from the University of Manchester found that British society is becoming
more mixed, not more segregated, with the
number of mixed neighbourhoods increasing from 864 to 1,070 in the decade
to 2001. Far from ethnic groups becoming more separate, there is more mixing
today than there ever been. According to Dr Simpson, inter-ethnic couples
and children of mixed ethnic parentage have risen 20 per cent in 10 years,
and there are four times more children than adults of mixed ethnicity.
The
2001 census shows that it is non-white residents, such as Indians, Caribbeans,
Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who are on balance leaving inner cities rather
than moving into or staying in them. In other words, what is taking place
is dispersal of ethnic groups - the opposite of segregation. And in London,
racist attacks have declined by almost 40 per cent in six years.
This multicultural
approach has helped make London astonishingly economically successful - it
is by far the most international city in the world, beating
even New York as the world's most important international financial centre.
Even more importantly, multiculturalism has made London a diverse city with
the greatest range of individual choice on earth.
Published here.