Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Douglas Murray

CAMERON’S MULTICULTURALISM WAKE-UP CALL

In: The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, February 9th, 2011, page 12

“Multiculturalism has failed,” said David Cameron last weekend in


Munich. If anybody thought they had read those words before, it is because they
have. Many times. Last October German Chancellor Angela Merkel (sitting
onstage with Prime Minister Cameron when he gave his speech on Saturday)
pronounced a similar epitaph. Finally even Europe’s mainstream party leaders
seem too be realizing what others have long seen: that multiculturalism has been
the most pernicious and divisive policy pursued by Western governments since
World War II.
Multiculturalism is a deeply misunderstood idea. That was one of the
reasons for its political success. At the heart of that success was the fact that
people were led to believe that “multiculturalism” meant multi-racialism , or
pluralism. I did not. Nevertheless, for years anybody who criticized
multiculturalism was immediately decried as a “racist”. As a silencing tactic it
proved devastatingly effective.
But the true character and effects of the policy could not be permanently
hidden. State-sponsored multiculturalism treated European countries like
hostelries – and pretty open ones at that. It judged that the state should not
“impose” rules and values on new-comers. Rather, it should bend over
backwards to accommodate the demands of immigrants. The resultant policy
was that states treated and judged people by the criteria of whatever
”community” they found themselves born into.
In Britain, for instance, this meant that if you were a white English girl
born into a white English family and your family decided to marry you against
your will to a randy old pervert, the state would intervene. But if you had the
misfortune to be born into an “Asian-background” family and the same
happened, then the state would look the other way. “That’s what these people
do, don’t you know? It’s their custom.”
In 1984 a British school principal in Bradford called Ray Honeyford
politely suggested in an article in the Salisbury Review that it might be a good
idea if students at his state-funded school were able to speak English and did not
disappear to Pakistan for months at the time. The result was a siren of
accusations of “racism”, which willfully ignored his arguments and precipitated
the end of his career.
The multicultural model may have continued a lot longer if it hadn’t been
for radical Islam. The terrorist assaults and plots across Britain and the
Continent – often from home-grown extremists – finally provided a breaking-
point that few sentient people could ignore. The question now is what can be
done. The elegies should be for a failed policy. But if they are not followed up
with action, they will be eulogies of a failed society.
In his speech in Munich, Mr. Cameron rightly focused on the problem of
home-grown Islamic extremism of the violent and non-violent kind. He stressed
several preliminary steps – among them that groups whose values are opposed to
those of the state will no longer bestowed with taxpayer money. It is a symptom
of how low we have sunk that ceasing to fund our societies’ opponents would
constitute an improvement.
But this is a first, not a final policy. The fact is that Britain, Germany,
Holland and many other European countries have nurtured more than one
generation of citizens who seem to feel no loyalty toward their country and who,
on the contrary, often seem do despise it. Reversing this will require political
guts.
The way forward is two-pronged. The first is that from school-age upward
our society must reassert a shared national narrative – including a common
national culture. Some years ago the German Muslim writer Bassam Tibi coined
the term “Leitkultur” – core culture – to describe this. It is the most decent and
properly liberal antidote to multiculturalism. It concedes that in societies that
have had high immigration there are all sorts of different cultures and ideas that
can contribute to a society, but it will only work if they are united under a
common theme.
The second solution will be harder to enact because many people will
portray it negatively. The Muslim communities that Mr. Cameron focused on
will not reform themselves. The response of just about every allegedly
“moderate” Muslim group in Britain to the prime minister’s speech was to
angrily deny his claims and then change the subject. This means the British
government will have to step in to provide clear guideline as to what our society
will and will not accept.
It will have to shut down and prosecute terrorist and extremist
organizations, and charities. There are groups that are banned in the U.S. but can
do still operate with charitable status in the U.K. Clerics and other individuals
who come from abroad to preach hate and division should be deported –
whether Strasbourg approves or not. Meanwhile, organizations and individuals
who work actively against the state should be prosecuted. Sedition and treason
against Britain has practically been encouraged in recent years. This will have to
change.
Will David Cameron managed to do any of this? There is reason to be
skeptical. In the wake of the 2005 tube and bus bombings in London – attacks
carried out by British-born Muslims – Tony Blair announced that “the rules of
the game are changing.” They proceeded to stay exactly the same.
It is possible that Mr. Cameron will show more political courage. If he does
he will undoubtedly be lambasted by the defenders of multiculturalism. He will
also become a leader of significance. If he doesn’t, then future generations may
well associate him with Munich. But it will not be for Saturday’s speech; it will
be with a previous prime minister who also went to that city and who returned
with an honor that proved deeply temporary.

Mr. Murray is the director of London’s Center for Social Cohesion.


`

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen