The Channel 4 programme the other day called What Muslims Want raised a number of important issues. The presenter Jon Snow showed evidence that Muslims are not, as I had hoped, assimilating and in fact the process may be going backwards. If so, that means Muslims are unlike any other major immigrant group in Britain: Blacks, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Huguenots, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. have all become intermingled and inter-marriage is increasingly common. Not so for the Muslims. Snow also made the rather interesting distinction that most alienated Muslims in Britain are not ‘extremists’ so much as ‘separatists’: they simply want to live a separate Islamic life that draws little from British society. His argument on this was quite well made but it is also quite incorrect as I will soon explain.
Snow pointed out that there is considerable diversity of opinion amongst Muslims in Britain but there are a small number of key issues in which there is a very considerable Muslim consensus indeed, namely that of opposition to any British foreign policy that involved force being used against Muslims anywhere, opposition to free speech and opposition to common social liberalism (particularly issues relating to sexuality).
The first is an issue which should properly lie within the purview of democratic politics: at some point in the future Muslims may be able to find enough non-Muslims to support their apparently widely held views on foreign policy matters, though in truth I have my doubts. Nevertheless it is by no means impossible that British policies could one day be more to their liking. The second and third however are quite different matters. It is intolerable that any attempt even be attempted to find ‘middle ground’ on free speech and social liberalism because there can be no middle ground. Muslims say that people should ‘respect’ each other, which is clearly both a lie as that suggest they too are willing to ‘respect’ values they clearly oppose, and in any case the whole notion of respecting things you oppose is arrant nonsense. Tolerate, perhaps, but respect? No. One of the issues that seems to have a very broad basis of support, according to Jon Snow at least, is a spectacular lack of respect for people exercising social liberal values.
Now I have no problem with Muslims refusing to respect homosexuals, adulterers, women in short skirts or whatever else, because speaking personally I neither want not expect Muslim respect. I insist on their tolerance but their respect, or lack thereof, means less than nothing to me. As long as they do not try to stop women with short skirts walking down the street, or throw rocks at homosexuals and adulterers, I really do not care what they think.
But this is also where Jon Snow is incorrect to describe them as ‘separatists’. If all Muslims in Britain wanted was to live in ghettos where Muslim social norms are accepted, well I really think that is a ‘manageable’ problem. However it seems that what they also want is to prevent me, by law, from poking fun at their religion and demonstrating just how much I do not respect the things they hold dear. They insist I tolerate their beliefs, which I regard as deeply offensive barbarism based on superstitious nonsense, yet will not tolerate my belief in the unlimited nature of civil free expression, because they find what I will say offensive. They are not ‘separatists’ because they want their prohibitions on poking fun at Mohammad to also apply to me. There ain’t nothing ‘separate’ about that.
And so when Jon Snow suggests this issue is what may lead to violence and inter-communal strife, he is no doubt correct. And that may well be a process we need to go through. If the majority of the Islamic community in Britain truly does think that, they must not be accommodated, they must be utterly denied without apology and their repressive aspirations condemned.
Tolerance they get (for now), but it needs to be made clear that Muslim sensibilities do not trump secular values and they do not get a veto on what gets said about them or the things they value. They are free to respond in kind. However if that leads to violence by some extremists, well, so be it. They can say what they like about my values, I do not care and I suggest they take a similar attitude because I intend to say what I like about their values and any politician who tried to pander to them to prevent that from happening is someone to be implacably opposed.
Very nicely put. Thank you.
Absolutely. Well said comrade.
I was gonna say that was a very nicely argued piece except a coupla folks got in before me…
I was an undergrad in Nottingham in the early 90s. At the time there was much media coverage in the East Midlands of gangs of muslim vigilantes roaming the streets of Derby and beating up female University of Derby students for coming back from bars and clubs in “revealing” clothes. A local “community leader” described it as “just clearing the streets of whores”. I seem to recall that Peter Sutcliffe had a similar line of argument.
There can be no accomadation with this. 19 year olds on a night on the raz aren’t gonna wear burkhas. I would perhaps have more time for the Islamics call for “respect and tolerance” if they displayed the same towards the rest of society.
This seems to be a pertinent example for some sort of immigration reform. I’m basically pro-immigration, but the subtext for this stance is that of assimilation of individuals into the prevailing culture. While that culture is subject to change over time (re Hayek) it also serves as a common basis for relations amongst peoples who may come from various disparate backgrounds.
Groups that seel some sort of separation from society may be welcome, i.e. the Amish don’t take part in basic US society, but the important point is that the Amish and other “separatisti” groups don’t go out of their way to make others respect, or adhere, to their particular viewpoints. If enough individuals hold themselves to be members of a special group, separate from the prevailing culture, and then demand special legal privileges, special cultural consideration, and legal denial of other’s rights, they aren’t immigrants, they’re invaders.
But the fact is they will get what they want once their communty becomes big enough and since you don’t believe in border control you can’t stop them. Quite a dilemma.
Well I dont care who said it before
but that was as succinctly put as I could have done in a month of sundays!
Nick M! My old almer mata. But a different generation.
Did you freeze to death and go wide eyed to the Goose Fair too?
Nowadays you get shot coming home, of course.
Funnily(ah, or not, as the case may be) Nottingham was the only place I have ever been physically attacked in the street for no reason at all. Twice.
Still, thats another story or even thread.
Yes, I agree absolutely, but what is to be done, and who does it? There is no middle ground. I re-watched the programme, and it transpires that 78% of muslims polled, believe that there have to be limits to free speech and that anyone who insults their religion must be punished. This nullifies the idea that there are moderate muslims and fundamentalist muslims. “Insulting” is an infinitely elastic term, and one bloke interviewed said that insulting any of the prophets, including Jesus, should be punishable, (I don’t think me meant community service).
Because there is no middle ground, that leaves two mutually exclusive options:
(a) we comply, and severely curtail our own expression. As time goes by, it is certain that the scope of “insulting” their religion will be continuously expanded and what freedom we have left continuously diminished.
(b) We carry on exercising our freedom of expression, knowing that there will inevitably be a Theo van Gogh moment, probably the first of many.
At the moment we are being polite in our British way and hoping it will all blow over. Something will turn up; it’ll be alright in the end if we just wait. But it won’t and it won’t.
This is the enemy within. It is an urgent necessity that we do something, and the only thing I can think of is to do everything we can to undermine, discredit, sow scepticism, spread the truth about Islam any way possible.
But I feel that blogging and commenting in certain ways perpetuate the problem. We are relieved at finding that others feel the same way as us. It reassures us, takes the edge off our anxiety. Then we can go on our way again, like the traditional British, Les Dawson conversation between ladies in curlers. “Have you heard about X?” “Ooh, yes, isn’t it terrible. Blah blah blah blah. Tut tut. Aah well, what can you do? See you tomorrow”.
And so when Jon Snow suggests this issue is what may lead to violence and inter-communal strife, he is no doubt correct. And that may well be a process we need to go through.
There is no “may” about it. It is inevitable. The sooner the better.
This seems to be a pertinent example for some sort of immigration reform.
Horses and stable doors come to mind.
As a long-time resident of a city in the UK Midlands, may I add my anecdotal evidence?
My adopted city has had a substantial number of South Asian people living here for decades with, in general, little strife between communities. Jews are little more visible here than Huguenots, but no doubt there are some. Caribbean and Eastern European families also feature in the population, having first settled in the middle years of the 20th Century and assimilated well with the aboriginal Britons (if such creatures exist). So far, so hoopy.
However, in recent years two trends have appeared. The first is the burgeoning number of new immigrants of many new nationalities, from the Baltic to the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. The second is a growing assertion of separate cultural identity among the South Asian communities, not just Muslim but Sikh and Hindu too. In particular, the number of women wearing garments from the hijab to the burka has noticeably increased.
In years past, English was the dominant language used in public even amongst those with origins outside the UK. Most of the conversations that I overhear in the streets now are not in English, especially in the city centre . This alone has the potential to foster separatism and alienation between the different national, faith and ethnic communities.
Currently there seems to be little counter-impetus or incentive to integrate with the established British population, let alone to assimilate. This may be irrational, but I fear that ‘community relations’ may become very messy, very soon.
What’s a good libertarian to do?
Part of the problem is understanding what is meant by the concept ‘respect’.
Many years ago down the pub (in Streatham, which may explain a lot) I told some mates that I had an obligation to respect others right to hold any belief they wished, regardless of how silly. However, I was under no obligation to respect the silly beliefs they held.
This led to blank looks and head scratching as they tried to work out the logic behind this.
To me, and I suspect most people who post or comment here, this is obvious, but there are a hell of a lot out there who don’t get it.
I suspect, Chris Harper, that’s because “respect” has changed its meaning almost entirely. Maybe South London led the trend. In common usage now (and as used by Blair & Co) it means fawning compliance with the arbitrary demands of others.
Perry’s post is very acute.
I’m just worried about “they” and “them”, which so readily changes its meaning from “some Muslims” to “all Muslims”. That sort of collective characterisation was inherent in the title of the Snow film, but whatever else it demonstrates it is that not all Muslims have the same social beliefs, even on questions where they are very heavily on one side or the other. What a minority, or even a majority, of Muslims want, doesn’t tell you what any particular Muslim wants. You have to ask him or her.
There is a chasm between the two types of approaches to social life who are now in opposition as the West confronts Islam. We have seen it before, many times, in other guises, but each time the main point of contention has been the same.
The Western mind, the anglospheric mind, demands a code of conduct, but does not require a code of belief.
The Islamic mind, as many other religious and totalitarian political movements have in the past, requires uniformity of belief, but, among believers, allows almost any conduct if it is seen as being in support of the faith.
There is a scene in “Zhivago” when the partisan commander is arguing with the political officer about whether Yuri should be allowed to leave. The political commisar makes the point that, as the military struggle winds down, everyone will be judged politically, i.e., as to their conformity to party doctrine, and their military record will no longer matter.
In the Islamic world, even blowing up a soccer field full of children is acceptable if it was done for “jihad”. (This happened just the other day, killing a dozen or more. All the usually reliable Aunt Pitty-Pats around the world yawned and looked the other way.)
As Perry relates, it is now politically correct to demand that everyone respect the sensitivities of Muslims, but culturally insensitive to demand any reciprocity on Islam’s part toward Western culture and beliefs.
It may very well be that there is no possiblity of any ongoing co-existence of these two mindsets, except in an uneasy truce brought about by mutual fear, as in the Cold War between the West and the most recent totalitarian mindset it confronted, marxist ideology.
At this point, I’m afraid I see very little difference between the extreme theocratic fascism of fundamental Islam and the totalitarian ideologies Western liberal culture has engaged and defeated over the past few centuries.
Our major weakness in the current confrontation seems to be our own reluctance to accept our culture as superior and valuable, and an equal reluctance to make any “ishy” negative judgements about an adversary which does not seem to be suffering from those self-imposed limitations.
It would appear that we are approaching a juncture at which time everyone will be forced by circumstance to choose a side. Ambivalence, self doubt, and moral equivalence will no longer be possible.
Somewhere, even as we discuss these issues, there is a Churchill, a Welesa, a Havel, a Roosevelt, a person who can see through the fog of uncertainty and fear, and articulate the path to survival. I so long to hear that voice.
The Muslims almost have a colonial mindset. They appear like C19th Christians in China – interfering and condemning local customs and practices as barabaric, yet wanting to be totally separate and above critcism and local law. Not an exact parallel, I know.
The issue is one of the mindset. Muslims believe utterly in the correctness, sanctity and divine right of their religion. I think this is at the core and until there is a realisation that the divine authorship of the Koran is a personal belief and not a universal truth, then we will continue to have problems.
Last year, i attended a mandatory Diversity meeting at my company (i tried to get one of Perry’s “celebrating diversity” T-shirts but they wouldnt deliver to the UK, but anyway). We were told by the (very authoritarian) speaker that we had to “respect” each other’s race, physical features, sex, sexual preference and religion.
Why, i asked, did i have to “respect” everyone’s religion when this, unlike the other categories, is a matter of choice. Why must i “respect” a religion that places misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism and an intolerance of free religious worship at its core?
Why, in fact, must i even “tolerate” it?
Not a dilemma at all. Here is where I put myself ‘beyond the pale’ with some people… social mechanisms are the NATURAL defence against people who do not assimilate. Inter-marriage and economic participation are the NATURAL rewards for people who do. The evidence that Black people are now well and truly ‘British’ is the high levels of inter-marriage.
But although the state does not force individuals to marry others against their will, it does indeed force the owners of the means of production to rent houses to, and offer jobs to, un-assimilated people. In short, it prevent discrimination. And I would argue that although blanket discrimination against a person on the grounds of their race or ethnicity is usually a bad thing, sometimes discrimination on the basis of a person’s culture can be a good thing.
If I woman walked into my office in a veil and asks for a job, clearly she has not assimilated and I frankly I would rather not hire her, which of course can get me in trouble with the authorities for “discrimination”. Yet it is discrimination that is the natural pressure that entourages assimilation.
I feel a blog article coming on…
Respecting something is not the same as accepting it.
Respect connotates giving someone or an idea the right to existance. Acceptance is a personal choice of approval of that said person or idea.
For example, if someone chooses to be a Muslim I repect their choice of faith, however; I do not have to accept their belief system. Similarly, society respects the rights of homosexuals without necessarily giving acceptance.
The question that I feel needs to be asked here is: Can or should a Civilization give respect to a Religion or Ideology that at its core desires the destruction of that said Civilization?
This talk is all very well.
What are we ordinary natives supposed to do when the organs of the State are, through mandatory ‘diversity and equality’ policies and indoctrination, actively participating in the destruction of the society they exist to protect? I am thinking especially of the example of the appointment of a Mr Mockbul Ali, a suspected agent of influence for the Muslim Brotherhood, to the FCO.
As an ordinary Englishman, I consider both him and those who employ him to be traitors to their country.
No, you are confusing respect with tolerance. You cannot respect something you find vile (for example I find a woman wearing a veil or burqua horrible but I am willing to tolerate it. However I do not respect any woman who made the decision to wear it). I am willing to tolerate many things that I do not respect.
On the plus side. This was a CHANNEL 4 documentary, fronted by Jon Snow and it didn’t pull any punches, it didn’t try and downplay the significance of the divide or the importance of free speech to the British. There is a very real problem here, that a number of people have been discussing since 2001, but on Monday it was articulated clearly and accurately by one of major UK mainstream liberal channels. Presented by their most recognisable news anchor. There was no sweeping issues under the carpet. This has got to be good news for our society with regard to facing up to the problem. Wider public awareness offers the best chance of society standing up to the pressure if it comes to violence, instead of capitulating through ignorance and a desire for peace. More like this please.
You might be free to say what you want on the internet(for the time being) but you cannot say criticial things of Islam on the street without facing arrest and prosecution.
Surely it is now time to revoke citizenship of all Muslims in the UK and make them mere guest workers.We also need to limit them to one child per family with possible enforced sterilisation.They are a self replicating cancer that can no longer go unchecked.
JayN, quite so. Although I disagreed with some of Snow’s conclusions, it was indeed a good programme and the people behind it should be commended.
I do not think we really need to become Nazis (which is your approach would make us) to solve this problem.
Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary defines respect: 14. to show regard or consiceration for- to respect someone’s rights. 15. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with; to respect a person’s privacy.
I dont mean to start an argument over semantics here, I agree totally with your position Perry. I am using respect as in “respect for human rights”, respecting ones rights to privacy….we dont speak of tolerating human rights or tolerating the right to privacy.
Tolerance is a personal choice in my opinion just as is acceptance.
Quite so.
Laws should not be passed to enforce the preferences of any group of people, or to limit freedom of speech on grounds of “respecting” any group (religious, racial or whatever).
Nor should people be forced to trade with or otherwise interact with people they do not wish to (whether these are men or women, black or white, Christian or Muslim, straight or gay – or whatever).
If Muslims wish to leave partially seperated lives let them do so.
For example, only an hour ago I finally got “Sky” television, this is partly because I can not stand the B.B.C. (or the “alternatives” that exist in Britian) and wish to watch Fox news (dumb though it is – at least it does not make me feel sick). However, (sadly) I still have to pay a television tax to the B.B.C.
If Muslims do not wish to see things that offend them – they should not watch the T.V. stations that broadcast them (or buy the newspapers that print them).
Indeed I would not object if Muslims wish to live TOTALLY seperated lives.
After all the Amish in the United States do no harm.
The only objection is when Muslims (or anyone else) try and impose their desires on other people by the threat of violence (either via laws, or by mob violence).
please use this linkhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/respect/
It explains fully the complexity of Respect. Recommended reading!
please use this Link
Sorry I had to do it by hand and misunderstood the first time.
Yes, that that is exactly what will NOT do. I have no regard for Islamic social norms, I am just willing to tolerate their existance.
ok. That’s a personal subjective view of yours that I respect and accept.
Your semantic argument is weak. Tolerance, acceptance and respect are not synonyms. They all have shades of meaning. Tolerance does not indicate acceptance or respect (though it does not preclude it), mearly a willingness not to take action to prevent something.
Perry please look at the link I posted……the philosophical discussion about the concept of Respect is generally linked to Emmanuel Kant.
In the German language Akzeptieren and Respektieren have more clearly defined meanings probably due to Kants influence.
Simply put, respect can contain a subjective or objective meaning, however; when applied to human rights and mandated anti-discriminatory Laws the word takes its objective meaning. Respect in that form means that I don’t rip off your Burka and beat you up or spit on you, even though I might loathe seeing it and despise the person. Tolerance implies that because of socially accepted behaviour I restrain my actions out of respect (see 15 from Websters)
Imagine if the Police or State only tolerated our rights rather than respecting them.
I really like your article and agree with you and I probably should not have opened a philosophical discussion that has been going on for hundreds of years, although conclusions have been arrived at.
The way I have used the words, which is also how most people not in the Human Right Industry use them, is clear. if Websters thinks tolerance implies respect, well, I simply disagree and think they are wrong. That is not how it is used in English generally.
“… social mechanisms are the NATURAL defence against people who do not assimilate. Inter-marriage and economic participation are the NATURAL rewards for people who do. The evidence that Black people are now well and truly ‘British’ is the high levels of inter-marriage.”
Two teensy pointettes. On the ‘natural rewards’ – I’m not sure that a good Muslim would consider a marriage to a native a ‘reward’ unless conversion was involved. In fact it might be a death sentence …
On ‘high levels of inter-marriage’ between ‘Black’ and others – do you have any evidence for this ? I believe a large proportion of black males are in mixed relationships, but the same does not apply to black females. Rather than evidence of integration, this is surely a reflection of power relationships at street level. After all, many white (male) administrators of Empire had black or Asian mistresses – but I wouldn’t have drawn from that the conclusion that Brits and natives were integrated.
“…opposition to any British foreign policy that involved force being used against Muslims anywhere…”
When Muslims always take the Muslim side in any conflict, no matter what the facts, even if the Muslim side (as in the Sudan) is genocidal, those Muslims show themselves to be enemies of civil society.
Couple of points: Christopher, you have touched on an aspect I have also touched on in a different way in another thread – the issue of if an Islamist is to be accepted at all due to their blatant intention to limit basic freedoms.
Paul Marks: I agree that companies and individuals should be free to not deal with or even employ others if they so wish. In a corporation you need to stop individual workers implementing their own agenda against the wishes of the owners. Thus, you could say it is not for the State to impose and police anti-discrimination rules, but the owners. Exit one massive industry and enter in its place…higher efficiency.
Interestingly enough, America and Great Britain have almost identical percentages of Muslim followers. Yet, the support for beheadings and other such unthinkable nonsense is almost non-existent in American Islam. Yet, America has a population that is much more openly belligerent towards Islam.
– Josh
I’m afraid if you don’t stand your ground, you will
be living under sharia sooner than you think.
Please don’t let that happen.