The real fight for racial and religious justice

Calling for a discussion about multiculturalism, he claimed it had segregated communities, and must be replaced by a programme of integration. In a statement he would later have to apologise for he infamously remarked, ‘we are sleep walking into segregation´. Every national media outlet covered the story, frightening middle England and empowering the British National Party to their greatest ever show at the polls.

Ultimately, Phillips lost the argument: In spite of his negative comments, two thirds of Briton’s thought that, ‘multiculturalism enriched our lives´. In terms of the nation, ´sleep walking into segregation’, the reports author Dr Mike Poulson was incandescent that Phillips had turned his positive analysis and conclusion upside down to propagate his spurious position.

Now, in what can only be described as an extraordinary move, the Prime Minister himself has weighed into the debate. Undermining his protégé Phillips, he sides with public opinion that multiculturalism should be applauded and celebrated, whilst continuing the erroneous theme that non-integration by Muslims equals extremism.

In his first major speech about race/religion/ extremism and British identity the Prime Minister made a number of powerful assertions that were not only contradictory, and confusing, but shockingly ignored the root causes of his central theme: the radicalisation of British Muslims. In doing so his proposals for a more integrated nation are fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the measures would only serve to dramatically undermine the genuine efforts by many of his ministerial departments and others to tackle race and religious inequalities.

He began his speech by highlighting why he thought Britain won the Olympic Bid:

‘When we won the Olympic Bid to host the 2012 Games, we presented a compelling, modern vision of Britain: country at ease with the different races, religions and cultures’.

Acknowledging the cultural, social and economical contribution migrants from all faiths and races have made he stated that, ‘Britain has greatly benefited by migration’. Quoting Phillips, he even suggests that for non-whites this is perhaps the best place to live in Europe.

This world beating integrated society he presents becomes at odds with his dramatic proposal to stop public funds to race and religious groups that cannot demonstrate they are furthering race and religious integration. It is clear though from his speech that the justification for this policy shift is the radicalisation of British Muslims particularly after the 7th July British born suicide bombers.

The lack of integration he suggest, has been caused by the nations over generosity to afford, ‘voluntary organizations public money to entrench their cultural presence´, concluding he argues, ‘Money was too often freely awarded to groups that were tightly bonded around religious, racial or ethnic identities’.

Let be clear about this, the confusion, contradiction and fundamental undermining about what is best in multicultural Britain, is being caused in no small measure because the Prime Minister is consumed with denial about the root causes of the radicalisation of British Muslims.

When we consider the ´War in Iraq’, politicised a generation of young people as never before, the overwhelming majority of whom were driven not by any personal involvement but rather by their social consciousness to confront an injustice war. What effect therefore, would it have on impressionable young Muslims who would not only feel the same common sense of injustice but also that their religious brothers and sisters were under attack from 21st century imperialism?

The Labour think tank Demos recently came to a similar conclusion stating , ‘The grievances that are felt in some parts of the Muslim community about foreign policy, and especially about Iraq, are pretty cogent and pretty convincing…’

As Tariq Ramadan and many others have argued, this acknowledgment in no way condones the barbarity of the 7^th July bombers, but it does help us to acutely understand how fanaticism can be fueled by injustice.

What is in fact extraordinary about the Prime Ministers position is that on the world stage he too clearly understands the concept of, ´cause and effect´. In powerful speech to world leaders at the Los Angeles World council Conference back in August, he told delegates that the arc of extremism which touched many countries and would not be defeated unless, ‘We re-appraise our strategy, unless we revitalise the broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine…’.

Given these sharp contradictions of what Blair states here and what he describes at home he’s forced to engage in a political ´slight of hand´ that articulates western foreign policy, excluding the UK, that fuels Muslim extremism, but over here the drivers are caused by domestic policy that pampers and panders to Muslim exclusion.

The most disingenuous part of Blair’s position is that the UK’s domestic vision, legislation, and now defunct enforcement body, CRE have ensured we became multicultural world beaters. Individuals such as Roy Jenkins, who he mentions in his speech, Ted Heath-who sacked the racist Enoch Powell-, Lord Pitt, Bernie Grant, Doreen and Neville Lawrence and many others who courageously fought to erase race inequalities. Facing down the bigotry of the day Jenkins populorised the term, ‘multiculturalism’. For him it celebrated diversity, whilst striving for equality of opportunity. This is what a nation understood and overwhelmingly believed had enriched our lives.

Blair´s attempt to take the focus away from tackling racial and religious inequality, fundamental to the spirit of multiculturalism, will not only undo all what has been achieved but will cause precisely what he seeks to avoid: segregated communities.

Given the close ties between The Prime Minister, Ruth Kelly and Trevor Phillips they will all be aware, that when it comes to social integration, -according to a CRE- report African, Asians, Caribbean’s, Muslims, Hindus and Sikh’s have more white indigenous friends than visa versa. If logic, therefore, led this debate the question about greater integration and voluntary sector funding would not be placed at the door of race and religious groups but rather to wider society.

Jenkins and others clearly understood that a well balanced integrated society stems from all communities being afforded basic equality of opportunity. Over the last thirty years we have made progress, but contrary to Blair´s assertion that disadvantage, ´usually has nothing to do with ethnicity’, every ministerial department would concede there is still and long way to go before racial and religious equality is achieved. We need look no further than yesterdays leaked damning education report that outlines a scandalous level of institutional racism within the educational system.

It is critical therefore, that the social consciousness of the nation that protested against the war now confronts the last days of the Blair regime that is unwilling or unable to confront its foreign policy demons. If left unchecked they will set us on a path of racial and religious disarray that could take a generation to put right.