The British Consensus: Divorcing Integration from Immigration

From the desk of James McConalogue on Wed, 2006-12-13 13:58

In Britain, the New Labour and Conservative Party have enjoyed a happy consensus on one major issue for far too long: the drive to divorce the problems of radical Muslim integration from the equally contentious threat of the current immigration wave.

On Friday 8th December, Blair informed radical Muslims that it was their “duty to integrate” into British society. He essentially declared that toleration was a component of the British way of life and that radical Muslims should conform to that way of life or simply not come to the country. Many of the press – and the Muslim Council of Britain – pessimistically speculated on the supposedly “radical” speech delivered by Blair. Yet, in all reality, it was nothing new. The New Labour party line, for some time, has held that radicals of all religions should learn to properly integrate.

Blair’s speech is nothing new – it is a confirmation of a statement that Labour MP, Shahid Malik made in early August: “whether your are white, Asian, black, Christian, Muslim or Jew, if you don’t like where you’re living you have two choices: either you live elsewhere, or you engage in the political process, attempt to create change and ultimately respect the will of the majority.” At that time, there was a concern that radical British Muslims were hoping to create a localised sharia (Islamic) law.

In 1604, King James I told the English Parliament two stories to convince the parliamentarians that the English and Scottish churches would not collide, and thus descend into civil war. The first story was that the churches of Scotland and England were united, in key principles, in religion. His second story was that for both churches, one needed to separate out the moderates from the extremists. It was thought that his tact on religious matters compared drastically with Charles’ subsequent reign, during which England eventually collapsed into the civil war of 1642. Thus, the political tactics of James have become very British manoeuvres.

Although just over four hundred years on, Tony Blair now stands on a very different political platform and before a very different parliament, the tactical religious interventions of Blair during the Muslim integration crisis could be said to be reminiscent of Anglo-Scottish control under James – gloss over religion and separate the moderates from the extremists.

However, in today’s context, rather than viewing Blair’s speech on integration as alarmist, it is recognizably New Labour, pro-multicultural and readily declares a bi-party parliamentary consensus on immigration issues. Blair delivered outstanding praise to Cameron’s Conservatives: “I think it is great that in British politics today no mainstream party plays the race card. It is not conceivable, in my view, that this leader of the Conservative Party would […] misuse the debate on immigration and that is both a tribute to him and the common culture of tolerance we have established in this country today.” I am anxious that the “common culture of tolerance” which Blair frequently refers to is in fact the same common culture of political consensus which is sweeping Europe.

By divorcing the problems of radical Muslim integration from the equally contentious issue of the current immigration wave, a major consensus is developing – between Labour and Conservatives – to silence a very real issue. Rather than stand for the central issue in which disintegrating societies are a growing consequence of their own mismeasured immigration policies, both Labour and Conservatives have chosen to opt out. (They then both wonder why the BNP may soon have their first MPs in parliament – largely because the latter seems to be the only British political party which holds a view on the relationship between immigration and integration of extremists).

So, given the Labour-Conservative consensus on the immigration and integration of extremists, what happens to parliamentarians who do have something to say about immigration?

The faithful loyalist party Tories will probably stay exactly where they are. However, those members that find that the Conservatives are establishing a consensus with New Labour ideology are now defecting to United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Before long, UKIP will become the official party of the Centre Right; and accordingly, Conservatives will be left with the meaningless rabble of agreeable puppets that have characterised the representatives of the New Labour party. The members and representatives of UKIP are free to talk about integration, immigration and express doubts on Europe if they so choose. Perfect beginnings of this exodus are now in sight.

Vice-president of the Bank of America, Mark Hudson, defected as president of a local Conservative association to UKIP, claiming: “The way Cameron has led the party means I can’t be a part of it, and there’s lots of people like me. He’s turned it into something indistinguishable from new Labour, so what’s the point?”

Mr. Hague’s former Conservative constituency chairman has defected to UKIP, arguing: “I didn’t leave the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party has left me […] It will become increasingly common. Most Conservatives are instinctively loyal, but there’s always a tipping point.”

Against the bi-party consensus on integration and the refusal to mention immigration, I can see the attraction that UKIP has for the exodus of independent Conservatives – as long as UKIP doesn’t suffer the poor management it has done in the past.

Integration is what is wanted- That is what you'll get- Al Queda

Submitted by Flanders Fields on Mon, 2006-12-18 21:04.

Twelve muslims from Norway, Australia and Great Britain are back at home after graduating from a 12 month training course conducted by Al Queda.  I wonder how much of that training consisted of utilizing other immigrants in conduct of missions?  The article is in Aftenposten and refers to a Newsweek article:

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1574273.ece

I'm certain they had lessons on successful intergration. It may be a question of whose lessons are most effective, Al Quedas or the governments.

@ Spinning Blair

Submitted by King_Cobra on Sat, 2006-12-16 16:14.

Blair and the Labour party do not exist for the benefit of the Country, they exist to obtain, retain and wield power.

Surely, it is the ultimate desire of any political party, irrelevant to which persuasion.

They are very aware that they are slipping future votes with regard to the ethnic question, something they are clearly worried about.

A good omen, we just need to keep the pressure on, to get them to change policies.

They have an anti-British/Western agenda, which should come as no surprise given that the majority of them are ex-marxists and communists.

Anti British/ Western agenda? Why is he then taking so much flack even at the expense of his own political career in going after Saddam and staying the course in Iraq?

As such, they actively seek to undermine the bourgeois /Christian /paternalist/capitalist society they so detest.

Blair is a practising Christian and didn’t he actually reform the old labour, even the conservatives inc Thatcher claims that he is a neo capitalist and more conservative then some tories.

They use immigrants and non-British culture to further this agenda, whilst simultaneously spinning vote catching lies to the gullible, middle ground, indigenous voters.

How are they doing this? They embarked on a ‘multicultural’ experiment, so did a lot of other countries, but have now seen the error of their ways and are trying to amend their erroneous ways, surely a good thing and all those interested in this should assist them in breaking away from this, rather then pushing them in a corner, and if they are testing the water, to get the support in making the quantum leap, then they will need all the help in order to muster up the courage to jump?

Do not be fooled by the man, he is not surrounded by an army of spin doctors and focus groups for nothing.

So is Cameron and all others, they are always surrounded by some kind of focus group or lobby. It is nothing new, however, it might even help them in changing course, as most of them are with their ears to the ground and have grass roots level feedback.

All we have to do is make a lot of noise.

Integration #2

Submitted by King_Cobra on Sat, 2006-12-16 15:49.

Here are a few points that I could bring to the debate as a starter;

British Culture & Shared Values

Heritage : Historic traditional

Language : English, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Cornish

Arts : Literature, Theatre, Music, Broadcasting and Visual Arts

Dress : Free – No Islamic dress in public (Hijab or Niqab)

Religion : Christianity, but free personal choice

Architecture : Free modern and European

Cuisine : British Free Choice

@ Integration ?

Submitted by King_Cobra on Sat, 2006-12-16 15:38.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE & NO OFFENCE INTENDED

Let me have all your views on this topic, I mean what do people see should be on that long list? or are some of you talking assimilation?

On another blog I was informed by a Muslim, regarding this subject, he said, that everyone accuses the Muslims of not partcipating in XMAS celebrations yet a lot of us do, he pointed out that a lot of people from the Jewish community don't either and no one picks on them, he even pointed out that a lot of Jewish people have asked for their children to be excused from 'School Assemblies' as they do not wish their children to sing hymns to Jesus and generally do not participate in most Christian events.

He pointed out that as far as the Jewish community were concerned, they contribute towards the Economic well being of this country and in all other ways, except along faith lines, his point being that even they were somewhat closed communities. They maintain their culture, traditions and hebrew language, just as the next person, so let us Muslims know what is it that you call integration?

I haven't got experience of this, so could the knowledgable amongst you kindly enlighten me, so I could have some nukes to bring him down with.

@ integration ?

Submitted by logicalman on Sun, 2006-12-17 05:52.

Using celebration of XMAS or not as an example of integgration or not is actually a bad example. Those who know the true origin of XMAS don't celebrate it. Yet that doesn't hurt anyone but the greedy merchants. Additionally not celebrating XMAS is a facet of being truthful to children and to oneself and to others, because most people know Jesus was not born in December, and Saturnalia is a pagan holiday - now called xmas because of some unholy wisdom of some pope.

Integration means obeying the law of the land, and treat everyone with decency and fairness. Muslims only obey Sharia, terrorize and behead people as if they were just animals. They seem to have no conscience but Mohammed's. Animals don't usually kill animals of same species. Muslims would kill infidels, any infidel, when opportunity arises.

@logicalman

Submitted by King_Cobra on Sun, 2006-12-17 07:55.

That is the technical argument, and wasn't what we were arguing about and the last thing I want to do is to add more confusion to the deabte with the Muslims, the topical theme was the recent issues currently in the British Media about some ethnic minorities had objected to join in the traditional xmas festivities, including putting up decorations etc. The finger of blame had somehow been pointed to the Muslims and that being the crux of the debate, when I was hit by the jewish angle and that they abstained from school assemblies, so that their children wouldn't sing hymns to Jesus.

Oiznop, Blair never said

Submitted by Anna L on Sat, 2006-12-16 00:14.

Oiznop, Blair never said "radical Muslims"; that's only the phrasing of the post. Perhaps you should read the article itself.

Londinistan

Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Wed, 2006-12-13 19:10.

I was in London last week and must have counted at least 5 burkas.  They don't wear the Afgani blue kind they look more pakistani and are in several pieces.  OK, as bad as Holland might be London is clearly far, far worse with integration issues.

Burkas to the left of us, burkas to the right....

Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-12-13 19:33.

We see a lot of head to toe full veils in our local shopping centre - though they're not burkas. There are a lot of VERY rich Arabs living up the road near Prince Edward's little pied-a-terre, and the wimmen go shopping in little black flocks. I suppose in a spooky way it might make us less vulnerable to bombs. We had a couple of those round here when the Provos were turning up the heat.

Spinning Blair

Submitted by Paul Weston on Wed, 2006-12-13 17:28.

Blair and the Labour party do not exist for the benefit of the Country, they exist to obtain, retain and wield power.

 

They are very aware that they are slipping future votes with regard to the ethnic question, something they are clearly worried about.

 

They have an anti-British/Western agenda, which should come as no surprise given that the majority of them are ex-marxists and communists.

 

As such, they actively seek to undermine the bourgeois/christian/paternalist/capitalist society they so detest.

 

They use immigrants and non-British culture to further this agenda, whilst simultaneously spinning vote catching lies to the gullible, middle ground, indigenous voters.

 

Do not be fooled by the man, he is not surrounded by an army of spin doctors and focus groups for nothing.

Blair makes a move in the right direction

Submitted by Zen Master on Wed, 2006-12-13 16:57.

It is encouraging to see the British make a move toward a more common sense view on immigration. For too long, they have allowed large numbers of people to immigrate, take welfare money, never work, raise large families, and be a burden on the taxpayers. Many of them never learn English.  I hope they continue to deport the worst of the criminal immigrants, but taking less time to do so.

Immigrants should not expect to move to a ‘host country,’ and never assimilate into society. It would be good if the government set immigration standards to avoid later problems. This is good news.

Sounds like an invitation!!!....

Submitted by oiznop on Wed, 2006-12-13 16:47.

Blair informed radical Muslims that it was their “duty to integrate” into British society. He essentially declared that toleration was a component of the British way of life and that radical Muslims should conform to that way of life or simply not come to the country.

An invitation to Radical Muslims to come to the UK and reak havoc on the infidel, if you ask me!...Why would you want RADICAL Muslims to conform to anything that is your countries way of life???...It would be like talking to a brick wall..Oh how I pray for Britain, EU, and the US, for they know not what they do!......