Tories attack ‘community leaders’
I like Dominic Grieve – he’s a nice guy. In fact I’ve seen him at so many Asian events that you almost forget he’s a Tory MP. In a speech today he will say:
Mr Grieve will refer to “a decade of courting self-appointed heads of minority groups and pandering to special interest lobbies, ignoring the range of opinions and depth of diversity in modern Britain.” He will then argue that this approach allows “negative cultural imports”, such as forced marriage, into British society because of a misplaced commitment to “cultural sensitivity”.
“Indeed the reluctance to exercise reasonable judgment and to criticise or challenge negative cultural imports into our country, including discriminatory practices against women and corrupt political and electoral practices, is one of the most troubling consequences of a culture that wishes to avoid offence and accusations of racism,” he will say. The speech will also contain references to ‘political correctness’, which Mr Grieve describes as an overly-strict set of cultural rules. “Greater diversity within our society must be recognised and applauded,” he will say.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But then, bringing up forced marriages is too easy. I’m hard-pressed to think how the Tories could improve the situation without more laws or taking a more draconian approach. I suppose they could criminalise forced marriages themselves (which I favour) but then many groups like Southall Black Sisters don’t. I have no problem with governments ignoring self-appointed ‘community leaders’.
What does concern me however is that frequently the Conservatives create policies not because they care about the people in duress but because they want to limit immigration. So for example, when I recently debated a Tory MP in a BBC News discussion about foreign women who faced sexual exploitation and trafficking into the UK, I said what the government should think about is making it easier for them to get help when they face abuse. Her response was: well, we should limit immigration then it would solve the problem. They have a one-track mind. No wonder they haven’t been elected for three terms.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Party politics,Race politics
I thought that forced marriage is now a specific criminal offence. But maybe I am wrong.
You are right though in that it is very difficult to craft policies to deal with issues like forced marriage. And some Conservatives do see the issue through the lens of anti-immigrant feeling.
The Tories have more or less picked up PP talking points. They don’t always get them right, but they’re pointing in roughly the correct direction.
This is largely a Cameron thing, btw. No guarantee it will outlast him.
More guff
“Mr Grieve will refer to “a decade of courting self-appointed heads of minority groups and pandering to special interest lobbies,”
Can Mr Grieve (great name for a moaning Tory BTW) or those who agree with him give any examples of this ?
The Tories of course never pander to special interest lobbies like business etc
” He will then argue that this approach allows “negative cultural importsâ€, such as forced marriage, into British society because of a misplaced commitment to “cultural sensitivityâ€. ”
So which “community leaders” have advocated or not criticised forced marriage? This is a false argument
“Indeed the reluctance to exercise reasonable judgment and to criticise or challenge negative cultural imports into our country, including discriminatory practices against women”
The Tories opposed legislation giving more rights to women (oh wait they had a woman PM). He might have forgot how Jack Straw went after the bigot vote hes fishing for by attacking the face veil.
“and corrupt political and electoral practices, is one of the most troubling consequences of a culture that wishes to avoid offence and accusations of racism,â€
The implication of course being its only the darkies involved in dodgy political/ electoral practices. This is hilarious coming from a Tory. Anyone remember the Major govt of 92-97? Or even nowadays
“The speech will also contain references to ‘political correctness’, which Mr Grieve describes as an overly-strict set of cultural rules. “Greater diversity within our society must be recognised and applauded,†he will say.”
Doesnt this contradict what he said earlier?
Etonians are community leaders of a sort, they are certainly self-appointed heads of minority groups. Come, come now, you are always attacking them aren’t you Sunny?
And some Conservatives do see the issue through the lens of anti-immigrant feeling.
The operative word being ‘some’.
I don’t see the need for the dig at community leaders. What do you want us to have, black only elections so we can “elect” our community leaders?
A lot of these people take the effort to go about raising issues and working with issues, if someone else thinkgs they can do a better job they are welcome to try. What I think is unacceptable is those who don’t even bother to add feedback into a process or organisation yet they’ll critisize them and the work they do.
As for being sensitive to the needs of communities, i think it’s helped bring people together. Try enforcing a single image upon everyone and see how successful you are.
Despite thier constant f**k ups, I still see Labour as a better alternative than the conservatives. The Tory party should be ashmed of themselves, as I never thought i’d say that after 2003 and the Iraq invasion. Yet 6 years on the Tories have still failed to attract my vote.
Platinum786:
The problem with ‘community’ leaders is not so much to do with the individuals themselves (as they may or may not be good people), but the way in which the state and media treats them; namely as representatives of their ‘communities’, empowered to speak on behalf of their ‘community’, whether they have a mandate or not. As a white person, I would hate for some other non-elected white person to claim to represent my views, without even gaining my consent. I don’t see why we shouldn’t extend the same courtesy to minorities.
You will always have important people in any group- the trick is to remember that people are individuals and so should be treated as such. Not to do so is just to fall back into the lazy colonialist model of the self-policing other; you keep the communities in check and we will give you money and status.
Heh Guido – ok I’ll concede you that.
David T: The Tories have more or less picked up PP talking points. They don’t always get them right, but they’re pointing in roughly the correct direction.
This is largely a Cameron thing, btw. No guarantee it will outlast him.
Agreed.
Rumbold – forcing someone into a marriage is initself not a crime. That bill was about civil remedies (didn’t I teach you anything??
) and they have to use associated criminal acts such as kidnapping to convict people.
Oops. Thanks Sunny. I get confused.
Anyone else going to the debate? I am.
“The problem with ‘community’ leaders is not so much to do with the individuals themselves (as they may or may not be good people), but the way in which the state and media treats them; namely as representatives of their ‘communities’, empowered to speak on behalf of their ‘community’, whether they have a mandate or not.”
That’s absoloutely right, Rumbold. And the problem goes deeper . It’s much easier to talk to one standardized representative of any group, whether it’s a rep from dock workers in the 1980s or Muslims from ‘communities’… because it means we don’t really need to engage properly or understand what are often complex siutations and challenges that involve more than just … religion, skin colour and lots of other things.
Really? I didn’t realise that. So forcing someone using scare tactics and emotional blackmail into a marriage of lifelong misery is not covered by the bill, unless kidnapping and other associated “criminal acts” are used? Pah!
Rumbold, I understand exactly what you mean, i often see the heading community leader under someones name on the news and I think “your not the leader of me mate”, but at the same time these people come under undue critisism.
We all have community leaders, they’re called councillours and MP’s, but they don’t seem to be working. They reflect the wants of their party and their friends more than the people they represent.
The thing is everyone has an opinion, how many people actually make an effort to express it? In Derby recently the council had a session at the Pakistani community centre regarding Muslim graves and costs.
Thousands of people were aware the event was going to occur, around a hundred turned up to express their opinion.
How do we take the opinions of a select part of the community (such as an ethnic group) and collect them to sort out issues if they communities won’t be active in expressing them in a meaningful manner and at the same time, those who do come to do so, we’re afraid of labelling as big headed?
‘Conservatives create policies not because they care about the people in duress but because they want to limit immigration.’
That is not a bad thing in and of itself though Sunny. The sentiment on the part of some Conservatives may well to beat their chests about immigration and dislike of immigrants – but immigration concerns DO have a legitimate place in this argument.
Immigration is very, very difficult because it is as close as I can think of to a policy area where governments have to almost legislate for motive – a mug’s game at the best of time.
To my mind, someone coming to the UK on the back of marriage who has no language skills, no social network and so on is inappropriately immigrating regardless of their marriage certificate. Put another way – immigration creates conditions for duress.
Now I fully recognise that this is a minefield. There is a perfectly good argument that on civil liberties grounds government should not be involved in marriage questions at all. That having been said if people are coming to the UK on the back of marriage immigration can hardly be said to be a side issue.
I am really in two minds on this and I certainly do not claim that preventing immigration is a magic bullet and people should be free to marry and settle as they see best. But motivations and ‘appropriateness’ are important even though I struggle to see how they could be gauged objectively.
The tories are right to raise it – even though I question their sentiments and motives.
Obviously “community leaders” and “community organisers” are two very different things (at least the way we understand the terms, here in the UK) – and for a split second the headline of this article reminded me of how the Republicans attacked community organisers at their convention last August. This raises an interesting question: who are the most prominent community organisers among British Muslims and other minority groups? Might be worth a post dedicated to the issue, Sunny et al.
Indeed. Cameron’s the best thing to happen to the Tory party in a long time.
I don’t know. I think Grieve’s onto something here and is able to speak about it in a way that Labour can’t or won’t. And it’s not necessarily about new draconian laws so much as reasserting some fundamentals (although that’s dangerously close to ‘back to basics’ so we need to watch out :-p).
Munir rightly asks for examples, and I suppose one current example of where the liberal instinct has confounded itself (which I think is Grieve’s argument) is in the whole question of sharia law.
Sharia councils, and more recently muslim arbitration tribunals, have been established because “self-appointed heads of minority groups” wanted them, and because the liberal tendency has been to believe that minority communities are best supported by respecting and protecting their culture (and I agree with halima and Rumbold’s points on the laziness of the state and media in accepting leaders of some as representatives of all).
Yet despite the good intentions, campaigners like Maryam Namazie and the One Law For All campaign are now pointing out that far from achieving a liberal outcome, sharia is systematically oppressing muslim women and children and consigning them to a lower legal status.
For example, forced marriages might not be illegal under UK law but they can be dissolved/undone. But One Law For All claim that muslim women can’t even get that far, as sharia councils are declaring such marriages valid. They want sharia abolished completely, and are calling for a return to the principle that all UK citizens, men and women, muslim and non-muslim, are equal under the law and have equal access to justice.
Now that’s surely a liberal agenda, but it represents an uncomfortable clash for liberals between multiculturalism and equality.
Rumbold @ 7 and Halima @ 11 – hear hear!
As an anarchist, it seems to me that one of the biggest issues of misunderstanding we face is that people genuinely can’t seem to get their heads around the idea that nobody is entitled to represent the views of anybody other than themselves.
I even saw a police info booklet once, on the subject of anarchists at demonstrations, and despite giving a whole page over to a reasonably accurate explanation of anarchy, that still (like seemingly everyone else) assumed that we have “leaders”.
Anarchists with leaders? FAIL!
Britcit
“Munir rightly asks for examples, and I suppose one current example of where the liberal instinct has confounded itself (which I think is Grieve’s argument) is in the whole question of sharia law.”
“Sharia councils, and more recently muslim arbitration tribunals, have been established because “self-appointed heads of minority groups†wanted them,”
No they have been set up because there is a demand for them in the Muslim community. Its rather like Sharia mortgages – if there was no demand for them they wouldnt exist. They also have been set up because the Jewish community has had Beth Din courts for many years so Muslims have every right to follow this precidence. Arbitration courts for Muslims opearte in exactly the same way as Beth Din courts.
Isnt it funny that you dont consider Beth Din courts “pandering” to minorities?
” and because the liberal tendency has been to believe that minority communities are best supported by respecting and protecting their culture (and I agree with halima and Rumbold’s points on the laziness of the state and media in accepting leaders of some as representatives of all).”
Yes it is. If you dont agree where was your outcry at Beth Din courts ?.
“Yet despite the good intentions, campaigners like Maryam Namazie and the One Law For All campaign are now pointing out that far from achieving a liberal outcome,”
Maryam Namazie has no good intentions. She is a unreconstructed communist (so hardly a liberal human righters ) opponent of the Iranian government. She kept quiet when the Beth Din courts (no one law for all campiagns against them) operated but has suddenly jumped up and down about similiar Muslim courts. Thats clear anti-Muslim motivation.
” sharia is systematically oppressing muslim women and children and consigning them to a lower legal status.”
Most of the people using the courts are women.
“For example, forced marriages might not be illegal under UK law but they can be dissolved/undone. But One Law For All claim that muslim women can’t even get that far, as sharia councils are declaring such marriages valid.”
One Law for all are liars. The consent of the woman is a pillar of marriage in Sharia and forced marriages are forbidden. Most of the cases are of women going to sharia courts to get marriages they were forced into annulled!!! Since when do you learn about something from people who are its deadly opponents?
And actually forced marriages are also illegal under UK law. You dont have a clue what you are talking about do you?
” They want sharia abolished completely, and are calling for a return to the principle that all UK citizens, men and women, muslim and non-muslim, are equal under the law and have equal access to justice.”
What about Jewish women?
To say Namazie wants sharia abolished is something of an understatement.She wants the right of Muslims to practice their religion abolished (eg wearing the veil)
so much for liberalism and human rights.