My argument is also to benefit your community in order to tackle anti-semitism so next time don’t come here complaining about the bloody fear you are feeling when you can’t be bothered to speak up for the funding from government for mutliculturalism.

You ran off in a huff because you said this site was becomign antisemitic and now I am speaking up for communities to have funding and he is saying they shouldn’t you are not helping.

So live up to the principle and campaign for the funding to Jewish organisations to be revoked and returned and carry on then trying to combat antisemitism and don’t whine next time someone says something here that you feel you are being picked on when you won’t speak up for the funding you need to tackle it.

b’shalom

bananabrain

you are sounding increasingly shrill and your arguments lost substance some time ago; it is beginning to turn into “i don’t know what i’m talking about? well, you don’t know what you’re talking about even more, ner ner ner ner ner.” it’s a bit unfortunate; you seem to have bitten off a bit more than you can chew here, you haven’t made much of a dent on kenan’s arguments.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Do you honestly think you would be where you are if governemnt hadn’t legislated to provide education and opportunity for Asians? Its quite possible you wouldn’t.

Eh?

Unless you are referring to the Race Relations Act – whose original parameters were set out away back in 1965, and which was largely consolidated by 1976 – again, I don’t know why you think what you think. As far as I remember, there has been legislation in place since around the end of the 19th c which says everyone requires to be educated until around 14 or 15, latterly 16. A universal requirement.

My point being that much of that predates the changes that are being discussed here. And, frankly, it was not something you could easily claim as flowed from multi-culturalism. It was, if anything, a reaction by a whole section of our society – parliamentarians – to a wrong. A wrong that initially applied to the Irish as much as it did to others.

The 2000 Race Relations Ammendment Act as it applied to education simply gave legal backing to what was already good practice.

Are you somehow arguing that ethnic minorities were excluded from tertiary education? That’d come as a bit of a surprise to me. Whereas discrimination in the jobs marketplace wouldn’t. It is the latter arguement that had – and has – merit, I think.

I am afraid that you are the one who doesn’t get it and who is failing to address the issue properly because you want to prove multiculturalism is a failure.

Your failure to comprehend the fact that without poltical involvement in the process you wouldn’t have the diversity you claim to enjoy. It is the political involvement and funding which has helped to get us to the point that diversity is possible.

You lack the context to realise that not so long ago and lacking legislation minorities suffered from a lack of understanding as well as the ability to make progress. It is with political involvement that diversity has become possible.

The biggest success of multicultural policy is that people are able to seperate out the extremists from the normal in diverse communities and in fact the country wasn’t gripped by hyterical right wing nonsense even after the tragic events of 7/7 which is quite a contrast to say the USA.

The fact is that political involvement has brought benefits to integration and diversity and brings with it economic benefit. So you are selective and lack the will to admit that political involvement has helped you and me to progress in terms of education and work which diversity wouldn’t achieve.

You cling to events from years ago without looking at how political policy has improved the areas you highlight as suffering community problems.

You can argue for the degree of political involvement and the need for less political correctness but the job of politicians is to ensure that all parts of society are represented and that means engagement at some level in multiculturalism.

The point you can’t understand is that without political will then the minorities will always be at a disadvantage.

Its a bit like the Murdoch press complaining about economic migrants and yet their own boss is one and they don’t see the irony in that.

Do you honestly think you would be where you are if governemnt hadn’t legislated to provide education and opportunity for Asians? Its quite possible you wouldn’t.

Its not so long ago that black football players were subject to banana baiting at macthes. Its not that long ago that Norman Tebbit devised a test for blacks and asians which wasn’t applicable to white people. That shows the need for a level of poiltics in multiculturalism otherwise this type of nonsense won’t stop and its that you can’t see in your desperate flight to blame all ills on multiculturalism.

I’m about half way through the book now and it makes an extremely interesting read.

I do think Imran Khan has got the wrong end of the stick on where and how our existing settlement developed. It does seem to me that it is almost an internal colonialism.

Perhaps we need to clarify definitions a bit here?

What David T said ‘way back at 4 perhaps gets us to at least a working definition. To re-iterate:

There’s a difference between multiculturalism – which is about plural ‘cosmopolitan’ identities, and the limits of state authority – and plural monoculturalism: the search for ‘authentic’ Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Black people, and the funding of projects based on these categories.

The latter is just an entrenchment of racism.

I’d tend to agree with that definition. What I think Imran is doing is taking the better parts of intercommunal dialogue – cosmopolitanism if you will – and claiming that that somehow justifies the edifice that the state has created. Which, it seems to me, is in fact plural monoculturalism. In other words, claiming the very things that the policy is poisonous to as if they were vitues.

And also claiming that only through that sort of ghettoisation and Pavlovian social control can we arrive at a (new?) public space.

Kenan Malik does make a very interesting series of points about identity change too. Roughly, from ‘immigrant’ to ‘black’ to ‘Asian’ to ‘country of origin’ to ‘Muslim’. And each of these identities could have been applied, over time, to a single person about themselves.

Just a couple of questions for Imran.

What is your definition of multiculturalism? Because I’m not getting it.

In what way is Band Aid an example of multicuturalism rather than, say, cosmpolitanism?

I’ll probably finish the book later tonight. So far I have really enjoyed it.

Sid is a pseudonym not a false identiy.

A false identity would pretending to be Avi Cohen, the “self-hating Jew” and posted in that identity on this blog for over a year before becoming “Imran Khan”.

glass, houses, stones

But that aside, I really think you need to understand what Kenan is referring to as “multiculturalism” in the sense of social engineering. You seem to have decided it means cosmopolitanism. It doesn’t.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2007-07-04-live-earth_N.htm

There are more if you want.

I think you have forgotten to add that multiculturalism is on it’s way to finding the cures for cancer, HIV, the common cold and of course, Swine Flu.

I also think you have a bright future ahead of you, as a Daily Mail journalist: Low on verifiable facts; High on polemics.”

Rich from someone who can’t even decide what their own name ala “Ed Hussein” one minute your Sid then Faisal then who knows what.

Also we’ve seen the fiction you are posting regularly you must be up for the booker prize.

Do you deny that the efforts to raise awareness of Scottish Aspirations and identity and the same for the Welsh didn’t help on the road to the Parliaments there? Do you think one day politicians woke up and said oh lets give the Scots a parliament?

Your approach to discussion is normally that you know damn well what is best for everyone and anyone that disagrees is liable to frequent abuse and sooner or later you will lose your own house when you push someone too far.

THe other success of multiculturalism is that in the UK we have communities working together to benefit those less fortunate around the world andthis often prompts politicians to help in those regions.

Band Aid is a prime example of a multicultural project that left a lasting legacy and promoted further projects to help both home and abroad.

The Sunami is another example where communities worked together to help.

…

Again in your piece you also fail acknowledge that it was multiculturalism and politics that shifted some democracy to Scotland and Wales. It was the same which helped to bring peace in Northern Ireland.

All big achievements.

Hey Imran

I think you have forgotten to add that multiculturalism is on it’s way to finding the cures for cancer, HIV, the common cold and of course, Swine Flu.

I also think you have a bright future ahead of you, as a Daily Mail journalist: Low on verifiable facts; High on polemics.

Band Aid is a prime example of a multicultural project that left a lasting legacy and promoted further projects to help both home and abroad.

The Sunami is another example where communities worked together to help.

The point is if as you claim we were all in our own ghettos then that wouldn’t have happened.

Even in Birmingham one of the areas you speak of as ghettoised and I was there a few weeks ago in the actual area massive progress has been made and I saw different communities living together and there was the complete opposite of your claim and in fact little Police presence.

The government through its involvement has helped to foster appreciation and understanding of art and in fact this has been so successful the programme is now helping abroad.

Britian is now seen as a prime preserver of ethnic hertitage even from abroad and museums here are leading the world in such displays which bring world wide recognition. The most successful museum exhibit in the past few years was Sacred at the British Library and brought together hugely significant pieces of religious art from across the world. If Britian wasn’t integrated and multicultural no one would have entrusted the British to do this and now that exhibition is setting the standard for events abroad. It brought together Jews, Muslims and Christians.

The list goes on and on of the success and your exageration of failures pales into insignificance when contrasted against what it is bringing this country including the first truely cultural Olympics.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/multicultural-britain-an-unlikely-success-story-509634.html

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/245223

Again in your piece you also fail acknowledge that it was multiculturalism and politics that shifted some democracy to Scotland and Wales. It was the same which helped to bring peace in Northern Ireland.

All big achievements.

What you also fail to see is that large parts of the British Economy are built through multiculturalism and the ability to understand the dynamics of other races and these are actively encouraged by government and in fact bring in extra tax revenue which helps pay for your wages which given the fact you are so unhappy the policy you should return as you don’t agree with it.

Things such as Sharia banking bring significant sums of money to the country. Equally as Britian is viewed as well integrated then there is an acceptance of other culture which then itself becomes part of British culture such as curries and that is big business in the UK.

Spain which in the 70′s and early 80′s refused to identify its own Islamic heritage then realised big money could be made from it then embraced its Muslim history and now has a thriving tourist industry in that area which brings benefits to the region and Spain itself.

Things can improve but the policy is working and despite your hype you haven’t proved otherwise apart from the use of limited examples which can also be attributed to other factors.

Many corporations are based in the UK and run overseas operatiosn for Europe, Africa and the Middle East from here because Britain is multicultural and due to government policy we know about different cultures so in fact they can then use this knowledge to help business in those regions. That brings benefit to the UK overall through employment, taxation etc.

France doesn’t do the same and has issues with integration, ghettos and community disunity.

The people who you refer to as ghettoised are themselves reaching out and countering the effect of ghettoisation and you’d know that if you did some research on work by the Church and Mosques. This includes the running to leadership programmes to help people develop.

Of course the works that highlight the positive roles played by different communities won’t get a mention in your work. But it is there for people who want to look and produce research that can help build out communities.

Also whats good is that cities across Europe are meeting to exchange ideas about how to progress and bring together communities but hey why do we need to mention that when that won’t bring anything but hysteria and panic in the right wing press so best avoid that?

Its all going on as well as other programmes to promote peace and community harmony and its all going on despite you and Hazel Blears and all the other people who advocate silly measures that will set back relations to the old empire period.

Your approach is much like the Tories had with the NHS – if you want it pay for it if you can afford it. Well it wasn’t until Tories needed it themselves that they acknowledged how useful it was. David Cameron may well be the first Tory Leader who knows the value of the NHS.

It maybe that if the right wing don’t get their claws into him that he will also be the first conservative to acknowledge the value of multiculturalism as he would have been touched by the lives of many people who work in and use the health service from areas of society.

If you look at the top the title is:
“Pickled Exclusive: an extract from Fatwa to Jihad

by guest on 21st April, 2009 at 11:02 am

This is an exclusive extract from Kenan Malik’s new book ‘From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy’:”

So you see it is about your work and the readers critique of that work.

In your usual grandstanding you won’t address the issues and I have given you examples of multiculturalism and its success and the failure when you don’t do this.

I’ve asked you questions which you are not answering.

As usual your rather selective response simply means you just want to stick to your preset position.

You are here simply to say you are right and haven’t made mistakes.

Sadly Kenan I’ve raised a number of issues you won’t address so there is little point in trying to carry on with someone who won’t answer questions about his own work and presentation style.

For someone who claims to advocate freespeech when it confronts you then you don’t want to debate.

As for your examples well they are around you. London, Manchester, Liverpool even Bradford and Birmingham despite your flawed presentation have largely settled communities.

Despite your poor narrative and your assertion that communities live in their own ghettos in Birmingham is exposed by the fact that the most popular school in the area is Jewish and half the pupils are Muslim whose parents choose to send them there.

Any decent critique would balance the negtaive with similar positives to allow the reader of their wokr to be able to form a fuller opinion.

Your failure to address where you draw the line in scenarios above using your sledge hammer approach was simply to ignore the issue and highlights that you are applying a set of rules to multiculturalism that you don’t apply to oter parts of government.

Thats not even getting onto the fact that military communities often live separate from the rest of society which by your rule is ghettoisation but hell you don’t even look at that. Maybe because critique of the military won’t bring the same raection as picking on Muslims huh? No front page headlines and no sections on HP?

You still won’t address why your tabloid style headline hysteria on reports of Islamophobia most likely destroyed any chance of proper analysis of the issue.

You won’t even address if you are willing to go and justify your calls for unlimited freespeech to the people who have to live with the consequences of your call.

In fact so far you haven’t even addressed the fact your ethnic community was brought here largely as menial labour and your directly beenfited from multicultural policy to get where you are and now you want to stop that for future generations.

In theory your idealistic approach is great but society isn’t at the point where that ideal can work and the rise of the right means that things for minorities are getting tougher coupled with the economic crises when minorities are blamed for everything from control of the world economy to taking jobs means that if the government does nothing then that will lead to social unrest.

Please if you want to debate at least stop the exagerated grandstanding and address the issues and stop with the sensationalistic victim card playing approach of oh poor me they accuse me of sensationalism but they can’t debate.

“as you don’t seem to be able to distinguish between a rational argument rooted in facts and mere rhetoric.”
A bit rich coming from someone who tilts the argument to drive people to his preset conclusion.

There are plenty of questions that have been posed to you in the above discussions most of which you haven’t answered and you talk of mere rhetoric.

You work is up for discussion so its up to you to justify your position in the face of the questionsand issues raised.

Its not my work published above and if it was it would be a more balanced piece with examples of success and failure, history to highlight why there is a need for understanding and then allowing people to draw their own conclusion.

Your approach however is multiculturalism and political involvement is bad now let me try and prove it.

Without multiculturalism and political involvement wouldyou be a university lecturer or would you not have progressed so far?

I’m not playing the victim, just making clear why I don’t any point in arguing with you on those issues. And as it happens I don’t see any point in arguing with you about multiculturalism either, as you don’t seem to be able to distinguish between a rational argument rooted in facts and mere rhetoric.

I showed in detail what happens when multicultural policies are introduced in practice. Your response? ‘So because Bradford and Birmingham made mistakes we should drop the whole project?’ The point I’m making about Bradford and Birmingham (and I could have chosen many other places) is that these are not mere ‘mistakes’ but concrete expressions of what happens when such policies are put into practice.

You keep saying again and again that I ‘fail to highlight how many multicultural projects have been successful’. I hate to tell you this but the idea of a debate is that I put my side of the argument and you put yours. I asked you to show me why I was wrong by putting your side of the case. You could have shown why I was mistaken about Bradford or Birmingham, or why these are not representative or indeed ‘how many multicultural projects have been successful’. You have signally failed to do any of that, but have simply responded again and again with a pagefulls of mindless rhetoric. I’m afraid I’ve got better things to do than engage in debate with someone who doesn’t want to engage in debate.

How would you feel if you were portrayed as a lesser human being due to your non-white genes?

How do you show that racial superiority is wrong?

There is no funding so who will pay for the eradication of such theories that even now are accepted by people.

If there is no counter then the belief in these will increase and thus cause social unrest as we saw in the 70′s.

How do you prevent that without giving politicians a role in the matter?

Business won’t fund it. Community may not have the funds. So how do you stop the growth in racism and the consequences that brings.

If you can’t stop it then how do you control community action with say vigliante groups?

Free speech was used to distort the threat that Iraq posed and led to hundred of thousands of people dyig so is that acceptable?

If you and your Spiked set are so in support of free speech are you willing to go to Iraq, Rwanda, Brixton even and support total free speech. Are you willing to tell a holocaust survivor that we should give David Irving a chance to deny that their relatives died and its all a fantasy?

Its all very well writing about it but then put up and stand there and support the consequences.