“A majority of people back the British National Party’s policies, according to a new poll. But the YouGov survey found that many people disown the policies once they are associated with the BNP.

“A majority of people back the British National Party’s policies, according to a new poll. But the YouGov survey found that many people disown the policies once they are associated with the BNP. ”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5778609,00.html

The tories seem to be banking on possble BNP voters:
A Tory spokesman said the party had trebled its membership in Tower Hamlets since its victory and it was capitalising on disenchantment with what he said was seen as a remote and profligate Labour administration.

In Millwall, it had managed to convince former Labour voters, who were turning to the BNP, to vote Tory, he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4942872.stm

The vocal defence of multiculturalism we frequently here these days is very often nothing more than a plea for plural monoculturalism.

Unfortunately, Sen makes a crucial error of judgement: Multiculturalism is, by its very essence, a theory of plural monoculturalism! At any rate, it is helpful to make a distinction between two ways of using the term: descriptive & normative:

1. To say a society is multicultural in a descriptive sense simply means it is comprised of a variety of different religious, cultural, ethnic, or linguistic groups. (ya know: curries, synagogues, saris, Urdu, turbans, bangra, Indo/Pak rivalry on Pickled Politics, crappy Bollywood movies, etc.) It’s just a euphemism for cultural diversity.

2. To talk of multiculturalism in a normative sense, however, is to propose how we ought to respond to the empirical realities of cultural diversity. Members of the ‘pro-multicultural’ camp – from Seyla Benhabib to Will Kymlicka to Charles Taylor to Bhikhu Parekh – usually want the state to grant special rights, privileges, exemptions, funding, recognition, or status to minority groups and immigrants. In all cases (bar Taylor’s), the hombre is against proactive assimilation and in favour of luck neutralization: many liberal philosophers contend that ‘fairness’ requires the state to compensate for minorities’ unequal access to culture (i.e. tax payers’ money should be spent on, say, an Islamic initiative in Bradford or re-furnishing a synagogue in North London).

Regrettably, Sen conflates 1. with 2.. Thus – notwithstanding my own intellectual flaws – there is nothing at all disingenuous about my previous comments. To be sure, I am very much rooted in the ‘anti-multicultural’ camp, which includes Professors Brian Barry, Jeremy Waldron, David Miller, and Michael Sandel. To a lesser extent, it also spills over into the philosophy of Edmund Burke, the patriotic essays of George Orwell, and a rational defence of tradition by Karl Popper. In a nutshell: we believe in the primacy of national identity, the importance of civic participation, and consistency in the rule of law – what do you believe in?
Amir

I think Blighty has done prety well without one since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, don’t you?

Yeah sure, SUS laws, anti terror laws etc. We done great!

Reinventing a concept of citizenship will require a minimum benchmark of civility, consider signing up to the Proclamation of Global Civility.

Nonsense: The so-called ‘Proclamation of Global Civility’ is a ridiculous proposition intended to curtail freedom of speech and expression. It’s a silly, self-indulgent ploy by conservative Moslems who – given half a sniff – would hang the editors’ of the Jyllands-Posten. My advice: stop sulking.”

Really Amir, please back up those statements with some sort of analysis of the actual proclamation and how it would curtail freedom of expression. I love the way you and so many others on this forum throw all these accusations and insults around but don’t actually engage with the issues at hand in a rational and critical manner. Which really supports the need for the Proclamation in the first place.

Amir,

Your comments on multiculturalism I think highlight an analogous problem to the BNP problem – that of ideas being hijacked by one group – indeed, concepts defined by one group – in such a way that the terms are rendered meaningless for those of us who want to use them for something positive.

The “multiculturalism” you describe is in fact examples of people abusing and misusing the systems we have in place… nothing to do with the concept of “multiculturalism” itself.

My favourite is the “intellectually lazy” argument. We should ridicule these people in public…

Reinventing a concept of citizenship will require a minimum benchmark of civility, consider signing up to the Proclamation of Global Civility.

What it would actually require would be a written constitution….

As for ‘milking’ the country, I can assure you that my contribution in taxes far exceeds yours. Money, incidentally, which get redistributed to eggheads such yourself.

Or is it you (Ismaeel) in disguise? Trying to push the readers of Pickled Politics to the motherly bosom of the MAC?

Amir

Reinventing a concept of citizenship will require a minimum benchmark of civility, consider signing up to the Proclamation of Global Civility.

Nonsense: The so-called ‘Proclamation of Global Civility’ is a ridiculous proposition intended to curtail freedom of speech and expression. It’s a silly, self-indulgent ploy by conservative Moslems who – given half a sniff – would hang the editors’ of the Jyllands-Posten. My advice: stop sulking.