Integration becomes policy
White Paper (2002) launches integration
as official policy
The White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven -
integration with diversity (2002) marked the
effective end of multiculturism and the
launch of
integration as the new agenda, with community cohesion as the goal.
In the foreword, Home Secretary David Blunkett wrote: "We need to be secure
within our sense of belonging and identity."
It was decided to introduce citizenship & language tests, ceremonial oaths
of allegiance to the Queen. In addition, the state arrogated to itself the right to strip
British citizenship from suspects with dual nationality if their actions were
found to be 'seriously prejudicial' to UK 'vital interests'. Tough new immigration and
asylum measures were also put in place. Immigrant category and numbers would be determined by market needs.
British Asians were urged them to cut down on marriages with
overseas partners, while later in 2002 Blunkett advised them to speak English
at home to help them "overcome the schizophrenia" they experienced.
Racism turned on its head
The reality of institutional racism has been dropped and
replaced by the abstract language of integration, community cohesion and managed
diversity. The question how one can integrate in a racist society
was not answered.
Integration in fact depoliticises
the concerns of
ethnic groups and diverts attention from state racism.
In Jan
2003, Home Secretary David Blunkett even dismissed the Macpherson charge of
institutional (state) racism as a 'slogan' that 'missed the point'. ['Blunkett
dumps institutional racism', Guardian 14 Jan 03].
Racism was reduced to
personal bigotry to be overcome at the individual level. The system was not to
blame for social and racial problems. Non-white victims should
blame themselves for not integrating and so making themselves strangers to whites, some of
whom could then turn hostile.
Hostility is normalised as a natural
reaction to the presence of excessive diversity. The state is seen as a
benevolent mediator endeavouring to bring the cultures together.
Politicians and media columnists have ample time on air or
space in the tabloids to foment divisions through inflammatory language or
make baseless allegations about powerless groups. But the groups
vilified or demonised are allowed little or no column space or air time to state their
own case.
Anti-racism strategies and
collective action are frowned upon.
In the new climate of the 'war on terror', traditional notions of justice and
accountability are regarded as impediments to state control of the criminal
justice system. Western states have found that the Middle East can no longer be
bullied as before. There are Muslim groups ready to strike back hard, even on
home ground in the West. Rather than abandon its imperial attitudes, the West
has created a climate of Islamophobia. There is no democratic debate about values,
instead acceptance of Muslims as fellow citizens in the
UK is conditional to their prior acceptance of British values, and similarly in
the EU.
Core values
The new conventional wisdom is that a set of
'core' values is the glue that must hold Britishness together. Of course it is true that society needs a set of core values to
hang together or cohere. But these
are not specifically British values. Rather, they are universal values of human and democratic rights that all communities share. Ironically, it is those values which are most under attack in the 'war on terror'.
The government has been slammed (by bodies like Amnesty International )
for undermining basic human rights - for example, by interning terror
suspects without trial.
Muslims
have long felt alienated from the supremacist culture of national institutions
like the Home or Foreign Office. This alienation is then interpreted as an
inclination towards extremism and ultimately terrorism.
The government simply refuses to admit the plain
truth that the continued war on Iraq has been a huge factor in alienating young
Muslims (and non-Muslims) from British institutions.
But the colonial model of managing diversity has not been
abandoned by New Labour. It has been resurrected through 'faith communities'.
---------------------------------
What they said:
Gary
Younge
(Guardian 08 Sept 04) wrote:
"It is the abundance of racism that
prevents integration; not the lack of integration that encourages racism. This
has been the problem all along. "
Jabez
Lam
– Chinese campaigner
(Observer 11Apr04)
(Unless)
a society free of racism, there is no basis to talk about multiculturalism or
integration. A precondition for integration should be an equal partnership of
learning and adapting to each others' culture and values. One-way traffic of
giving up one's own culture and values to embrace modern British values is
assimilation and not integration.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,
Independent
24 Oct 05
We talk incessantly about multiculturism, integration, segregation, identity –
but not race,
even though it colours everyone of the others. The evil of white racism still
stalks our land.
I also find the word 'integration'
problematic. People from the outside are asked to integrate. I do not see David
Blunkett (former Home Sec) demanding that the English or Scots be forced to
swear their allegiance. In my pamphlet, After Multiculturism, published
by the Foreign Office Centre, I critique the discourse of multiculturism or
integration. We apply one set of standards to those outside the mainstream while
the people within can do away with basic principles, especially freedom of the
individual. Nothing should be demanded
of the foreign-born (and their descendants) that is not demanded of the
native-born and their descendants.
Nigel Harris
[ Emeritus Prof and
former deputy director, Centre of Urban Studies, University College, London]
[from Connections, Winter 04-05]
Everyone in Europe is talking about
integration but it is not
clear what immigrants are to be integrated into. The rationale seems to be
something like this: the nation state is constituted by a set of shared values
arising from a shared collective history of living together. Newcomers by
definition do not share these values. So they must either acquire them (and be
tested on them) or have them instilled, in order to live harmoniously with the
native born and earn their trust. Without this, we are told, 'social cohesion'
(in the current jargon) will break down and society will be riven with conflict.
Outside the ranks of misty-eyed
nationalists [who don't know British history], this account is potty,
sentimental gaff. The British have long been riven with social and political
differences, even periods of civil war. The only common values are those of the
ruling order who claimed divine right to rule. Shared values are not required
to live together. The only value is a willingness to obey the law.
Governments have chosen to enforce conformity by shaming or punishing those who
spoke different languages or with different accent (as measured by the upper
classes). Norms of behaviour were stamped into the population, starting from
primary school.
No one can say what the common values
should be. When they do, it turns out to the product of their private vanity.
During World War II, wartime movies showed 'normal' people as those from the
Home Counties wearing suits, having cars, playing tennis or cricket, shopping at
Harrods or having tea at the Savoy. The other ranks were comical with risible
accents, living somewhere in the North and ate fish and chips.
There are no common values
and an attempt to suggest them insults the diversity of people in Britain and
enforces banality. [Yet Home Office insists on core
values] To impose a particular set of values on the foreign born
is both totalitarian and discriminatory. We do not require the native-born
to embrace one single set of values - they are free to pick any crackpot values
provided only that they obey the law. So it should the same with the
foreign-born.
In acquiring
British nationality, the foreign-born are not joining a club or religious sect.
They are simply acquiring a legal status through their passport that allows them
to travel abroad. We need to demystify the process and concentrate on the
legal issue rather than turn it into a moral or religious commitment. The Home
Secretary is enforcing his own political agenda on newcomers.
The
debate on integration has led our rulers to abandon liberal principles such as
freedom of thought and equality before the law. The demand for integration is to
exclude some people - if they don't integrate, they should be excluded, expelled
or ethnically cleansed. In practice, the demand for
integration is a cover for assimilation, and is a revival of the same
systematic 19th century oppression majority to eliminate diversity, leading to
the majority hating the middle classes of London and the Home Counties.
Reference
1. Arun Kundnani, The politics of
anti-Muslim racism, Race & Class, vol 48, April 2007