MULTICULTURALISM
Trevor Phillips has caused something of a stir over the last 18 months, with his criticism of multiculturalism. Some Tories have jumped on a bandwagon to endorse his reported sentiments, although it is clear that they have not properly examined what he is saying.
The initial problem is to try and define multiculturalism. Most would regard it as being the tolerance of distinct cultures existing side by side in the UK. But within that definition there are nuances. Mr Phillips himself wrote last year:
Clearly Mr Phillips is not calling for an end to black people being here. So what does Mr Phillips actually mean?
In the same article, Mr Phillips wrote:
It would seem that the Islington dinner party circuit was somewhat disconcerted!
But the statement about it being time to ‘move on’ shows that Mr Phillips is not turning against multiculturalism, but that he believes that it is time for a new policy to supplement it in the 21st century. This belief is also held by that fellow communist, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who was flogging her book ‘After Multiculturalism’ as long ago as in the year 2000. In an article in the Telegraph, Alibhai-Brown wrote:
Alibhai-Brown clearly agrees with Greg Dyke who once described the BBC as being ‘hideously white’, and also thinks the same of Britain’s leading companies too. Being white is unacceptable, apparently.
Both Alibhai-Brown and Mr Phillips have also made adverse comment of the all white composition of the Scottish parliament and Welsh Assembly. In the autumn of 2002, Alibhai-Brown wrote:
Since the ethnic minorities make up less than 1% of the populations of Scotland and Wales, there is no reason why, even statistically, there should be ethnic minorities in either the Scottish parliament or Welsh Assembly.
It would seem that the Scottish and Welsh are the wrong colour.
Both Mr Phillips and Alibhai-Brown are strongly opposed to devolution in general, and an English parliament in particular. In that sense they are not very multicultural at all and never have been.
However, writing in 2004, Mr Phillips set out his criticism of multiculturalism thus:
And:
Mr Phillips has set out his views for racial engineering. He intends to manipulate and control the English in order to fit in with his view of a multiracial Britain. As the head of the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] he intends to statistically re-order society.
In May this year Mr Phillips repeated his views and upped the ante by condemning ‘corporate multiculturalism’ and claiming that unless there was integration then ‘what we will end up with is a Los Angeles in flames’, in reference to the 1992 Los Angeles race riots in which 50 people were killed.
Mr Phillips continued [italics are English Rights Campaign emphasis]:
One can either have equality of opportunity, or equality itself. But one cannot have both. Mr Phillips wants equality [as might be expected for a communist]. He wants those who, for whatever reason, be it skill, determination, luck or whatever, are able to do well for themselves, to be held back so that those who did not do as well are equal. He seeks to manipulate this in order to statistically integrate ethnic minorities and re-order society.
To concentrate on statistics essentially means race quotas. That is inevitable. If statistically an organisation does not have a proportion of ethnic minorities, then it must be judged racist, prosecuted, and compelled to recruit a quota of ethnic minorities. This is currently happening with the Metropolitan Police.
Mr Phillips is advocating quotas. He even seeks quotas for who people date! Presumably there will be undercover race zealots in nightclubs and pubs to ensure that people racially ‘integrate’.
The choice of the word ‘integrate’ is not haphazard. Mr Phillips does not use the word ‘assimilate’. The reason for this will be explained in the near future.
This statistical integration needs to be considered alongside the policy of mass immigration, which is now so vast that the English will be reduced to a racial minority in England in roughly 50 years. If Mr Phillips has his way, then as the proportion of ethnic minorities grow as a proportion of the population, then so will the size of the quotas and hence the statistical integration.
In other words, Mr Phillips is bent on supplementing multiculturalism by introducing a form of ethnic cleansing in order to push the English aside and replace them with ethnic minorities.
This is a thoroughly vile policy and no one believing in a free England should have any truck with it.
The initial problem is to try and define multiculturalism. Most would regard it as being the tolerance of distinct cultures existing side by side in the UK. But within that definition there are nuances. Mr Phillips himself wrote last year:
‘In 1978 the tabloids reported what seemed like a threat from a hairy, dashiki-wearing student radical, that “we [black Britons] are here and here to stay”. People called this multiculturalism.’
Clearly Mr Phillips is not calling for an end to black people being here. So what does Mr Phillips actually mean?
In the same article, Mr Phillips wrote:
‘When I remarked last month that it was time for Britain to move on from divisive, 80s-style "multiculturalist" policies, I thought it might cause a mild stir among Britain's diversity professionals and activists. In fact, it unleashed a passionate argument both at home and abroad. I have even, as one friend grumpily complained, ruined a couple of dinner parties where the "Britishness" debate got ugly.’
It would seem that the Islington dinner party circuit was somewhat disconcerted!
But the statement about it being time to ‘move on’ shows that Mr Phillips is not turning against multiculturalism, but that he believes that it is time for a new policy to supplement it in the 21st century. This belief is also held by that fellow communist, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who was flogging her book ‘After Multiculturalism’ as long ago as in the year 2000. In an article in the Telegraph, Alibhai-Brown wrote:
‘Treating black people differently has enabled white institutions to carry on as if nothing substantive has changed since the arrival of Windrush from the West Indies. As long as “ethnic minorities” were given some money and space to play marbles in the ghetto, nothing else needed to happen. Whether you look at the BBC or the top FTSE companies, the multicultural answer has failed to transform anything very much.’
Alibhai-Brown clearly agrees with Greg Dyke who once described the BBC as being ‘hideously white’, and also thinks the same of Britain’s leading companies too. Being white is unacceptable, apparently.
Both Alibhai-Brown and Mr Phillips have also made adverse comment of the all white composition of the Scottish parliament and Welsh Assembly. In the autumn of 2002, Alibhai-Brown wrote:
‘The brand new, young, rediscovered Scottish nation, locked as it is in an ethnic redefinition of itself, found no space for the visible communities... They relegated black Britons to second class status. Ditto Wales.’
Since the ethnic minorities make up less than 1% of the populations of Scotland and Wales, there is no reason why, even statistically, there should be ethnic minorities in either the Scottish parliament or Welsh Assembly.
It would seem that the Scottish and Welsh are the wrong colour.
Both Mr Phillips and Alibhai-Brown are strongly opposed to devolution in general, and an English parliament in particular. In that sense they are not very multicultural at all and never have been.
However, writing in 2004, Mr Phillips set out his criticism of multiculturalism thus:
‘The institutional response to the demand for inclusion has been cynical and bureaucratic - a series of bribes designed to appease community leaders coupled with gestures to assuage liberal guilt, while leaving systemic racism and inequality untouched. Multiculturalism is in danger of becoming a sleight of hand in which ethnic minorities are distracted by tokens of recognition, while being excluded from the real business. The smile of recognition has turned into a rictus grin on the face of institutional racism.’
And:
‘The prevailing orthodoxy for 40 years was that we could not change the behaviour of the majority community until we changed its attitudes. Some of us now think differently. What matters is what people do rather than what they say they think. That is why the CRE is now focusing on delivery of race equality outcomes - measured in numbers of people employed and resources distributed - rather than on declarations of goodwill.’
Mr Phillips has set out his views for racial engineering. He intends to manipulate and control the English in order to fit in with his view of a multiracial Britain. As the head of the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] he intends to statistically re-order society.
In May this year Mr Phillips repeated his views and upped the ante by condemning ‘corporate multiculturalism’ and claiming that unless there was integration then ‘what we will end up with is a Los Angeles in flames’, in reference to the 1992 Los Angeles race riots in which 50 people were killed.
Mr Phillips continued [italics are English Rights Campaign emphasis]:
‘By integration, I mean that it is a society in which your life chances, whether they be chances of a job, chances of becoming an MP, or chances of living in a particular area or chances of going out with someone of a different race should be utterly unaffected and statistically unrelated to your race. At the moment this is not the case.
A perfectly integrated society is one in which your ethnicity would not be able to determine the outcome of your life. Some minorities, Jews historically, Vietnamese, arrived and soared, some are anchored to the bottom - Afro-Caribbeans, Somalis, and so on.’
One can either have equality of opportunity, or equality itself. But one cannot have both. Mr Phillips wants equality [as might be expected for a communist]. He wants those who, for whatever reason, be it skill, determination, luck or whatever, are able to do well for themselves, to be held back so that those who did not do as well are equal. He seeks to manipulate this in order to statistically integrate ethnic minorities and re-order society.
To concentrate on statistics essentially means race quotas. That is inevitable. If statistically an organisation does not have a proportion of ethnic minorities, then it must be judged racist, prosecuted, and compelled to recruit a quota of ethnic minorities. This is currently happening with the Metropolitan Police.
Mr Phillips is advocating quotas. He even seeks quotas for who people date! Presumably there will be undercover race zealots in nightclubs and pubs to ensure that people racially ‘integrate’.
The choice of the word ‘integrate’ is not haphazard. Mr Phillips does not use the word ‘assimilate’. The reason for this will be explained in the near future.
This statistical integration needs to be considered alongside the policy of mass immigration, which is now so vast that the English will be reduced to a racial minority in England in roughly 50 years. If Mr Phillips has his way, then as the proportion of ethnic minorities grow as a proportion of the population, then so will the size of the quotas and hence the statistical integration.
In other words, Mr Phillips is bent on supplementing multiculturalism by introducing a form of ethnic cleansing in order to push the English aside and replace them with ethnic minorities.
This is a thoroughly vile policy and no one believing in a free England should have any truck with it.
posted by erc @ 2:43 pm
<< Home