THE PAREKH REPORT [5]

‘Having sketched our vision of a relaxed and self-confident multicultural Britain ... we analyse the obstacles standing in its way ... The obstacles include racial discrimination, racial disadvantage, a racially oriented moral and political culture, an inadequate philosophy of government, a lack of carefully thought-out and properly integrated administrative structures at various levels of government, and a lack of political will.’

And:

‘The very language used to describe and define race relations in Britain is a source of considerable conceptual and political muddle. Such terms as ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ signify fixed blocs and obscure the fluidity and heterogeneity of real life. The term ‘ethnic group’ traps the group concerned into its ethnicity, and suppresses both its multiple identity and its freedom of self-determination. The term ‘integration’ is even more misleading, as it implies a one-way process in which ‘minorities’ are to be absorbed into the non-existent homogeneous cultural structure of the ‘majority’. We are fully aware of these and other limitations of the dominant language of debate. Inventing a wholly new vocabulary does not help, for such a language would be too abstract, artificial and unrelated to the idioms of everyday life to be intelligible, let alone provide a vehicle for meaningful dialogue. We have therefore thought it best to avoid parts of the current vocabulary when we could conveniently do so, and to make suitable qualifications and warnings when we could not.’

The above two quotes are from the Preface of the Parekh Report.

What a lot of politically correct rubbish!

The control of language is of course a key aspect of political correctness. By controlling the language, it makes it more difficult for people to express themselves and it is, therefore, a control on the way people think - which is the intention.

It would seem that the Parekh Commission toyed with the idea of inventing a new language, or possibly even using Esperanto!

But it is too easy to just laugh this off, when it is in fact no laughing matter. The Parekh Commission and their supporters are deadly serious. They really do mean what they say, and Labour was so impressed with this thinking that it appointed the chief mover in the Parekh Report, Trevor Phillips, to the chairmanship of the so-called Commission for Racial Equality.

The above extracts highlight 2 key aspects of the report. Firstly, an unquestioning commitment to multiculturalism and the portrayal of those not in favour of this as racist. Trevor Phillips’s recent statements calling for integration and not multiculturalism by itself need to be viewed with that fact in mind [see the English Rights Campaign entries dated the 18th and 24th September 2005, and the 5th October 2005].

Secondly, Mr Phillips’s recent rejection of the word ‘assimilation’ and his advocacy of ‘integration’ instead, also needs to be compared with the Parekh Report. The report dismisses the concept of integration. A key aspect of the report is the denial of the existence of the British nation - especially an English nation. It denies the existence of an ‘homogenous culture’ and therefore rejects assimilation/integration as being impossible as there is allegedly no national culture into which the ethnic minorities can assimilate/integrate [this will be dealt with in more detail later].

Mr Phillips’s recent rejection of ‘assimilation’ and his advocacy of ‘integration’ is disingenuous. What Mr Phillips now describes as integration he had previously described as multiculturalism in the Parekh Report. He is merely playing with words. His political views have remained unchanged.

The first paragraph quoted above shows how obsessed the commissioners were with race and how determined they were to use government power to impose their views on the rest of society. This is entirely consistent with the specifics of what Mr Phillips has been saying more recently.

The idea that one cannot refer to someone’s race for fear of trapping the individual into a racial group and ignoring other factors is hysterical. The allegation again demonstrates the zealotry of the commissioners. The assertion of ‘multiple identity’ is in keeping with the recent attack upon English nationalism by Vince Cable [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 11th September 2005]. Again, this shows that the Anglophobia we now face is part of a longstanding and sustained campaign.