THE PAREKH REPORT [7]

‘1.2 The interacting forces and trends of the present include devolution, and consequent questions about English, Scottish and Welsh identities; globalisation in a wide range of spheres, including economic, political and cultural; changes in Britain’s sense of itself as a world power; cultural and moral pluralism, especially in views of gender relations, sexuality and the structures of families and households; and - the principal subject matter of this report - the recognition that England, Scotland and Wales are multi-ethnic, multi-faith, multicultural, multi-community societies.

1.3 Each of these changes involves dislocations in the way people see themselves and in how they see the territorial, political and cultural space - “Britain” - where they meet, and where they seek to build a common life. What will emerge? Possibly, and deplorably, a Britain where people are divided and fragmented among the three separate countries and among regions, cities and boroughs, and where there is hostility, suspicion and wasteful competition - the politics of resentment. The prevailing mood could turn out to be one of aloofness and apathy towards other European countries, and disinclination to be involved on the world stage - for example, in action to protect the global environment or international human rights. There could be profound divisions by culture, religion and history, with no joint deliberation among people of different religious or philosophical beliefs, or among people with different perceptions and collective memories of the past. There could be a punitive and impatient attitude towards the poor. There could be widespread intolerance of numerical minorities of many kinds, including communities with roots in Africa, Bangladesh, the Caribbean, Cyprus, Hong Kong, India, Ireland and Pakistan, and of Gypsies, travellers and asylum-seekers. A Little Englander mentality, and its equivalents in Wales and Scotland, could hold sway.

1.4 Alternatively, Britain could develop as what this report calls a community of communities.’

And:

‘1.5 The forging and nurturing of such a society involves, at the outset, reinterpreting the past.’

From the outset, the Parekh Report advocates a multi-everything society, and that it is opposed to an English parliament, with its condemnation of Britain potentially being ‘fragmented among the three separate countries’.

Given that the Scots and Welsh have had power devolved down towards their own parliament/assembly, then there is no reason why the English should be denied their own autonomy. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, in particular, has continued to voice hostility towards an English parliament:

‘I see [Britishness] as subversive of all nationalisms and fundamentalisms ... The transformations I embrace are not those of devolution ... [which has] relegated black Britons to second class status ... I embrace quite a different vision which cannot survive in these smaller stronger nations, not even if a powerful and popular civic bond is promoted by political leaders ... Politically active black and Asian people like myself have spent years fighting against shrinking and simplistic identities which many in our communities are drawn to ... And yes there are the restive English (remember Defoe who said “From this amphibious ill born mob began, that vain, ill-natured thing, the Englishman”) on whose lands most of us live.’

More recently she has written that:

‘Britain could carry on becoming a modern, confident internationalist nation or a sadly balkanised one, progressive hopes turned to ash.’

Alibhai-Brown all too well recognises and is fearful that the creation of an English parliament would be a bulwark against the politically correct, neo-communist agenda.

The Parekh Report caricatures a false choice between a ‘Little Englander mentality’ and ‘a community of communities’. In fact the outcome has been neither, but 7/7.

The term ‘reinterpreting the past’ is simply a more ascetic way of advocating the re-writing history. The whole thrust is one of thought control. That the English are too prejudiced to be allowed to think for themselves or allowed their own freedom.

Once again, the report’s aim is to tell the public what they may or may not do and think.

This is the true nature of political correctness. It is about the subversion of the national culture and the implementation of thought control as a means of undermining and controlling society.