Bright's Blog

4 comments from readers

geth
29 January 2007 at 22:25

Hopefully this will give Ruth Kelly the confidence to continue standing up to Muslim groups ambivalent to this kind of extremism. When it comes to Labour finding the courage to tackle a difficult issue head on, fear of being out-manoeuvred by the Tories is usally worth ten independent reviews.

The Daily Pundit
30 January 2007 at 09:20

The most depressing thing about the report is not the report itself but the response from junior minister, Phil Woolas, who called it "sinister in its intent."

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/display.var.1155335.0....

Banner
03 February 2007 at 10:21

What on earth is the political editor of the New Statesman doing backing the leader of the Tory party?

Cameron's speech was designed to whip up further distrust and hatred of Muslims - and to attack multiculturalism. He coincided it with the publication of a policy review which demonises the Muslim Council of Britain. The media took these two things and put them together so that the BNP and the MCB were equated. This is vile nonsense and just helps to legitimise the BNP.

If you actually read Cameron's speech he says something remarkable.

He says that multiculturalism 'has been manipulated to favour a divisive idea - the right to difference…'

Think about that. He is saying that our society should not be organised on the basic principle of the right to be different. But we are all different. He has encapsulated, no doubt accidentally, that the unremitting attack on multiculturalism is in fact an attack on basic liberal values. Do we seriously want a contender for Number 10 to be espousing the notion that the right to difference is divisive? It is a deeply reactionary and - yes - conservative position.

The New Statesman should be relentlessly exposing such views to criticism and scrutiny and debunking them, not giving them left cover.

Banner
03 February 2007 at 10:40

Apologies if you get another version of these comments twice - I had trouble logging in....

There are a number of problems with the Cameron speech which the New Statesman's political editor ought to be exposing rather than welcoming.

First, although Cameron did not mention particular Muslim groups in his speech, he ensured through the coincidence of the speech with the policy review document that the whole media descended on the Muslim Council of Britain. The equation between the BNP and the MCB that took place as a result of this is disgusting. It gives unecessary legitimacy to the BNP and represents a further demonisation of Muslims.

Second, Cameron says there are five obstacles to greater cohesion and integration in our society. Racism is apparently not one of them. Without a recognition of the problem of racism and racial discrimination Cameron's warm words about ethnic minorities are vacuous in the extreme. I am surprised that no one has picked him up on this.

Third, he says something extraordinary in his attack on multiculturalism. He says: that multiculturalism has 'been manipulated to favour a divisive idea - the right to difference…'

This confirms what has been evident for some time - the attack on multiculturalism is an attack on basic liberal values. The reality of human beings is that we are all different - the right to difference is not divisive but a basic right reflecting our basic humanity. Cameron's alternative position is deeply reactionary and, yes, conservative. It is an attak on liberalism itself.

I would have hoped that the political editor of the NS would be in a position to draw all this out and debunk it instead of giving it left cover.

I look forward to the NS rethinking its political editor's backing for the nasty party.