Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Memo to the Big Six: cut your prices now (Times)

If they don’t want to become as hated as bankers, energy companies must wise up to political reality, says Philip Collins. 

2. Harsh truths about the decline of Britain (Daily Telegraph)

All the indicators of progress are heading in the wrong direction, and time is running out, writes Jeremy Warner.

3. Welfare dependency isn't Britain's gravest economic problem. Pitiful pay is (Guardian)

If the government really wanted to cut its benefit bill, it would ensure that employers give their workers a living wage, says Polly Toynbee.

4. Hollande holds key to Merkel’s euro plan (Financial Times)

Germany believes the long-term future of the single currency rests with France link, writes Philip Stephens.

5. If I ruled the world – Tony Blair’s lessons in how best to govern (Independent)

How do politicians deliver the changes they have been elected to deliver, asks John Rentoul.

6. Iain Duncan Smith: faith and the facts (Guardian)

Duncan Smith's universal credit has been blessed, to an exceptional degree, with the benefit of the doubt – until now, says a Guardian editorial. 

7. George Osborne should halt the train journey no one wants to take (Daily Telegraph)

HS2 was an interesting idea at first, but it has proved to be an analogue solution for a digital age, argues Fraser Nelson.

8. UK’s energy chaos reflects a lack of focus (Financial Times)

We have an alphabet soup of policies creating unnecessary complexity, writes Paul Johnson.

9. Afghanistan? Iraq? Nope, Dick Cheney doesn’t believe in regrets (Independent)

You'll be hard pressed to find contrition in this apparent autobiography, says Peter Popham.

10. The Red Cross needs to reclaim its hijacked neutrality (Guardian)

As it turns 150, the ICRC must work to reassert its reputation – undermined by Blair's wars and political adventurism, writes Simon Jenkins.

Getty
Show Hide image

There are two sides to the Muslim segregation story

White families must also be prepared to have Muslim neighbours. 

Dame Louise Casey finally published her review on social integration in Britain. Although it mentions all communities, there is a clear focus on Muslim communities. However, the issues she raises - religious conservatism, segregation in some areas and Muslim women experiencing inequalities -  are not new. In this case, they have been placed in one report and discussed in the context of hindering integration. If we are truly committed to addressing these issues, though, we have a duty of care to discuss the findings with nuance, not take them out of context, as some tabloids have already done.

The review, for example, highlights that in some areas Muslims make up 85 per cent of the local population. This should not be interpreted to mean that Muslims are choosing to isolate themselves and not integrate. For a start, the review makes it clear that there are also certain areas in Britain that are predominantly Sikh, Hindu or Jewish.

Secondly, when migrants arrive in the UK, it is not unreasonable for them to gravitate towards people from similar cultural and faith backgrounds.  Later, they may choose to remain in these same areas due to convenience, such as being able to buy their own food, accessing their place of worship or being near elderly relatives.

However, very little, if any, attention is given to the role played by white families in creating segregated communities. These families moved out of such areas after the arrival of ethnic minorities. This isn't necessarily due to racism, but because such families are able to afford to move up the housing ladder. And when they do move, perhaps they feel more comfortable living with people of a similar background to themselves. Again, this is understandable, but it highlights that segregation is a two-way street. Such a phenomenon cannot be prevented or reversed unless white families are also willing to have Muslim neighbours. Is the government also prepared to have these difficult conversations?

Casey also mentions inequalities that are holding some Muslim women back, inequalities driven by misogyny, cultural abuses, not being able to speak English and the high numbers of Muslim women who are economically inactive. It’s true that the English language is a strong enabler of integration. It can help women engage better with their children, have access to services and the jobs market, and be better informed about their rights.

Nevertheless, we should remember that first-generation Pakistani and Bangladeshi women, who could not speak English, have proved perfectly able to bring up children now employed in a vast range of professions including politics, medicine, and the law. The cultural abuses mentioned in the review such as forced marriage, honour-based violence and female genital mutilation, are already being tackled by government. It would be more valuable to see the government challenge the hate crimes and discrimination regularly faced by Muslim women when trying to access public services and the jobs market. 

The review recommends an "Oath of Integration with British Values and Society" for immigrants on arrival. This raises the perennial question of what "British Values" are. The Casey review uses the list from the government’s counter-extremism strategy. In reality, the vast majority of individuals, regardless of faith or ethnic background, would agree to sign up to them.  The key challenge for any integration strategy is to persuade all groups to practice these values every day, rather than just getting immigrants to read them out once. 

Shaista Gohir is the chair of Muslim Women's Network UK, and Sophie Garner is the general secretary and a barrister.