STATE-SPONSORED MULTCULTURALISM BREEDS DIVISION

Interesting First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury, in which the Prior of Holy Cross, Father Leon Pereira OP (photo above), responds to Prime Minister David Cameron's recent speech on multiculturalism. Fr Pereira isn't a member of Leicester Council of Faiths, he does not in any way speak for Leicester Council of Faiths. He is, nonetheless, a high profile religious figure in the city, with regular contributions to the Mercury through its First Person column. His piece to today's paper (which I am sure will stimulate discussion and may well receive published responses) is reproduced in full below: 

State-sponsored multiculturalism breeds division

Fr Leon Pereira on "muscular liberal" integration versus "weak liberal" ghettos

I was born in a Muslim-dominated country (Malaysia) and spent my childhood in a secular one (Singapore), so I have some knowledge of what I'm about to say below. Singapore and Malaysia are both made up of three main races, Chinese, Indians and Malays, in different proportions. Malays predominate in Malaysia, and the Chinese in Singapore. (As an Indian I've lucked out, haven't I?).

Since independence from Britain, the inordinate emphasis in Malaysia on race and religion (specifically, Islam) has produced an unhappy and unjust situation, which is not immediately obvious to casual tourists, blinded by state propaganda.

In Singapore, despite its faults, the heavy emphasis on merit over other considerations has produced a strong, united national identity and culture. Not a "state multiculturalism" but a "national culture". Its former Prime Minister, the famous (or notorious, it depends on your perspective) Mr Lee Kuan Yew recently upset Muslim Malaysian politicians by noting that Islam was the one element of his society that "resisted integration".

Last Saturday our own Prime Minister lamented that "state multiculturalism" had failed in Britain.

The state, he said, had "encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream".

For Mr Cameron the culprit is "weak liberalism", which bends over backwards to accommodate Islam without insisting on a give-and-take.

For example, Peter Sissons, the doyen of broadcasters, recently accused the BBC of institutionalised bias: "Islam must not be offended at any price." Universities (our local ones are no exception) by making unbalanced concessions to Muslims (in a well-meaning but naïve attempt to minimise extremism) breed resentment and division.

The "weak liberal" approach does not foster integration, but solidifies cultural enclaves.

Those who complained that Mr Cameron's words were "not helpful" ought to consider what is helpful, and tell him. The majority of Muslims who want peace and tolerance should not feel that they are being singled out. The ones who did that are those who engage in terrorism, who vandalize war memorials with threats against the infidels (non-Muslims), who protest at funerals of British soldiers, the "honour" killers, and the groomers of young white girls for sexual exploitation.

Mr Cameron carefully and prudently distinguished between Islam and Islamic extremism – the latter is propagated by fanatics who enjoy the freedoms of Britain to act against the rest of us. They are fostered by "weak liberalism", which, by also making the majority feel like strangers in their own land, will only stoke the other enemy: fascist nationalism, for example, the thugs of the English Defence League.