Multiculturalism isn’t crap. It’s a fact.

You seem to have fallen into the old trap of partly mistaking multiculturalism with race / skin colour. It isn’t about that.
 
You can have a mixed racial / ethnic group who all share one culture and a same race / ethnic group who do not and who are multi cultural.
 
The issue is a mix of culture, not having people of all different skin tones and ancestry.
 
Doreen Lawrence,  Muhammad Ali and  Shami Chakrabarti   are NOT representatives of multi culturalism in and of themselves. The first and last are just examples of non-white British people, the middle a famous boxer here as a tourist. They do NOT represent multiculturalism. How could they? Because they are not white therefore they must be ‘other’?
 
MC has its advantages but also leads to ghettos and isolation. There needs to be a general overarching link for the community or there is no wider community. And thats when ‘we’ hear things that shock us – such as that X people from Y ethnic background support / do not support ABC.
 
This is a reason some have an issue with MC being seen as great – it can allow great mixing and creativity and harmony but can also lead to ugliness like FGM and forced marriage being accepted as ‘its part of their culture / heritage we don’t want to interfere in case we look racist’.  
 
“There is room for everyone’s Britishness…”
 
Is there? That of the EDL and BNP and that of the 7/7 bombers and the ‘behead those who insult islam brigade?  There has to be some sort of common sense of community or there is no community.
 
I do not believe that there is room for everyone’s as some people will try and recreate a rural peasant life on a liberal western democracy.  Others will bring their primitive notions of family honour as part of their Britishness. Or their opinions on women and homosexuals.

“When we remove the veil of ideology it becomes transparent that any attack on multiculturalism means one would rather see all of this gone..”
A weak and poison laced attempt to shut down all debate on the issue. I’m in favour of MC but against FGM, forced marriage, ‘honour’ killings, people living here and never learning the language, persecution of homosexuals, ghettos, reduced opportunities for women, people having to wear masks in public, etc, etc. It is not all good and we need to be able to stand up and say – “This is NOT BRITISH. It is alien, unwanted and not part of who we are as a tolerant community. We have made strides ourselves to wipe out certain things from ourselves and we expect those who live here as us to do the same”.
The notion that the idea of having a wide range of different cultures inhabiting the same space is not an ideology is absurd. Of course it is, just as those who want a mono-culture have an ideology. Just because it exists does not mean there is no ideology behind it at some level(s). If there was no ideology to treat all the same and allow them we would be in a different situation, less multicultural. Instead there was a decision that we will and should allow all to express their own cultural as part of the wider mix of society.
“It suggests an aversion to recognising that we must develop and deliver services that are sensitive to these differences”
Not necessarily. Why should the host culture continue contort itself? Why cannot these new cultures change themselves? After all, if you really wanted to live in a Nigerian or Belgian culture you would live in those places. Instead, ‘we’ are expected to change and then you end up with, for example, women only swimming times in council tax funded swimming pools. Segregation and discrimination in the name of sensitivity. An alien sensitivity to much of modern 21st century Britain. Even an offensive sensitivity. The same goes for all documents to be translated into all languages indefinitely with no expectation that (non elderly)  people will learn the language  of the UK.
You can say MC is a fact buit recognise that it is a developing fact. You should also admit that some parts of MC are indeed crap.

Excellent article. It’s just too bad that the term “multiculturalism” has come to be vilified even by people in the political mainstream. Of course, it’s all dog-whistle politics: saying you think “multiculturalism” has failed is basically a way to say “Enoch Powell was right”.

On another (pedantic) note: ‘In Flanders Fields’ was not post-war, nor was it British. It was written during World War One by a Canadian military doctor named John McCrae, following the Second Battle of Ypres.

In fact, Canada is so proud of ‘In Flanders Fields’ that we put it on our $10 bill: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5025/5597648347_3daba3344d_b.jpg

” any attack on multiculturalism means one would rather see all of this gone; ”

It’s amazing that you can call for us to revisit the “old chestnut” of what multiculturalism is and then conflate it with diversity within a paragraph.

The French don’t pursue a policy of multiculturalism; the US too has favoured integration. The problems in both countries suggest it’s no panacea; but should we really consider both nations beyond the pale because they don’t subscribe to a particular approach to fostering immigrants?

If memory serves you would also need to be asking  Trevor Phillips (if he wasnt quitting already), a few Bishops and a number of Labour MPs to step down since all have also attacked aspects if not the basis of multi-culturalis in recent years.

I know I’m rather better known for taking the mick about things but I would like to take this opportunity to make a serious point I would ask you to consider. I’m not trying to score points or be infamatory so I would appreciate considered responses.

many on the right, and an large proportion of the more mature population do see multiculturalism as a problem.  They see it as an attempt to force strangers, very different strangers upon them and their communities. They do see it in large part as a part of a deliberate attempt to subvert the traditions, culture and practices they hold dear to.  This attack comes in many forms og ewhich political correctness is but one and it has to be said these come mainly from the left.  I think what’s even more worrying to people of this viewpoint is the speed of these changes. They’re happening so fast they don’t give people chance to assimulate them.

There is also, I think, another major difference between changes now and events in the past.
With the honourable exceptions of the Romans, the Normans and the Hugue the influxes of different groups into the UK have been of relatively small numbers, have been broadly similar in ethnic background, and have attempted either to assimulate into English culture or assimulating in large part whislt maintaining their culture but relatively low key.

In the last forty years we have seen relatively large and very visible influxes of people from India, Uganda,  Bangladesh, many countries of the Middle east and last but not least Eastern Europe. 

Many British people did need to change their views on homosexuality, women’s rights, among many other things. If you look from then to now views have changed massively.
However, modern immigration has not been a completely good thing. It has brought problems. Seen from the right  the left and proponents of multiculturalism never seem to recognise any of these problems. Instead they just rush blindly onwards demanding even more changes to society.

Please recognise, accept, and consider that a large proportion of the polulation feel they have had enough change. They would like a rest, to site back, catch their breath and get used to the curent situation before even more changes are forced upon them.

All we hear is a cacophany of voices demanding change, demanding that we impliment their viewpoint immediately, whatever their cause, whatever it’s merit. 

Be considerate of others who don’t hold your viewpoint please. The right has to be, cos it’s been made illegal to be otherwise.

 It’s an estimate.

As one who had the privileg of campaigning in Cannock Chase constituency on Saturday, many resident s I spoke to were appalled by Mr Burley’s comments. They feel that he’s an absolute embarrasment to himself, his party, and more importantly, to the people of Cannock Chase. What is more, when discussing the issue with x-servicemen who were collecting signatures to save their local regiment, they were shocked and disgusted that such a person as Mr Burley should be their MP, and many of them were naturally inclined to support the Conservative Party.     

Dear all,
Dear all,
Firstly I’m delighted that this post provoked such discussion and debate. My apologies that I have taken so long to respond since it was posted – this was a question of time rather than a question of any reluctance to get involved in the debate.
The first thing I suppose I should say is that I am a woman – so the pronoun ‘she’ would be preferable to ‘he’.
The second point I would like to address is by referring to the title. The point I am making is that there has been no intentional attempt to ‘change’ British society, or to ‘force’ strangers upon anybody. That is really why I am saying that multiculturalism is not a policy or an ideology – but the consequence of a range of factors that have accelerated movement into (and; people often forget this – out of, then back into) the country. It is also a consequence of the fact that many people are British born (such as myself) but have been born into migrant families and backgrounds. So in many instances, calling such individuals ‘strangers’ to British society rather begs the question.
As for whether multiculturalism is a good or a bad thing – there was no suggestion it was one or the other. That would require thinking it was an ideology that was to be agreed or disagreed with. As I mentioned, I think it is a fact of life in British society.
As someone who has campaigned vigorously on matters such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage and equal marriage, this post was definitely not an attempt to shut down debate on some very important issues relating to the rights of some women and to the rights of some individuals who grow up in diverse communities. But the important question is what our response should be in these circumstances.
We would be shirking our responsibility as a liberal democratic British society if we thought the answer to this particular problem was to have fewer people from different cultures and to actively pursue this as a policy; rather than to do what we currently do – which is to ensure that people have adequate protection both in practice and under the law if they need refuge.
Understanding that people have particular needs and that we need to provide for them – such as social care where the care worker can actually be understood by the recipient of care, or hospital food which is vegetarian, or translation services in court; is not quite the same thing as requiring the ‘host’ culture to ‘contort’ itself. This kind of understanding actually facilitates integration and is not a barrier to it. This kind of understanding is also what politicians vitally need in modern day Britain and a reason for why I found Aidan Burley’s remarks so disappointing. I am not arguing for any policy of increased migration. I am arguing for politicians to be aware of the world they live in, as it is, here and now, and to be aware of the diverse needs of the people that pay their wages.
As for the remarks on Asian communities – I would say that Asian communities in and of themselves have significant cultural differences, and yes, cultural similarities. Many of these differences are linguistic, many are religious and many are cultural. There are over 300 languages in India alone. It is for this reason that most Asian radio networks that I can think of are entirely in English (with the exception of the music). This doesn’t quite square with the remarks that many migrants have ghettoised themselves, and haven’t made an effort to learn English.