By Sunny Hundal

I think the biggest problem with Cameron’s speech yesterday that it missed a vital opportunity to start a more mature and intelligent dialogue approach on integration and counter-terrorism, rather than continuing the hectoring tone reminiscent of Tony Blair’s government.

Originally published by Liberal Conspiracy

My objections can be divided into three areas.

First, it was striking how much it was simply about pandering to the Daily Mail crowd through strawmen, than saying anything new.

I vehemently attacked “state multiculturalism”, as Cameron did yesterday, back in 2006. At the time there was a problem with the government funding “community leaders” to deal with integration and counter-terrorism. There isn’t now. Organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain haven’t received state funding for years.

When Cameron says they’ll get no public money, it’s not clear who he refers to. And if the test is that organisations much encourage “integration or separation” – then faith schools should be culled immediately.

So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them.

Really? Any examples of this? This rather sounds like the Daily Mail claim that the right are stopped from talking about immigration – it simply isn’t true that “unacceptable” views from ethnic minorities go unchallenged. The question is, will the Cameroons also apply the same standard to homophobes like Melanie Phillips and racists like Rod Liddle?

Second, it has potentially worrying implications for free speech, even though Cameron says we must promote it as a British virtue.

He says:

We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad.

I’ve always been for having a consistent approach on this issue. Either you ban people who preach any form of hatred – from homophobia to religious segregation – or you only ban those that say things that would be illegal under our laws. I prefer the latter approach, because I believe that people should be allowed to make up their own minds on issues.

Will the dutch politician Geert Wilders be banned from coming to the UK then? He should be, going by the above criteria. So should the Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman. But the British govt is likely to turn a blind eye to them, further fuelling the view that these criteria aren’t applied fairly.

He also says:

At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions like universities or even, in the British case, prisons. Now, some say, this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry. Well, I say, would you take the same view if these were right-wing extremists recruiting on our campuses?

Yes I would, actually. I’ve argued for the rights of far-right groups to hold marches and have the freedom of association and speech because I believe those rights should apply to all. To say we should uphold civil liberties and free speech as quintessentially important British values and then trample on them is just muddled and idiotic. It shows that Cameron still is unsure what this all means.

Thirdly, some of the aspirations are pointless unless backed by action.

I’m all for immigrants learning English in this country. I’m sorry but there are no proper excuses not to. But the last government and this government especially is cutting ESOL classes across the board. They’re making it harder for people to learn English.

He also says:

A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

Again, this makes no sense. A society that genuinely promotes democracy and freedom of speech & association allows its citizens to hold views that some will find abhorrent. In other words he is unlikely to promote genuine free speech unless Muslims say what he wants them to say.

Hectoring versus working together

When the Conservatives were out of power, it was common for them to create straw-men in order to appease the tabloids. It looks like Cameron still hasn’t grown up from those days.

I highly doubt that Muslims will read a speech that says ‘Its time for Muslims to deal with their own nutters’ – which is how it was billed to the tabloid press – and applaud it. Do we ask the “white community” to deal with the English Defence League?

How about something on what the government will do more to deal with white extremism? Which other community group faces marches on the streets by 1000s of angry men? How about acknowledging that a lot of the worries about sharia being imposed on our society is tabloid hysteria with little basis in fact? What about Muslim groups who are doing positive things in our society?

There was little of that. There was more of the Tony Blair arrogance that said he knows what’s best and he’s going to deal with terrorism simply by shifting around government funding. I highly doubt it will have much impact on the ground, while damaging our already fragile commitment to civil liberties and free speech.