Why we're not allowed to talk about Manning the Borders: Multiculturalism as a form of Censorship

In the society that we live in today, its hard to say anything about wanting to reduce the rate of immigration into the United Kingdom, without someone poking his head above the parapet and shouting 'racist'. We all know the benefits of immigration, but there are also many disadvantages. One of the principal disadvantages is the economic cost incurred by ensuring that refugees and asylum seekers are given the full range of opportunities to integrate into British society. Asylum seekers have often fled from difficult circumstances. They may have serious mental health problems, sometimes will have a lack of basic education and very often will not speak English. None of this is likely to be the fault of the asylum seeker, but if we are to adequately support the asylum seekers we admit into the country, we have to cough up the resources to educate, train and integrate them. The problem is that the British government lets asylum seekers into the country, but then does not enable them to properly integrate. Neither does it seem to think it important that refugees integrate into society. Instead refugees and asylum seekers are often housed in the most dreadful of conditions, given menial support to learn English or get a new job and left exposed to racism and exploitation. This causes problems. It is often the working classes, or those on benefits, who see the adverse effects of immigration. They see the material fabric of their local neighbourhood falling into decline, because their area has become a dumping ground, used by the state to place refugees and asylum seekers. Local authorities house asylum seekers in poor private accommodation, because there is nowhere else for them to go, and the government pays their rent. A lucrative sector opens up for those landlords who are willing to accept government money to house asylum seekers. Thanks to the endless demand for accommodation, these landlords have no economic reason or any moral scruples to maintain their properties. The properties fall into disrepair, depressing the people that live near them, and the asylum seekers who have to live in them.

Another adverse effect of admitting asylum seekers into the country, without supporting them, is that the bad element amongst them is more likely to get involved with illegal immigrants, turning to drug dealing, protection rackets and prostitution. Often, the middle classes don't get to see this kind of activity in their local neighbourhoods, they wouldn't put up with it. But the poorer people, being part of the neighbourhoods where this takes root, and not having the cultural, political or material resources to deal with the problems, have to put up with it. Now, it's not the case that asylum seekers or illegal immigrants are the only people to engage in things like child prostitution and dealing. Britain has cultured plenty of its own homegrown low-life. However, when people see people from different ethnic groups, entering the country (and receiving very little support from the government) and starting to engage in criminal activity, naturally the question arises, wouldn't it have been better to stop them coming in? If the government are not prepared to properly support asylum seekers and refugees, to give them the opportunities they need to integrate into British society, wouldn't it be better for the UK not to let them in?

A third disadvantage of the particular immigration policy we are adopting in this country, is that it seems to allow people into the country, who want to create divisions between people based on hate and suspicion. Let's not deny that Britain has raised plenty of its own trouble stirrers. The British National Party and the National Front both try and create a climate of fear to drive support for their own causes. John Major famously tried to create a climate of fear and distrust against the travelling community. More recently, the Labour government tried to convince the British public that Iraq was going to launch an attack on the west, to gather support for its unprincipled attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraqi fiefdom. At the same time, there are some immigrants who are sowing divisiveness in British society. The newspapers report stories of Islamic leaders, aided and abetted by the state and it's support for religious schools, teaching their congregations to distrust British people, to seek the destruction of western civilisation and British society. People like this may be far and few between, but still, the question remains, should we be allowing people like this to stay in the country. Shouldn't there at least be a simple criterion that we shouldn't let a person stay in this country if they are openly opposed to wanting to destroy it? So there are two key points that need to be made and discussed in society. The first is, given that the government is not prepared to properly support the current number of asylum seekers and refugees, wouldn't it be better for us to reduce the number so we can provide proper support for those we do admit? The second question is that, shouldn't we have some kind of monitoring system in place which allows us to keep a tab on people who have come into the country and are openly advocating its destruction? Unfortunately, we are not able to have this debate. Instead we are force fed the idea, both by the state, and now by private enterprises (at least officially), that we have to adopt the tenets of multiculturalism. Make sure you understand the difference between multicultural and multiculturalism. Multicultural, the adjective, is usually a positive word, referring to the joys of a diversity of cultural symbols and products - often connected with consumerism. Multiculturalism, is a political and cultural philosophy. It is a relativist concept, which states that as individuals, we should embrace, respect and tolerate all cultures and religions. Multiculturalism is flawed. Cultures and religions do not necessarily sit side by side, like pieces of a jigsaw, complementing each other, although different. It is impossible for example to believe in the Hindu or Sikh caste systems and at the same time adhere to the virtues of anti-racism. One cannot be a committed atheist and at the same time pay much value to the central tenets of Islam or Christianity. Given that multiculturalism is in itself a flawed notion, not achievable in any society, it begs the question, for what use is it?

Multiculturalism is the cultural equivalent of the state's monopolisation of violence - it is an attempt to monopolise cultural criticism. Through it the state demands that groups and individuals refrain from criticising each other's religion and culture. The state has created a climate of fear where we are no longer able to openly criticise or freely interpret the key tenets of certain religions or cultural traditions. The natural reaction from much of the middle classes, and from the unthinking left, to those that criticise or raise questions about other non-dominant cultures, is to apply the label 'racist' and threats of litigation, job loss and prison sentences. Under such conditions, it is, quite frankly, not surprising, that those who see the harsher effects of the state's policy on immigration, shut up from complaining about it, consider voting for far right policies. Voting for far right parties is a self-destructive, despicable and hateful act. It is a weak reaction to the equally self-destructive and hateful acts caused by mainstream political classes, who admit but fail to support asylum seekers, fail to acknowledge the problems caused by this policy, and then try their damnedest to shut the people up from talking about it.

The state does not, of course, apply the demands it makes of people, to itself. The government is able to talk of 'Islamic terrorism' insinuating that terrorism has its roots in, and is thus caused by something inherent in Islam. The government continues to use the notion of the developed and developing world, implicitly attributing value to the developed countries, and the people that live within them, whilst denigrating those that come from developing countries. Furthermore, the government has recently tabled proposals for letting people with certain types of skill or a certain amount of wealth, into the country, denying access to others. This of course constitutes gross class discrimination - the world's middle classes may enter but not the worthless poorer classes. It also constitutes indirect racial discrimination, given that many of the world's poorer and less skilled people find themselves where they are, by dint of the fact that they are members of oppressed ethnic groups. A further direct form of racial discrimination is the distinction made between Europeans and outsiders. Europeans from all over the Union are now free to enter into the UK, Europeans from outside the Union are not. Multiculturalism is not really an attempt to achieve cultural harmony, equilibrium and racial equality. Instead it is designed to stop people from commenting on immigration policy and how it is being used to serve the interests of British industry, the state and the middle classes. Industry and the middle classes crave the endless supply of cheap labour that immigration brings. It not only helps one compete with the likes of China, it serves to soften up the indigenous working classes. Furthermore, the middle classes, sitting pretty in their 'detached' houses and 'exclusive' apartments, only ever see the benefits of multicultural British society: thousands of different restaurants, a variety of music and the cosmopolitan buzz of London. Yes, the middle classes and the state encourage immigration, sometimes covertly, but they don't want to shell out the money needed to properly integrate the poorer immigrants, and they don't want to know about the adverse effects of immigration policy in the poorer areas of the country. Above all, the middle classes don't want a proper debate about what is needed to properly support refugees and asylum seekers, because the answer would form a rationale for raising taxes and worsening their own personal economic condition. The middle classes, which in our society have the authorial power to make statements about the pros and cons of admitting refugees and asylum seekers, simply prefer to keep quiet about it.

Consequently, the government requires us to embrace all those people who it lets in and put up with the flaws in its policy without resistance. Fortunately, the parliamentary dictatorship under which we live, is democratically elected, so the tensions created by immigration policy should find an outlet in political debate. So far, the debate has been stifled, by the fact that the only parties that are willing to discuss these issues, are the parties who have either traditionally had a hateful edge (as with the Conservatives) or are just hateful to the core (British National Party and the National Front). Whenever they talk, people assume there is a hidden or not so hidden racist agenda. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and many unthinking people in this country, afraid to be cast in the same mould, simply cry out 'racist', or keep their heads down, as soon as anyone raises objections to the number of people coming into the country. Britain is crying out for a sensible debate on what to do about immigration - one where the right can talk about the benefits of immigration - and one where the left can talk about reducing immigration and setting a cap on the number of asylum seekers and refugees. April 2005

Stephanie Powers

So what do you think of what you've just read? Please write and tell us!