Prime Minister David Cameron will condemn state promoted multiculturalism in a speech to the Munich Security Conference, saying that it has failed and that a direct approach is needed to combat home-grown Islamic extremism. Once again multiculturalism has become the scapegoat for problems directly caused by British foreign policy in the Middle East.
Prime Minister David Cameron is set to follow German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s speech in October last year by declaring that multiculturalism has failed and is responsible for the rise of home-grown Islamic extremism.
While Chancellor Merkel emphasised that immigrants in Germany must embrace German culture and values David Cameron will mention that British Muslims must embrace British values.
Merkel said “Germany should…get tougher on those who refuse to integrate before opening itself up to further immigration.” (Kate Connolly: Guardian: Sunday, 17 October, 2010).
David Cameron will say “I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it (Islamic extremism) comes down to a question of identity.” (David Maddox: The Scotsman: 5 February, 2011).
Cameron is to say that multiculturalism has encouraged different cultures to live separately and more worryingly, will say that non-violent organisations which serve the Muslim community but “are ambiguous on Western values should no longer receive state funding, and should be banned from university campuses.”
This dangerous precedent is in itself unclear. Is the Prime Minister saying that Muslim organisations which are critical of Western or British foreign policy in the Middle East will not receive state funding? If so, this will be a blow to free speech.
Does Cameron think Muslims are stupid?
It is amazing that British political leaders and Western leaders in general can still get away with parroting the same script about home-grown terrorists not integrating within the mainstream culture or rejecting Western values.
Does Cameron really think that informed and educated Muslims are stupid, and do not know that British foreign policy in the Middle East is to do with oil and geopolitical influence in the Middle East?
In November 2008, Twenty-nine year-old Bilal Abdulla, a doctor in the National Health Service, and 28 year-old Jordanian neurologist Mohammed Asha, were both accused of conspiracy to murder and cause explosions in a failed double car bombing in London on June 29, 2007.
When Abdulla was asked by his lawyer in the trial at Woolwich Crown Court, southeast London, whether he told a police officer that he was a terrorist, he replied: “I said something along those lines, but it was more like a question. Everyone was saying you are a terrorist, you are arrested under the Terrorism Act and so forth…I am told I am a terrorist, but is your government not a terrorist, is your army not a terrorist? By the definition of the act, according to English law, yes. This my aim, to change opinion using violence, using fire devices.” (ITV News: Monday, 17 November 2008)
Abdulla believes that the British government uses violence to achieve their aims and sought to do the same to get his voice heard. His motives had nothing to do with multiculturalism or a rejection of British values, it was rather he rejected the hypocrisy of the British government that uses violence to achieve their aims in the Middle East.
This is arguably the British values that young Muslims see, the use of force and violence to overwhelm people and get what they want. This has been the cornerstone of British foreign policy since the era of the African slave trade.
While Abdulla stood trial for his crimes powerful leaders in the West who aided former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his crimes against the Kurds and his own people walk free.
In an article titled “How Iraq Built Its Weapons Programs”, in the St Petersburg Times, on March 16, 2003, former US Senator, Donald Riegle was quoted in this article saying, “What is absolutely crystal clear is this: That if Saddam Hussein today has a large arsenal of biological weapons, partly it was the United States that provided the very live viruses that he needed to create those weapons.”
According to an article by Neil Mackay, in the Sunday Herald, seventeen British companies supplied Iraq with nuclear, biological, chemical, rocket and conventional weapons technology.
Western governments were accessories to the crimes that Saddam committed and yet he alone stood trial and was executed.
The U.S./Iraqi “Strategic Framework Agreement”, is the deal that U.S. president George Bush pushed through to complete with the Iraqi government before he left office. The deal is outlined in the only official document, the November 26, 2007 “Declaration of Principles” document; and drafts was also leaked to the Guardian, on March 7, 2008 and to the Arabic newspaper (Middle East) on August 6, 2008.
The evidence is clear that the oil law which the US has tried to impose on the Iraqi parliament from 2006 would guarantee international oil companies control of Iraqi oil, yet further proof that the invasion of Iraq was done so with a criminal purpose and would be defined as terrorism if it were any other non-western country.
Are these the British values David Cameron speak of?
It is quite clear that the challenges which the citizens of Western democracies face are great. If terrorism is to be tackled at the root the crimes of Western leaders must be addressed.
The more these crimes are ignored the worse the problem will get as individuals and groups begin to take the law into their own hands because international institutions and laws are corrupted by powerful governments.
In a lawless world where the powerful can circumvent justice, the powerless will resort to the politics of desperation and violence.
Strengthening international law and institutions so that all are answerable to the law no matter how powerful is one of the best options for fighting terrorism.
David Cameron continues to lie to the British people about why there is a rise in home-grown terrorists, and like Merkel he has used multiculturalism as a scapegoat to disguise the evils of Western foreign policy.
For further research: