Respect, not race

With the British National Party grabbing a few headlines at the moment, I thought that I'd offer my own take on the issue of nationality and citizenship as my first WoS post of 2007.

Coming from a pretty multicultural city, I’ve worked alongside people from across the world, some of whom I’ve considered good friends. Most of the time, when either bitching about work or sharing a drink, their ethnicity or their reasons for coming to Britain simply hasn’t struck me as important – a brief topic of conversation, at best.

In a desperate attempt to make my English degree mean something, I like to put this down to my love of reading. Bear with me. On my bookshelves sit cherished works by the likes of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Anton Chekhov, Franz Kafka, and various other writers from a diverse range of backgrounds. If I’ve learnt only one thing from this esteemed collection of writers (and that’s quite possible) it’s that the character of a person is far more interesting and important than where they come from. Things like nationality or ethnicity don’t define someone, but their outlook on life can.

In his excellent essay on identity, ‘Citizens of the World’, K. Anthony Appiah tells us that one of the last pieces of advice his father left him was that, wherever he lived, he should try to leave it “better than you found it”. A perfect motto for the internationalist outlook. That’s what’s important to me: If someone respects their fellow citizens then, regardless of where they came from, I’m more than happy to live alongside them.

Intelligent Teaching

New Labour’s attitude towards the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design has always been a bit slippery, while they never come out in actual support of these so-called alternatives to the theory of evolution they don’t seem that eager to stand in their way either. So it comes as little surprise that they’re doing nothing to prevent the use of information packs provided by ID advocates Truth in Science in science classes.

Both the parliamentary science and technology select committee and Department for Education and Skills have declared the packs inappropriate and unscientific, but they’ve found some support with Education Secretary Alan Johnson and some teachers. They claim that teaching ‘alternatives’ to evolution is the best and most scientific way to go. And on the face of it that’s a fairly credible stance.

The problem with teaching Intelligent Design though is that it’s 10% bad science and 90% bad metaphysics. The only aspect of it that has any real claim to being scientific is the concept of Irreducible Complexity, an idea dismissed by the majority of the scientific community and the subject of not one peer-reviewed paper or article. When held up to the harsh light of day it represents about as credible a challenge to evolutionary theory as breatharianism, and as such it seems quite pointless taking up valuable teaching time to deal with it.

This isn’t to say that Darwinism should be regarded as a ‘sacred cow’. Science at GCSE level should be aimed at teaching students basic scientific principles within the context of mainstream scientific opinion. Emphasising the speculative nature of science and letting children know that a number of important theories are disputed by some is essential for them to really grasp the way science works. But teaching theories accepted only by a minority of people is a waste of time and resources, and should ideally be left for higher education. Even then it shouldn’t rely on information packs from biased organisations.

Britain needs a Bill of Rights

In her speech to the Royal United Services Institute, Margaret Beckett (the British Foreign Secretary) has joined her New Labour colleagues in calling upon British Muslims to lead the fight against Islamic extremism. The speech followed the well worn path of: “We know most Muslims despise these extremists, but it would be nice if they could actually tell us when they hear about a terrorist plot.” Most notably, she’s called upon them to spread the good word about life in Britain when they travel abroad to Islamic countries. Presumably in the hope that some deranged Islamist will abandon his plan to attack Britain after hearing from his brother’s friend’s aunt that really we’re not so bad.

When it comes to the Muslim community, New Labour is really trying to have its cake and eat it: repeatedly stating that we’re all in this together, then singling out Muslims as a special case. Muslims must do more to tackle extremism, we’re told. So does that mean the rest of us can carry on as we are? Yes, one of the biggest threats we face is from Muslim extremists, but there are better ways of getting the message across. Less divisive ways.

It’s the responsibility of everyone to deal with extremists - be they political, religious, or nationalists – including, as they’re part of British society, Muslims. Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together. It’s not just Muslims who come into contact with extremists, and it’s not just non-Muslims who are affected by their actions.

The debate about extremism, and how best we can deal with it, is part of a much larger debate about citizenship: What does it mean to be a British citizen. While we’ve had numerous speeches about the British “way of life”, Ministers have continually ignored the most fundamental requirement of an inclusive and democratic society: a set of rights guaranteed to every citizen. Such a democratic ‘Bill of Rights’ (unlike the one we already possess) would firmly emphasise that those it applied to were full British citizens, and provide a means of addressing grievances, should anyone feel they’ve been treated unfairly or singled out.

While talk of citizenship remains abstract it remains too elusive. We need something concrete. Maybe then we’ll be in a position to argue over how best we can tackle those who mean us harm.

Being British

Recent comments by a senior MP in Britain have stirred up a great deal of debate over Islamic dress, and with it has come a lot of talk about integration and Muslims becoming “more British”. But what exactly does that mean?

Over the past year or so the government has attempted to define (in order to encourage) a greater sense of “Britishness” amongst the population – yet, no matter how many lists of values and attributes they come up with, no real satisfactory definition of our national identity has been found. Too vague and it’s too weak to create a sense of community. Too specific and it proves too divisive, leaving out large sections of the country.

Part of the problem is that there often seem to be two separate concepts melded together…

1) Relationship with the state: obeying British law, using British services, voting in elections, standing for public office, etc.

2) Relationship with society: engaging in social affairs, sharing in cultural trends, etc.

It’s hard to see something like the veil as a real barrier to No 1. as extreme clothing doesn’t really affect your legal status. With one or two exceptions (passport photos for example) women can comply with the law, use public transport, and vote or stand for office while veiled.

This is the reason why the state has no business regulating something like clothing. (Unless it’s somehow dangerous to others).

However, it’s the second relationship which sees a number of problems arise.

The main reason for a lot of the unease about Muslims (and other minorities) is the perceived lack of a common frame of reference. No matter which part of the country a “native Brit” comes from, I have a fair idea of what their life is like, and what their views could be. This sense of understanding is lacking when it comes to “alien” cultures - which could explain the ease with which distrust and suspicion spring up. We’re constantly told that a clear barrier exists between the majority of this country’s Muslims and those committing terrorist atrocities in their name, but how many of us have a clear enough understanding of Islam and the Islamic world to judge that assertion properly? How many of us are in a position to judge whether the veil is oppressive or not?

(In the same way: does a lack of understanding of mainstream western culture feed the sense of a general war on Islam among Muslims?)

A sense of “solidarity” across the various religious/ethnic communities in Britain can only come through increased interaction – we need to learn more about them as they learn more about us. This has to be done in a genuine spirit of co-operation. Attempt by one group to force their ideas and values onto another will only increase the sense of separateness.