Views on News - Blairs Speech

Blair Speech: Duty to integrate & stay silent

When Tony Blair made his speech in Downing Street: "The Duty to Integrate: Shared British Values" on 08 December 2006 he sparked the most extraordinary headlines. 'Blair tells immigrants to integrate or stay away'; 'Blair: Stick to our values or don't come'; 'IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T COME HERE'. New Labour undoubtedly has the most sophisticated understanding of how to pass a media message of any British government of modern times. It is, then, undoubtedly the case that these headlines were intended by this speech. The speech unashamedly focused on the Muslim community, conflating immigrant, with Muslim, with problem.

Only a few years ago it would have been unthinkable for the Prime Minister to use a discourse on these matters that would befit a far right extremist. Indeed, it is not the offensive ideas of the far right fringe that is fuelling community division and hostility against Britain’s Muslim community, but the Prime Minister himself and his government. Although he commented that Blair’s Britain 'was not the stuffy old Britain that used to be sent up in the comedy sketches of the 1970s but a nation proud, willing and able to go out and compete on its merits', the reality was different. His was a speech of which Alf Garnett would have been proud. When Blair later said that 'it is a problem with a minority of that community, particularly originating from certain countries' he could just as well have said 'Pakis go home'!

This was also a speech that carried the latest lie for the Olympic Bid that Britain was a country "at ease with different races, religions and cultures". Britain, under Blair and despite his boast about legal protections (many of which come from European law in any case) has become more hostile to different races, religions and cultures.

It is a telling piece of New Labour spin that he said "only 25 per cent of Brits say they would prefer to live in an all-white area." That is 'only' 15 million people! But it is rank hypocrisy to argue that he believes in "essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage". We can of course concede that he believes in Britain’s Imperial and Colonial heritage. But to argue he believes in 'democracy' when he has attempted to cluster bomb democracy onto Iraq and Afghanistan is laughable. His belief in the rule of law was heretical when it came to the illegal war in Iraq, Belmarsh, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition. His equal treatment for the Muslim community did not extend to stop and search, and not to 'residents', as opposed to citizens, in terms of their status before the law. All of this is ample proof of his contempt for 'this country' and those aspects of its heritage that adopted these principles.

But in fairness to Blair, his statements expose something that he cannot take sole blame for. Many leaders and politicians in Europe and the United States have sung the song of noble aims – justice, equality, rights, and 'freedom' – and yet worked against these values in their foreign policy. Think of Somalia and Vietnam, Suez and the Raj. The history of western foreign policy is one based upon violence and profits more than values and Prophetic teachings. The sad fact of the matter is that as long as big business dominates the political arena, the future is unlikely to be any more ethical. Mr Blair says that integration is about "integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values". If by this he means integrating into values that promote the profit motivated violence of the 19th and 20th Century, then I and many others, Muslims and non-Muslims will defy his call for them to "take clear precedence over any cultural or religious practice". Instead, I will stand up, because of my religion and call loud and long against these values even if it rocks the boat. What Blair’s Iraq disaster symbolises is decades of imperial adventures that have allowed small numbers to prosper exponentially whilst simultaneously destroying the lives of millions.

Muslims want to engage with their non-Muslim neighbours – to further understanding about the distinct beliefs and practices of Muslims, as well as the common human traits we share. We have no problem with engagement in civil society. Some have said that we value matters such as modesty, courtesy, respect for the elderly and family, or 'community over individual' in a way that was once traditional in Britain, but is now lamented as it has been eroded by a 'freedom gone mad culture' – and this may well be a valuable contribution to modern Britain. Many now engaged in these initiatives believe that a more practical notion of aiming for harmony between communities is a way forward.

But by continually trying to push integration in society through vague and conflicting definitions of Britishness, war on terror propaganda and the imposition of the chosen values of the government of the day on everyone else is likely to impede the road to better community relations. His solutions once again focus around Muslims, immigrants and any one else who makes a good headline, laying the blame at someone else’s door. He, like Jack Straw before him, has again firmly deflected any consideration that there is a solution in addressing foreign policy.

Although this New Labour pattern is now extremely predictable, it is disturbingly reckless – that a government will try to save itself by vilifying a minority – even at the expense of community relations. It is something that has undoubtedly become part of Blair’s legacy to political life.