Tolerance Makes Britain: Inventing Britain For the 21st Century (Part Three)

Tolerance Makes Britain: Inventing Britain For the 21st Century (Part Three)

In a high-profile speech yesterday, Tony Blair set out his vision of the new multiculturalism based on a set of common British values to which everyone must be expected to conform. The heart of these values was tolerance: tolerance is an essential part of being British; tolerance is “what makes Britain”.

Clearly, a minor revision is needed to what I referred to in the last entry of this blog as ‘Blair’s Britology’: the set of supposedly shared British values that are being promoted as the basis upon which all the peoples of Britain should unite, politically and culturally. In this list, I included ‘respect’ – a previous mantra of Mr Blair’s – rather than tolerance; although I regard tolerance as an implied sub-category of respect, as I was going to clarify in subsequent blogs. It is clear that Mr Blair links the two concepts closely, too, as his list of “our essential values” in his speech yesterday makes plain: “belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage”. Tolerance towards diversity goes hand in hand with respect for the pillars of the shared socio-cultural edifice: equality of all under the law made by democratic government.

Nothing objectionable about that, one might say. However, in Blair’s new Britain, tolerance towards those of different faiths or from different cultural backgrounds is accompanied by zero tolerance towards those whose faith and cultural practices are perceived as being fundamentally at odds with the British tradition and the shared British norm. In particular, Mr Blair singled out “extremist” Islam as his example of a minority viewpoint and cultural grouping that would no longer be tolerated. Accept and conform to our shared values and way of life, or else you are not welcome here was Mr Blair’s message. The prime minister stated that the “duty to integrate” and take on these common values should now take precedence over any particular religious practice.

In what appeared to be a reference to the recent debate over the Muslim full veil, or niqab, Mr Blair indicated that the Equal Opportunities Commission would be looking at concerns about women's status inside Muslim communities. So, extrapolating from Mr Blair’s speech, if the view were taken – and, indeed, legislation to that effect were passed – that wearing the niqab did represent a religious practice that ran counter to the aims of integration (and that it was also based on unequal treatment of some Muslim women), then the duty to integrate and conform to the British value of equal treatment for all would override the religious duty that some Muslim women sincerely believe they have to wear the veil.

This can surely not be right. Where do you draw the line between the demands of social conformity and those of obedience to the tenets of religious faith? There are many faith symbols worn about the person that mark out their wearer’s adherence to a set of religious values that may be at variance with the norms and traditions of British society. But it is clear from the row over the BA employee suspended from her post for refusing to cover up her cross pendant – a position clearly supported by the UK government (see my blog of 25 November) – that there are some symbols and religious beliefs that can be tolerated within the new Britishness, and some that can’t. But there is actually no difference in kind, only one of degree, between the different faiths of Britain: every religious faith puts obedience to its teachings and laws ultimately above those of the society in which the individual lives. If there is a fundamental conflict between the two, then it is the religious law that takes precedence.

Mr Blair’s singling out of certain Muslims in this regard is in fact a threat and a warning to all faiths. And as there is no inherent justification for differentiating in all circumstances between veil-wearing Muslims, turban-wearing Sikhs or cross-wearing Christians, the real reason for doing so is merely political and tactical. It involves simplistically identifying the communities that support women wearing the niqab with those that are sympathetic towards, even actively supportive of, Islamic terrorism; and it is a way to signal to these ‘extremist’ Muslims that the government means business and to put pressure on Muslim communities to reform from within – or else.

The fact that Mr Blair is acting in such a menacing way towards one religious community, but not towards others that might also have fundamental qualms about putting conformity to social norms above some of their religious practices, betrays the fact that this stance is politically motivated. This is evident in that, ironically, Mr Blair is transgressing the very British values he claims to uphold when he singles Muslims out in this way: he is treating them unequally and is displaying intolerance towards diversity because he identifies a particular type of Muslim (at least, rhetorically) with a fundamental challenge to those values, and by extension to his authority and ‘righteousness’ in his dealings with Muslims in Britain and other parts of the world. Therefore, the Muslims who – in Blair’s view –place themselves outside British values no longer deserve to be treated in a way that is consistent with those British values: they must be excluded from the new British culture.

But they’re here; they’re British. What are we ultimately supposed to do to those who won’t conform? ‘Repatriate’ them?