What’s multi about it?
Agnes Poirier decided to give Ken Livingstone’s multicultural jamboree a miss after all.
The multicultural London motion at that point included Jonathan Freedland, Tariq Ramadan and myself, and therefore offered three different points of view: in a nutshell, English liberal, fundamentalist Islamist and French republican. Are you surprised that I define Tariq Ramadan as a fundamentalist Islamist? Perhaps you thought that, as an adviser to Tony Blair on multiculturalism and a visiting senior research fellow at Oxford, he represented the face of moderate Islam? Forget his reassuring manner. Read Caroline Fourest’s remarkable study of his speeches and audio cassettes in which he asks young Muslims not to mix or marry outside their religion. Or note that he thoughtfully proposed “a moratorium on the lapidation of adulterous women”. Yes, a “moratorium”.
I wonder how many people do think Tariq Ramadan is not an Islamist. Probably quite a few, unfortunately.
On the right to religious dress debate, organisers had clearly another agenda. First, I was told Salma Yaqoob from Respect and French feminist Christine Delphy would speak alongside me. I didn’t know them so I thought I’d research a little. What I found was illuminating. I read scripts of speeches they made over the last three years, which all seemed to concentrate on the veil issue. What inflammatory tone, what incendiary statements about “France’s institutionalised racism”. Having campaigned together against what they called “the ban on Islamic veils”, they seemed to focus exclusively on the French colonial past, mother of all evils. I also learnt that Christine Delphy’s association “School for everyone” had been set up with Tariq Ramadan. This was shrewd of him: as in all matters of “women things”, it’s good to have a back-up who has been a buddy of Simone de Beauvoir: it usually unsettles and quietens the liberal left…Actually, since the law was passed two years ago, the question is not an issue any more in France. Beyond the law, what is fascinating is to see how the French position on religious dress is used by Islamo-leftists, revealing all too clearly the current British malaise rather than proving the existence of a French scandal.
Multiculturalism in this case boils down to Islamism, it seems.
Last thing, at the end of the programme, there was a mention of facilities “available during the day”: a crèche (great, that’s always handy), a “female prayer room” and “a male prayer room”…And is it Ken Livingstone’s idea of multiculturalism, one that acknowledges and condones segregation? Perhaps, you now see the point of French republicanism: don’t give in to any specific religious demands. And let everybody go down the café if they want a change of scenery.
Yes, apparently it is exactly Ken Livingstone’s idea of multiculturalism, one that acknowledges and condones segregation. How depressing it is.
I was wholeheartedly in sympathy with her until she said “they seemed to focus exclusively on the French colonial past, mother of all evils.”
No way, that’s our patch, I thought.
Here’s what I posted in the Grauniad comment-boxes: ….
After pink Ken’s disgraceful cosying up to a neo-fascist like Quardarwi, whose policies are the antithesis of Ken’s own (supposed) views …….
I’m reminded of two quotes:
“The sunlights differ, but there is only one darkness.” – Ursula K. Le Guin.
“So it is always, after a defeat, and a respite, the Shadow takes on a new form, and grows again.” – J. R. R. Tolkien
And as to the identity of that shadow and darkness, there is very little doubt.
Here is a link to a statement by those who have fled it:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19831
Well, of course your colonial past at least should have had “honourable mentioning” Nick :-). I could even chipped in my own viking heritage and the Danish/Norwegian contribution in the slave trade (Triangular route).
But isn’t it quite illuminating that we and our societies acknowledge and apparently feel remorse for these sad historical facts. (Rather than pointing to others when such issues are brought up)?
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Two links to French people talking sense – what are you trying to tell us Ophelia?
I was struck, however, by the number of replies to Agnes’s article who thought that she should have gone and made her points. Reminds me of the dilemma faced by scientists invited to ‘contribute’ at ID conferences. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Chris, yeah maybe, but (speaking from experience) it could easily have become a bun-fight though, looking at the amount of urban-jihad gangsta types loitering there from the Respec’ massive.
I can see her point. Now she’s said what she has to say in print and without interference from the co-panelists whose job was to make sure she came off as a minority voice. Not to mention leaking the way it was all done.
Yeah – very horns of a dilemma. Getting out means leaving the field to Yaqoob and Delphy; staying means being outnumbered and almost certainly outrhetoricked.
What realy ticks me about this is that you just know the tax payer is subsidising this anti semites convention!
Whilst, as Agnes Poirier has mentioned, Caroline Fourests’s book:Frère Tariq is excellent nonetheless, to fully understand this fundamentalist adviser to Mr Blair, the book :’Tariq Ramadan dévoilé’ by Lionel Favrot-(Hors serie -Lyon Mag-2004) is essential reading in order to decrypt the double language often used and to shew the depths of the double discourse.
Thanks, Michael.
I wonder if M. Favrot (and his publisher would let you translate a page or two for publication on B&W! And if you would like to. Hmm?