BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron has been attacked by religious figures, trade unionists and others who have accused him of divisive and simplistic politics, treating Muslims as “the enemy within” and turning the clock back:
David Cameron: under fire for pointing out the failure of multiculturalism
To the days when it was acceptable, through ignorance and fear, for people with a different religion, culture or skin colour to be scapegoated and treated as inferior or outsiders.
In an open letter to the Guardian earlier this week, a bunch of his critics said:
We believe David Cameron’s statement that multiculturalism has failed was a dangerous declaration of intent …
His speech was reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher’s infamous 1978 statement that Britain was “being swamped by alien cultures”. He has branded Britain’s Muslims as the new “enemy within” in the same way as Thatcher attacked the miners and trade unions.
David Cameron is attempting to drive a wedge between different communities by linking Britain’s multicultural society with terrorism and national security. His speech was made on the same day as the English Defence League brought its bigotry and violence to the streets of Luton. Mr Cameron’s aim is simple as it is crude – to deflect the anger against his government’s cuts from the bankers and on to the Muslim community. The prime minister is aping attacks by other European leaders like France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, who passed legislation banning the veil, and Angela Merkel, who has also made statements denouncing multiculturalism in Germany. We believe our multicultural society and the respect and solidarity it is built on is a cause for pride, and reject any moves by this government to undermine and destroy it.
We must not allow this coalition government to turn the tide back to the days when it was acceptable, through ignorance and fear, for people with a different religion, culture or skin colour to be scapegoated and treated as inferior or outsiders.
While some, like Cameron, are having serious doubts about multiculturalism, some parts of Canada appear to be embracing it with great gusto.
According to this report prayer rooms in Ontario “could become commonplace” in public and Catholic schools. Thanks to a provincewide policy, school boards must be more inclusive and accommodate different faiths during the school day.
The newly adopted faith and accommodation policy states that each student has a right to follow his or her beliefs free from discrimination or harassment. Areas of reasonable accommodation include observance of major religious holy days and celebrations, prayers and rituals, dietary requirements and fasting, religious attire and participation in school curriculum and extracurricular activities.
Said public school trustee Cindy Watson:
Someone’s faith is part of who they are. Accommodating them brings understanding and shows we respect them.
Hat Tip: BarrieJohn (Canada report)
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
February 12th, 2011 at 10:06 am
“Someone’s faith is part of who they are. Accommodating them brings understanding and shows we respect them.”
Let’s hope they’re as understanding when it comes to someone who doesn’t believe in all that cods.
February 12th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Reads as if the MCB or other terrorist linked organization wrote to the Guardian. Ask the general public and I think you will find that the death cult is regarded as a separate population who refuse to join with us. I have seen analysis of Cameron’s speech which appears to say multi-culti doesn’t work but we’ll keep on trying. When are we going to get politicians with a bit of backbone who will tell it how it is?
February 12th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
If Cameron wants to tackle multiculturalism and his “we are all in this together” drivel and his fantasy Big Society he should have a look at the odorous class system of the UK. The House of Lords, including its unelected and interfering bishops. The Windsors where, dispite the struggles of the plebs, Cameron says no expense will be spared on the forthcoming and deeply depressing nuptials of Wills and Kate. The public (i.e. private) school system and their stranglehold on Oxbridge and a university Education generally. The faith schools……. etc.etc.etc.
February 12th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Mr. Cameron’s speech was pretty tame compared to what ‘our’ Geert said the other week. He mentioned Europe’s ‘elite’ waging a total war (Check out YouTube for Goebbels’ Totaler Krieg) on the rest of us, with the help of Muslims, to create Eurabia.
As for multiculturalism: nobody really knows what it means, but it’s pretty obvious some people want to impose the backward ideas that are still prevalent in certain parts of the world on the West, and I don’t think that should happen. We’ve the Middle Ages and they should be part of history, not the future.
February 12th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Did Thatcher or Major claim that multiculturalism had failed when Catholics brought up in insular communities to despise the UK government were blowing things up? It is so easy to blame Muslims for what is a universal problem. Multiculturalism has not failed, it has not even been genuinely attempted. As Broga says, what about the faith schools, the class system and unelected bodies including those from just one particular religion imposing laws on the rest of us? Sharia may be far more dramatic than some doddering old bishops trying their best to stop gay people getting any rights, but the principle remains the same. Multiculturalism (i.e. secularism) means that no culture or creed is given preference, whereas Cameron seems to think it means simply tolerating the existence of something other than Anglican middle England.
February 12th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Pat Condell’s latest says it all. I see the republicans are out in force today.
February 12th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
JohnMWhite:
Great and potent name: secularism. This description moves the country/state or whatever into a neutral area where, instead of trying to patch different cultures, religions together and expending time, money and effort on this, we accept that in our different ways we are part of a system which could be generally supportive, accepting and enlightening.
Cameron’s problem, and he is a rather sad and increasingly anachronistic figure, that his “Englishness” and “values” are those he imbibed from his public school – Queen and Country; jingoistic, Imperialist, Church of England. Singing “I vow to thee my country…” in assembly – great tune, though. All dry, outdated and he is as dry and brittle as his ideas and lacking the creative and imaginative thrust we need from a leader. Look at some of the people around him: dinosaurs like Eric Pickles, Michael Gove………….. Says it all.
February 12th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
The Government supports faith schools are faith schools the embodiment of shared national values NO they are institutions that organize us into separate lives. We have at the moment communities living dangerously apart from each other, aided by the state that doesn’t know what to do next. Cameron can’t have it both ways.
February 12th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Men insisting to be served by a man at the license bureau, women exercising in tights at a local YMCA being told to blacken their windows so young boys from a religious school can’t see them, refusing to remove a face veil in a French class so the teacher can observe the movement of the mouth, insisting on wearing a face covering on driver’s license, demanding prayer rooms in non-religious public schools, asking people to stop the music and stop dancing in a sugar shack restaurant so that a group may kneel and pray, taxi drivers refusing to take passengers who carry alcohol, etc., etc. Give people an inch and they take a mile. Multiculturalism? Not if we are the ones who have to bend backwards all the time to every demand in order to suit everyone. Some parts of Canada are trying? Maybe. But there are tensions here too and as demands for special treatment increase so will tensions. We feel sometimes that we are being tested to see how far we can be made to bend over backwards. That’s my opinion.
It’s nice to welcome outsiders into the nest, but what if the newcomers aren’t interested in the welfare of the whole, but in abusing freedoms and benefits, and denouncing the nest that welcomed them.
February 12th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
I agreed with Cameron totally, and I have no time for the BNP/EDL. The fact that Griffin claims it proves things are going his way- no, it does no such fucking thing, he only says that out of desperation to prove himself relevant or useful because his own party has so few remaining voters.
Cameron is far less to blame for stoking tensions than the last government, with the actions he so rightly criticised and the language about incoherent shite like “British jobs for British workers”.
They were also racist. I live amongst Labour voters, I know half of them are deeply racist, they’d need the sort of dogwhistle shit they got after 9/11 to stop them going over to the BNP.
The so-called criticism combines faithheads who demand that their superstition be above reproach with the sort of fuckwit who just slags off everything the coalition does because there should be a permanent Labour government for us all to obey.
I am with Cameron except in that his actions don’t always match his words, for example he won’t help immigrants learn English and integrate in general by funding ESOL, and he and his pal Michael Gove (a very dubious person) won’t stop supporting faithhead schools despite evidence from Ulster that should surely prove what a bad idea they are.
No one comes off perfectly but if dear leader gets those ideas out there from the bully pulpit then we will be in a healthier state than when we showed respect towards beliefs that deserve none.
February 12th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
I tend to agree with JohnMWhite and Broga that there is nothing wrong with multiculturalism per se. People of different ethnicities, religions and cultures seeem to have generally got along very well in the melting pot of India and The Far East, and, where there is trouble, nine times out of ten it appears to involve Muslims! Multiculturalism won’t work where you have one group that refuses to accept the validity of other cultures, and that seems to be increasingly the problem now, with Muslims acting like spoilt children who MUST have everything their own way.
February 12th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Broga: That “great tune” is part of Jupiter from The Planets (Holst)!
PS True “Bible believers” would never sing THAT hymn!!
February 12th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Bjohn said:
“People of different ethnicities, religions and cultures seeem to have generally got along very well in the melting pot of India and The Far East, and, where there is trouble, nine times out of ten it appears to involve Muslims!
In the short term, I can understand this point of view. But, how many years ago was it when the catholics and protestants were murdering each other in Northern Ireland? That shit got completely out of hand, home-grown terrorism in it’s purest form.
Therefore, I am left stunned, that in this particular forum that no one has uttered a shaddow of the ideas Peter Brietbart included in his threadhead about Israel.
None of this is ABOUT multiculturalism. Cultures don’t have problems blending. We savor each other’s cooking. We wear each other’s styles. We listen to each other’s music. We learn each other’s dances. We learn each other’s languages.
The real rub is tolerating each other’s religion. And the fault is with the religions themselves, not tolerating each other (Northern Ireland)as they jockey for power and influence.
So, the answer, is ever so simple. When people wake up from their religious delusion, all these problems will dissipate, then disappear.
The Canadians won’t have to build prayer rooms in public schools. It can remain a storage room where the hockey team captain nails the cheerleader at lunchtime. (disclaimer: always use a condom)
NeoWolfe
February 12th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
NeoWolfe: I was referring to The Far East. JohnMWhite did mention Northern Ireland. Obviously religion is the cause of most of the trouble, though people can be very suspicious of different cultures, religion apart. However, even different religions seemed to coexist reasonably happily in the east until the Islamists begin throwing the toys out of their collective pram!
February 12th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
I agree with Neowolfe, multiculturalism is not the problem. The word multiculturalism is used in place of multi-religion and it is this Cameron should address, not pandering to various barking mad religious factions. One would have thought Cameron and chums would have learned from the previous Government’s mistake of kow-towing to religion, in particular islam who’s bullying has emboldened other religion to be militant. Look at the mess we now have: various religions squabbling like children over prayer rooms and other such nonsense. The only way to stop the rot is to close all the religious schools and give every child a mixed secular education. If parents want to indoctrinate their children into life of ignorance and intolerance they should do it at home and if the muzzies don’t like it they can always go to a country that suits their superstition Cameron’s weasel words didn’t go far enough.
February 13th, 2011 at 12:23 am
Yeah, right, asquith. Blame it all on the scum working class. All our fault. Hands up and all that. After all, the tories have never been anything but paragons of virtue.
February 13th, 2011 at 10:42 am
The liberal-left is on the ropes over this issue, because they know the general population is waking up to the enormous damage multiculturalist policies have done to this country. Hence the liberal-lefties’ shrill determination to attack David Cameron, simply for voicing the understandable fears and concerns of most Brits, regardless of colour or race. It is worth reminding ourselves of what David Cameron actually said: “A genuinely liberal country … believes in certain values and actively promotes them – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.” Okay, I would have preferred him to say “freedom of belief” rather than “freedom of worship”, but that’s nit-picking. The point is, he signalled a welcome return to the values of One Nation conservatism – you couldn’t imagine Margaret Thatcher delivering such an all-inclusive speech, could you?
In his speech, delivered in Munich (more progressive European countries, like Germany, have already officially ditched multiculturalist policies), David Cameron described his vision as “muscular liberalism”, but as the Independent’s Tom Sutcliffe noted last week, what he was actually describing was “muscular secularism”. We should also remember, that, unlike Tony Blair’s firm religious convictions, Cameron has rather engagingly described his relationship with the Almighty as: “A bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chiltern’s – it comes and goes.” I can live with that, so should any secularist.
Britain is multicultural in so far as it contains people of many different cultures. No rational person should have a problem with this, indeed, it makes our country more interesting and vigorous. But the ideology of multiculturalism has usurped the place of a shared, secular public sphere, replacing it with the special pleading and victim-politics of various competing ethno-cultural factions. It does not accept that the indigenous and long-established cultures (English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Jewish) take priority over more recent arrivals from the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh traditions, although, if they integrate and participate – and maintain some secular space between their private beliefs and their public lives – then they too, are welcome as equals. By dint of our history, both Christianity and Enlightenment values do, and must, take priority in this country, just as Islam (and hopefully secularism), rightly takes priority in, say, Egypt. We all have an obligation to be tolerant of people from minority cultures, and to protect them from bigotry, it goes without saying.
I believe we are at the juncture of a sea-change of opinion both within secular circles and in the general population. Rather lazily, for the past 20 or 30 years, secularists have hitched their wagon to the liberal-left’s multiculturalist policies, because a lot of things we believe in – gay equality, for instance – have benefitted from riding on the coat tails of the multicultural consensus, which lacks any historical perspective, is uncritically egalitarian and largely value-free. Nearly all of us, I suspect, were enthusiastic supporters of New Labour back in 1997 and no one can deny that great strides were made in terms of social justice during their three terms in office.
The flip side of these advances, though, was the liberal-left’s uncritical backing of faith schools, the enthusiastic solicitation of religious involvement in politics and the “community”, the active depletion of British identity and values, the erosion of free speech, increased snooping and intrusion by the state, the accommodation of unwelcome, culturally dissonant elements on an equal footing with the indigenous culture, and the government losing its grip on the scale and character of immigration.
With a new Conservative-led government, some of these negatives seem likely to be reversed, or at least reined in. Naturally, we won’t get everything we want – we never do – but we can advance the secularist cause in ways that would have been impossible under New Labour, by working intelligently with the Conservatives whilst they hold the reins of power. The new Freedom Bill, currently before Parliament, which is designed to roll back state snooping and interference in our lives, is a welcome start.
February 13th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Hand up, I did not read the whole speech. (can’t bear the man) and I bristle at the notion of Englishness being the gold standard of attitudes and behaviour.
However
I agree that any society has to put a line in the sand about what is acceptable. Ideally debate, consensus and shared aspiration lead the society to decide where the line is. Then all members have to stay on the right side. Religion, culture or whatever are no justification for unacceptable behaviour. You can’t kill people, you can’t force people to marry aged 10, you can’t keep gay couples out of your B&B.
What has been happening is that the line has been seen to only apply to some. And there is no clarity about some lines.. Is it OK to make women look like chess pieces?
Multi-culturalism at worst has made some areas or groups off limits for these kind of dicussions. And it is usually fucking religion that defines that. Is it OK to beat children to get rid of demons? Of course, it is their religion.
Multi-culturalism at best has led to some acceptance that we all do lots of things differently, which is nice.
February 13th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Has JohnMWhite lost the plot? He says “Multiculturalism (i.e.secularism) means that no culture or creed is given preference”. For a start, multiculturalism is not secularism in any way, shape, or form. I suggest he reads a book on the subject. Secondly, it is not unreasonable for any indigenous people to expect their own country, their home, to be “given preference” i.e. reflect who they are and their own history and values. Over time, all cultures evolve under the influence of newcomers – that is fine – but the problem with multiculturalism is its lack of historical perspective, its refusal to allow that established British culture and values take priority in Britain, and its post-modern value-free assumption that someone whose family goes back centuries, who has paid their taxes and perhaps fought for this country, has no more priority than someone freshly arrived, regardless of having made no contribution whatsoever and regardless how alien and problematic their culture or religion may be.
Moreover, how can JohnMWhite possibly equate Irish Catholics “blowing things up” with (some) Muslims “blowing things up”? Again, like all multiculturalist numpties, he lacks historical perspective. The tragic history of Anglo-Irish relations and the struggles between Protestant and Catholic factions stretch back for at least 4 centuries. It may indeed be a problem, but at least it’s OUR problem, our own bloody mess. The Muslim terrorists imported into Britain over the last few years (including the doctors responsible for the Glasgow Airport and Tiger-Tiger bomb attacks) are aliens we should have repulsed at the border. No rational person has a problem with the presence of people from other cultures, but multiculturalist policies meant we lost the means and the will to be selective and manage the scale and character of immigration, to make sure we let the good ones in, whilst keeping out the criminals and other undesirables.
February 13th, 2011 at 11:35 am
I just want to say how much I have enjoyed reading the comments on this issue. (Thanks also bj for Holst.) Good to be encouraged to think and shift pespective – unlike the religious fundamentalists who are already certain in advance and regardless of opinion or fact.
PS My tame local christian fundamentalist tells me she utterly rejects the description “secularism or secularist or any combination of these terms like multicultural secularism” as they are “nothing more than cover ups for atheism and atheists like yourself.”
February 13th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
This attack on multiculturalism is a result of European integration when the European countries and their populations find it hard to protect their national identity. It can be seen in France where President Sarkozy has been leaning toward a more radical view of multiculturalism and protecting the national interests of the French people.
February 13th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
With the death cult countries corrupting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and now the EU (for whatever, probably corrupt, reason modifying their (our?) laws to protect the death cult from criticism, I think it’s high time we had a re-think about the clubs the UK belongs to. Henry VIII did it previously when outsiders were getting uppity about our independence.
February 13th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Sorry to be a “you know what” but just for the record, the patriotic hymn “I vow to thee, my country was written by Sir Cecil Spring-Rice (not spring-roll) to the music of Jupiter at a later date.
February 13th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
@David Anderson: Interesting. I came across this in the distant past at my Grammar School. Very strong on King and Country, Assemblies with prayers and this was a regular song. I saw “the light” when one lad turned up with “Why I am not a Christian” by Bertrand Russell and asked the invited vicar, who taught us Divinity once a week if he had read the book. Answer, “I have not read that book, I do not need to read a book with that title to know what it is and I urge you not to read it.”
Naturally, we all then wanted to read it, although by the standards of today it is pretty tame stuff. Got me started on the the way to atheism, however.
February 13th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
@David Anderson: Sorry to be so pedantic too, but in this case it was the composer himself who adapted his music for the hymn. We sang it at my sister’s funeral, and very moving it is too, even to an unbeliever. If only it were all true!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....My_Country
February 13th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“The tragic history of Anglo-Irish relations and the struggles between Protestant and Catholic factions stretch back for at least 4 centuries. It may indeed be a problem, but at least it’s OUR problem, our own bloody mess.”
Not heard of the Crusades then, Diesel Balaam? Why do you think troops involved in the invasion of Iraq were told not to fly their national flags? Because of concerns about Iraqis and others relating it to the Crusades which occured well before the Irish wars happened.
“The Muslim terrorists imported into Britain over the last few years (including the doctors responsible for the Glasgow Airport and Tiger-Tiger bomb attacks) are aliens we should have repulsed at the border.”
And many of then are home grown, as per the London bombers, three of whom were born here and one immigrated to this country at the tender age of five. Just what particular border do you think they should have been repulsed at?
February 13th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
@barriejohn: Thanks for that. I got my information off the cover of an old record I have. The notes were written by his daughter where she mentions that Holst didn’t write the words be strangely she doesn´t mention he adapted the music. Yes, if only.
@ Broga: I also went to a school where we sang this hymn every Monday morning. That was in the days when schools had mottos. Ours was “Gentle in the manner, vigorous in the deed.”
Sorry to de-rail everyone.
February 13th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
@David Anderson: (I’ll get back on track after this but you stir old memories.)
I can’t remember the motto for my old school except that it was in Latin. However, I heard last year that an old school friend had died and I remember he gave me a memorable lesson in honesty. A master, generally detested, had died. We had the usual stuff about great loss, everyone will miss him, special service, hymn in Assembly etc. Then outside at break we were all caught up in this: “Poor old so and so. Bit of a pain but he didn’t deserve this.”
The following morning my friend returned having been ill. I said, “You won’t have heard. Whatsit has died suddenly from a heart attack.”
He replied, “Best news I have heard this year.”
February 13th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Normand ur just a racist, it’s not the Muslims who demand special treatment for religious rights..so stop paki bashing and speak sense man…. Asquith I totally agree with u… Britain has no idea how to integrate people from ouher countries and backgrounds because they are not interested, Cameron is from a posh private upbringing what the fuck dies he know about what the first generation of migrant workers went through in the 60′s I can tell u my dad was one of them here to do britains dirty manual work and still got shat on by the natives… Do u really blame multiculturalism failing!
February 13th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Diesel Balaam said:
“Has JohnMWhite lost the plot?”
Just one man’s opinion, but, I suspect you have lost the plot. After two very long winded oratories on political pro’s and con’s, you have completely missed the point. I may be wrong, but I think it’s the point that brought us all here to this website. I.E. Religion and it’s caustic effect on society.
It seems to me that your entire argument centers around how best to make nice with people’s religious sensibilities and try to find some abstract “fairness” so only the deserving get fucked.
Well, from my prospective, your entire line of reasoning is moot. Remove the element of religion, and most problems solve themselves. But, let me qualify that by saying that I have met atheists who are disgusting bigots. Rejection of religion does not a freethinker make. Humans have other issues, including irrational prejudice, greed, power hunger, etc. But, any progress on those issues is mired in fog as we wrestle with how to protect people’s right to be stupid and blind.
The freemason idea of religious tolerence was a neccessary function of their workplace…..3000 years ago. Now, if we really want secular government, the fundies need to go fuck themselves, while the sane deal with real tangible issues.
NeoWolfe
February 13th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Maz Paterson said:
“Normand ur just a racist, it´s not the Muslims who demand special treatment for religious rights..so stop Paki bashing and make sense man.”
your own comment would have made more sense if you had said, “It´s not just the Muslims who demand special treatment.” As for Paki bashing, I can see no refeence to this in Normand´s post and anyway not all Muslims are Pakistani and not all Pakistanis are Muslim. If you live in the UK and buy your meat in the supermarket, you do realise that you are probably eating Halal meat. Is that OK with you? Just an example of the British Government turning a blind eye to religious privilege.
As for Cameron havin a posh and private upbringing, it is my recollection that these educated people treated those first generation of immigrant workers with more respect than the working class amoung whom I lved. The success of Warren Mitchell’s portrayal of Alf Garnett in “Till death do us part” played on this so cleverly that the working class were completely unaware that Mitchell was taking the piss out of them and not the immigrants.
February 14th, 2011 at 7:35 am
David, were u about in the 60′s to c how the migrant workers were treated, instead if reading it from a book… Talk to those who experienced it!
February 14th, 2011 at 9:46 am
@Maz Paterson. So you are saying that death cultists should be given special treatment because the first generation was treated no better than others of the “working class” population? How about special courts outside of the normal legal system, so your women can be deprived of their rights and property? How about no-go areas where uncovered women are abused and the police turn a blind eye to crime for fear of being called “racist” and losing their careers? How about freedom of speech being OK except if it, even mildly, criticizes the mass murdering, rapist paediphile, Big Mo? Most of us infidels are a little sick of people who spend their lives waving giant sized victim cards instead of getting on with their lives in a constructive manner.
February 14th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
@ Maz Paterson
I was born on the 27th. April, 1949. My father was a manual worker in the gas works in Greenwich S.E. London where we lived. He in turn was from Poplar. We lived in a council house and had neigbours who were from Jamaica. They were some of the lucky ones who managed to get housing because the man of that house worked alongside my father. I went to school with the children of that household and was friends with the son for many years.
That family did suffer a lot of abuse (and so did my family for being friends with them) but as I tried to point out, the abuse came from the people living around them, working class, not posh people.
One of my sisters married a man from Jamaica in 1964 and suffered terrible abuse for doing so. They are still married to this day and have four lovely children and six grandchildren. My brother-in-law is not only from Jamaica and black, he is also Jewish.
February 15th, 2011 at 3:13 am
Thanks David and as for Taz Paterson, he might be interested in knowing that my partner of 17 years is a non-practicing gay Moslem from Algeria who was offended by his racist insinuations. Have a nice day everyone.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
On a related matter, but one not considered so far, there was a fascinating article in today’s Independent (Wed 16th Feb). It concerns the removal and covering up of Egyptian mummies and other ancient human remains in our museums. This is not in response to public demand (over 90% of the public have no issue with such remains being on display), but comes from the curators themselves pandering to the multiculturalist sensibilities of self-interested religious and ethno-cultural groups, including Pagans.
Why should this be of concern to secular humanists, atheists and freethinkers? Well, as the Independent’s Tiffany Jenkins commented: “Museums were formed in the time of the Enlightenment (the 18th century), when the pursuit of knowledge was considered paramount. While there has always been some hostility to the principles of this period a number of intellectual trends since the late 1960s have consolidated this critical view. Through the intellectual trends of post-modernism, cultural theory and post-colonial theory, the traditional justifications of the museum have been questioned to the point of crisis. The pursuit of knowledge has come to be seen not as universal or objective but as an expression of European prejudice.”
In other words, multiculturalism – and the post-modern, anti-western, post-colonial theory claptrap that underpins it – is being allowed to undermine and denigrate knowledge, science, objectivity and reason, claiming they are all just some wicked conspiracy by “nasty white Europeans” to oppress “nice dark-skinned non-Europeans”. This is a travesty and shows just how deep the distorting multiculturalist poison has been allowed to penetrate our society. All secular humanists, atheists and freethinkers should be up in arms about this, urging David Cameron to go further and join other European countries in ditching the failed and dangerous policies of multiculturalism.