Is John Bull Waking Up?

There are what must be to the jihadis among us distressing signs of life stirring across the Anglosphere. Forget France, Germany, Italy and Spain. They were basket-cases 100 years ago, 50 years ago and today. Who really finds it hard to believe that a handful of weak nations who, in living memory, have gone through numerous republics, authoritarian dictatorships and, now, the latest genius, soppy social democracies don't have it in them to resist the demands of a militant sub-group? No, that lot has always blown with the wind, for good or ill and imagined themselves the world's moral superiors because of it.

But in those nations of the Anglosphere, those nations who don't just talk of an inheritance but have one, the resistance to the jihadi movement is beginning to stiffen. Sure, an increasingly Europeanized Canada and U.K. were easy enough targets at first; there is something in radical Islam that causes the modern liberal's knees to buckle. Whether it is an urge to surrender a life without values to something stong enough to proclaim them or simply the time-honored leftist admiration for brute force, it's hard to say.

However, as the jihadist movement cuts through the butter of our governments and our universities, it is discovering quite a different attitude from the common people on the ground. They are showing a distressing tendency to make fun of Mohammed, suicide bombers and the monkey-fist-pumper crowd. They tend to refer to the nikaaaaa'bbbb/beeerk'a'tageential'akim,lawasszisam or whatever the silly things are called (seriously, who gives a shit?) as "Hefty bags". And, in America at least, they have a distressing tendency to remind Muslims that they have rifles and know how to use them.

CAIR and other groups have not been able to mau-mau Americans into shutting the hell up, though they have done quite a number on our government. But, in America, they are discovering that the government isn't quite a prize.

Capture the government in Belgium and the next thing you know it's illegal to say "Islam Sucks" in Brussels. Do the same in Washington DC and no matter how many times the FBI sends an agent to speak at a CAIR fundraiser I and millions of other Americans can still say that Islam represents a vital threat to our values and our way of life, is an ideology born of hatred and violence and one which must be resisted at all costs, including those self-same rifles if it comes right down to it.

So, across the Anglosphere, average Canadians, Americans, Britons, Australians and even (if the rumors are true) a few New Zealanders and Irish are beginning to push back. Just a bit here and there, mind you, but it's starting.

Which brings us back to Britain. Prime Minister Blair had some absolutely amazing stuff to say on the subject of multi-culturalism yesterday. Read this and tell me something fundamental hasn't changed in the debate over there:

However, it has thrown into sharp relief, the nature of what we have called, with approval, "multicultural Britain". We like our diversity. But how do we react when that "difference" leads to separation and alienation from the values that define what we hold in common? For the first time in a generation there is an unease, an anxiety, even at points a resentment that our very openness, our willingness to welcome difference, our pride in being home to many cultures, is being used against us; abused, indeed, in order to harm us.

I always thought after 7/7 our first reaction would be very British: we stick together; but that our second reaction, in time, would also be very British: we're not going to be taken for a ride.

People want to make sense of two emotions: our recognition of what we legitimately hold in common and what we legitimately hold distinct. When I decided to make this speech about multiculturalism and integration, some people entirely reasonably said that integration or lack of it was not the problem. The 7/7 bombers were integrated at one level in terms of lifestyle and work. Others in many communities live lives very much separate and set in their own community and own culture, but are no threat to anyone.

But this is, in truth, not what I mean when I talk of integration. Integration, in this context, is not about culture or lifestyle. It is about values. It is about integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values. It isn't about what defines us as people, but as citizens, the rights and duties that go with being a member of our society.

Blair is a social democrat. He isn't about to toss his political ideology over the side. They were for multi-culturalism yesterday and, according to Blair, they're all for it today.

But look closer. Look at the language being used here. Oh, yes, of course we're all for diversity and multi-culturalism, says Blair. Just so long as we all agree on shared, common unifying British values. You're free to identify with whatever sub-culture you wish, so long as we all agree on the basics.

That's not "multi-culturalism" properly understood at all. What that is, astute readers will have already noticed, is American assimilation. Or, to quote the great sergeant Hulka: We don't care who you are, where you come from, what you look like, if you're red, white, black, brown or purple....but when we're done with you, you are all going to walk, talk, sleep, eat, shoot, shit....like an American.

The same phenomena is on display in Canada, where the Globe and Mail just reported a huge majority of Canadians in favor of "multi-culturalism" yet, at the same time, that same huge majority agreed that "the rights of women cannot vary from that given under Canadian law due to cultural traditions or practices," including religious ones.

Well. Looks like Joe Molson and John Bull are coming around. Blair continued:

Partly the answer lies in precisely defining our common values and making it clear that we expect all our citizens to conform to them. Obedience to the rule of law, to democratic decision-making about who governs us, to freedom from violence and discrimination are not optional for British citizens. They are what being British is about. Being British carries rights. It also carries duties. And those duties take clear precedence over any cultural or religious practice.

It is very hard for me to express to my American readers, to whom such a statement seems obvious and unobjectionable, how damn revolutionary such rhetoric is in the British political context. The socialists of Blair's party, who have poisoned the Common Law heritage with endless talk of "rights" while despising and sneering at words like "duty" and "obligation", who have literally--literally--killed the spirit of the once-great Scottish nation, are going to go over the top at hearing this.

But the average Briton will, I think, whisper in wonder at hearing such common sense from their rulers for the first time in ages. And it is they who hold the power, still. Blair concluded:

First, we need to use the grants we give to community racial and religious groups to promote integration as well as help distinctive cultural identity. In a sense, very good intentions got the better of us. We wanted to be hospitable to new groups. We wanted, rightly, to extend a welcome and did so by offering public money to entrench their cultural presence. Money was too often freely awarded to groups that were tightly bonded around religious, racial or ethnic identities.

In the future, we will assess bids from groups of any ethnicity or any religious denomination, also against a test, where appropriate, of promoting community cohesion and integration.

Second, we stand emphatically at all times for equality of respect and treatment for all citizens. Sometimes the cultural practice of one group contradicts this.

We need very clear rules for how we govern the public realm. A good example is forced marriage. There can be no defence of forced marriage on cultural or any other grounds. We set up the Forced Marriages Unit in 2005 and they now deal with 250-300 cases a year mainly relating to people of South Asian background. We have also changed immigration rules raising the age at which a person can obtain marriage entry clearance to come to the UK to 18. We consulted on whether a specific offence should be created, but, in the light of the responses received, chose not to pursue this. We will however return to the matter if necessary and will also consult on raising the age for entry clearance further, a point made strongly and well by Ann Cryer MP.

One of the most common concerns that has been raised with me, when meeting women from the Muslim communities, is their frustration at being debarred even from entering certain mosques.

Those that exclude the voice of women need to look again at their practices. I am not suggesting altering the law. But we have asked the Equal Opportunities Commission to produce a report by the spring of next year on how these concerns could be practically addressed, whilst of course recognising that in many religions the treatment of women differs from that of men.

Third, we must demand allegiance to the rule of law. Nobody can legitimately ask to stand outside the law of the nation. There is thus no question of the UK allowing the introduction of religious law in the UK. Parliament sets the law, interpreted by the courts. All criminal matters should be dealt with through the criminal justice system. There may be areas where, in civil proceedings, parties consent to arbitration by a religious body. But these are arrangements based on consent and, in all cases, parties will have recourse to the UK courts.

Fourth, there has been a lot of concern about a minority of visiting preachers. It would be preferable for British preachers to come out of the community rather than come in from abroad. Where they are recruited internationally, we will require entrants to have a proper command of English and meet the pre-entry qualification requirements.

Overseas nationals can come to the UK in a public speaking capacity as business visitors or as visiting religious workers. However, the Home Secretary may exclude from the UK any person where he judges that their presence here is not conducive to the public good. We have published a list of certain unacceptable actions that would normally lead to the exclusion of a person from the UK. The publication of those unacceptable actions makes it clear that we will not tolerate those who seek to create an environment in which terrorism and radicalism can thrive.

Fifth, we have a very established set of rights that constitute our citizenship. We should not be shy to teach them. That is why citizenship became part of the statutory national curriculum in secondary schools in 2002.

The national curriculum needs to stress integration rather than separation. The 1988 Education Reform Act states that religious education in all community schools should be broadly Christian in character but that it should include study of the other major religions. There is currently a voluntary agreement with faith schools on this basis. Faith schools also naturally give religious instruction in their own faith. It is important that in doing so, they teach tolerance and respect for other faiths and the Education Department will discuss with the faith groups how this is achieved and implemented, according to new national guidelines.

These will be based on the pioneering work done in this area by Charles Clarke when Education Secretary. As he said in his recent and excellent Royal Commonwealth Society lecture on Faith, such policies 'will rightly increasingly marginalize those very small numbers who want to teach religious education in a way which misleads and misrepresents other faiths.' We will also encourage all faith schools to construct a bridge to other cultures by twinning with schools from another faith. There have been concerns about some Madrassahs. The DfES is working to bring together a host of voluntary groups to form a National Centre for supplementary schools. It will recommend best practice to try to encourage tolerance and respect for other faiths by, for example, establishing links with other schools.

There can be no excuse for Madrassahs not meeting their legal requirements and they will be enforced vigorously. Sixth, we should share a common language. Equal opportunity for all groups requires that they be conversant in that common language. It is a matter both of cohesion and of justice that we should set the use of English as a condition of citizenship. In addition, for those who wish to take up residence permanently in the UK, we will include a requirement to pass an English test before such permanent residency is granted. I do not in any of this, ignore the social and economic dimension to extremism.

This is nothing short of revolutionary.

Our task is to get the American government to admit to the same principles, particularly on the overseas provision of "preachers" and funding to mosques and so-called madrassas here.

Oh, yes, John Bull is waking up. He'll be very nice about it, doesn't want to offend, and he'll even put his demands in soothing terms, but, one must admit, at the end of the day there is nothing particulary optional about what the PM is proposing, is there?

"We're not going to be taken for a ride."

As a half-Brit/half-American, I am in a unique position to translate that from British English to American English for you:

"Don't tread on me."