30 Jan '17 23:21>4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe ambiguity of the term 'multiculturalism' is pointed out by your own source, from which I gave the relevant quote. Far from a weak semantic argument, it is fundamental, if you propose to enter a debate about the impact of 'multiculturalism'. Things that you and/or your source say are caused by multiculturalism, I say have different and better evidenced causes. Your examples of "communal violence" do not prove your point for just this reason. [Notice the first 14 examples are in the Conservative regime of 1979-97, while only one example is less than ten years ago. Bear in mind also the proven racism of the police, exposed since then as a major factor underlying most of these events. Consider only the Stephen Lawrence case.]
Your first objection is a feeble semantic argument which seeks as its basis some kind of dissonant meaning of multiculturalism and attempting to make an argument based on the differences. Weak, very weak. Furthermore the article was generously peppered with examples which demonstrated admirably that rather than actually foment a multicultural socie ...[text shortened]... tle niche within a society but don't you dare call that integration for its nothing of the sort.
The tin ear of our political establishment of whatever party affiliations is something on which we can agree. The examples given, by which for example New Labour issued diktats to "consult with" specified "communities", I have had plentiful personal experience of and I agree they were often cringingly absurd and agonisingly patronising. Perhaps the position of Baroness Warsi in the Conservative party gives a balancing example. If that is what you mean by 'multiculturalism' then we could shake on it and turn to another topic. But it is only one meaning of the term and for all its egregious errors, it was not responsible for the havoc and chaos implied by yourself and your source.
When you write "The term “multicultural” has come to define both a society that is particularly diverse..." then proceed to complain that it has failed to produce a society that is "homogonous", I think you need to recognise that your are utterly confused. What makes us strong, dear boy, is not homogenous monotony and bland conformity, but rather the wealth that comes through the celebration of our diversity.
As for "integration," that also requires more clarification (semantics to you). Integration requires actions by the majority on behalf of minorities. The responsibility of the state and its agencies is to ensure that all people are equal under the law. The evidence shows that this is not achieved and that there is a need to challenge public services until it is achieved. Actually, this is not multiculturalism at all. This is making the public services accountable in a democracy. That is where we want to see uniformity - in the equal enjoyment of our civil liberties and the benefits of social life.