Multiculturalism under pressure

Quote

“If there were only one religion in England there would be danger of despotism, if there were two, they would cut each other's throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.”  Voltaire

News
Ethnic and religious tensions have been surfacing in Britain in the past few weeks. Media stories about the sentencing of two gang leaders for grooming teenage girls for sex focused on their ethnicity.  The discussion included differences in values between ethnic groups, and was exacerbated when some journalists started to blur race, ethnicity and religion.   

Then this week, Baroness Warsi, Britain’s first woman Muslim cabinet member, stated that Islamophobia is becoming more and more culturally acceptable in Britain, and the Home Office banned Terry Jones, the US preacher who threatened to burn Korans, from coming to Britain to address a far right rally. 

Britain has been following a multicultural path for some decades; the idea is that ethnic diversity is not only to be welcomed but also reflected in national law and social policy.  While toleration and respect between people of different ethnic groups in Britain has improved greatly over this period, the fundamental dilemma remains: how to maintain freedom of conscience and religion for all, but still insist that people of all backgrounds abide by a common set of laws, even if those are shaped primarily by the majority culture.

While an economy is growing and there are jobs for all, ethnic differences are more likely to be swept under the carpet; but when unemployment is rising and the economic future is gloomy, then tensions are more likely to re-emerge.  

Angela Merkel made the controversial statement last October that multiculturalism in Germany is dead.  Whether or not Britain goes the same way depends on whether we can hold to the path that ensures both personal liberty and cultural integration at the same time.

Read on...

Professor Julian Rivers, who studied in Germany as well as Britain, wrote a Cambridge paper about Multiculturalism in late 2001.  To read his more in-depth analysis of the issues, click here,   

Walk the talk

In the history of most nations there are stories of immigrants who, individually or collectively, ended up being a great blessing to their adopted country. Why not research the story of one of them and celebrate his or her contribution to the life of your nation?

The last word
From the Bible, Leviticus 19:33-34 “When a foreigner lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him.

The foreigner living with you must be treated as one of your native-born.”

Speculation, food prices and the poor

Quote

“There are two times in a man's life when he should not speculate: when he can't afford it, and when he can.”  Mark Twain

News
In recent days the prices of many commodities are reaching highs not seen for several years.  The overall commodity food price index has increased by 27% in a year; staple foods have risen even more: wheat by 49%, maize by 53%, sorghum by 33%. 

Poor harvests are partly to blame – droughts in Russia, Ukraine, Argentina and the US have reduced grain supplies, and floods in Canada, Pakistan and now Australia have wiped out a large part of their crops.  Falling global stocks, export bans by Russia and India and rising demand from China have all helped to push prices higher.

However, a more sinister factor is at work: speculation.  Investment banks, pension and hedge fund managers have poured over $200 billion into food futures markets in the past 2 years, with sums speculated at record highs.  These markets were established to reduce risks to farmers and consumers by dampening price fluctuations, but now foodstuffs have become financial and speculative assets, traded without regard to the impact on the livelihoods of genuine producers and consumers of the commodities – especially the world’s poor, who spend 30-50% of their daily earnings on food.

Every financial transaction is ultimately relational, because the outcome affects people either positively or negatively.  Ideally every purchase should benefit both buyer and seller; no monetary decision is ever relationally neutral.  Yet the decisions of major financial institutions to invest billions in speculating on food prices shows a complete disregard for the consequences of their actions on the poor.

There is a world of difference between what is legal and what is morally and relationally legitimate.

Read on...

The World Development Movement has produced a report entitled, “The great hunger lottery.”  It examines the impact of food speculation in more detail and recommends the re-regulation of the food futures markets to reduce destabilisation and volatility of prices.  Read the report here.

Walk the talk

Most of us are unwitting participants in food price speculation.  If we have a pension or savings in a bank, part of our money could well be invested in these markets.  Perhaps the most practical thing we can do is be better informed; why not write to your pension fund or bank and simply ask if your money is being invested in food speculation?  The ensuing conversation could be more enlightening than you imagine!

The last word
From the Bible, Proverbs 11:26 “People curse the man who hoards grain, but blessing crowns him who is willing to sell.”

A divided house in Washington

Quote
“All legislation, all government, all society is founded upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, courtesy; upon these everything is based...Let him who elevates himself above humanity, above its weaknesses, its infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, I will never compromise; but let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromises.” Henry Clay (1777-1852), US orator, politician and presidential candidate.

News
On Wednesday, the Republican party took control of the US House of Representatives following November’s elections, although the upper house (the Senate) as well as the White House remain Democrat. The prospect for the next two years is a tug-of-war with the House of Representatives passing legislation reflecting the views of Republican voters, which will be curtailed by the Senate and/or vetoed by the President.

To start with, President Obama’s healthcare reform bill will be formally repealed next week, but the Senate will promptly reject the repeal. Getting any legislation passed and enacted over the next two years will require careful negotiations and the art of compromise. Will Republican and Democratic congressmen and women resort to locking horns in party political acrimony, or will they surmount their party prejudices and seek to govern as responsibly as they can a nation facing immense challenges?

This is becoming harder due to the polarisation of Republican and Democrat voters, to the point where party affiliation not only covers political views but is a source of personal identity also. Policy responses to issues fall strongly along party lines: those who are pro-life, anti-tax and anti-regulation are almost all Republicans, while voters who are pro-choice, pro-redistribution and pro-federal government are Democrats. The problem is when one side begins to demonise the other, extending a conflict of opinion to one of character and motives, with far more damaging consequences.

There is a vital relational condition at the heart of any society characterised by peace and justice: cooperation. The extent of this depends on how broad a consensus of values exists to ensure mutual respect, toleration and acceptance of others. In our language of Relational Proximity, we call this commonality – shared values, purpose and identity. America or any other nation’s ability to live at peace with itself depends on voters and politicians alike ensuring they value their shared identity as members of one society more than their differences of opinion over parties and policies – no matter how great these are.

Read on...
An article from an American news website during the November elections explores the polarisation of American voters now and in previous decades, including differences in values and socio-economic status as well as policy responses. You can read it here.

Walk the talk
Once we have formed our broad political outlook, we tend to read only the news sources which reinforce our political colours. If that describes you, then why not read from time to time a news source which reflects a different viewpoint? Although you may take offence, try to persevere until you have found some common ground that you agree with and let that close the gap a little.

The last word
From the Bible, Matthew 12:25, Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.”