William Atkinson: Beware the trap of attacking multiculturalism

Confusion over its definition means this strategy may backfire

Only three weeks ago, the Home Secretary declared that multiculturalism had “failed”. Amongst certain parts of Conservative Twitter, it has become an obvious truism after the horrors and disgraces of the last week. People are “in the society but not of the society” since multiculturalism has made “no demand on the incomer to integrate”.

The usual liberal pearl-clutching ensued. Braverman – herself the daughter of immigrants from Mauritius and Kenya – was accused of having “humiliated every single migrant in the UK”, of having ignored that “Britain has always been a melting pot”, and of having pandered to the far-right. Rishi Sunak declined to back her explicit choice of words.

Yet the Home Secretary’s comments seem remarkably prescient considering the response of some in Britain to the unfolding crisis in Israel. Since at least 7/7, we have been painfully aware that a consequence of mass migration is that crises elsewhere in the world have consequences on the street of Britain. But to read of a 324 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents over four days makes that concept hideously real.

To have Jewish schools closed or be advising pupils not to wear their school blazers in public is a depressing reminder that such institutions have long required extra gates and CCTV. But it comes in the context of not only the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas in Israel, but of groups of British Muslim men and women cheering anti-Semitic slogans on London’s streets, as protestors defend barbarities and community groups turn a blind eye. Something has gone worryingly wrong in Britain.

Integration, of any kind or vision, should not aim for homogeneity. We do not expect any immigrant who comes here or their descendants to agree wholesale with the foreign policy of the British government. We would not expect that of any other citizen. Yet there is an obvious difference between legitimate support for Palestinian nationhood and criticism of Israel’s foreign policy, and both blatant anti-Semitism and the excusing of atrocities.

Polling suggests only two per cent of British Muslims backed terrorism at the high point of ISIS. But with a population in the UK of four million, that still leaves tens of thousands living within Britain who may be willing to express support for an organisation that butchers children in the interests of wiping a Jewish state off the map. The Home Secretary should use the full force of the law against them. There can be no gap between the blunt language of the Terrorism Act and its enforcement.

She can do so in with the self-confidence of someone whose warnings appear vindicated. Those willing to cheer on the rape and murder of innocents – including amongst the idle student left - are clearly not of the mainstream of any British society worth its name. But as tensions rise, any threat to the safety of Jews in Britain or wider public disorder can be considered at least partially a consequence of the failure to successfully manage mass immigration.

Does this, then, mean multiculturalism has “failed”? At first sight, yes. If we see multiculturalism as a conception of society in which multiple ethnic and cultural groups can live together in harmony, then that objective has palpably not been achieved. Yet some Conservatives would dispute this for a simple reason: if multiculturalism may have a particular meaning to the political philosopher or social scientist, it has a very different one in the mind of the average voter. Multiculturalism has seemingly become another word for multi-racialism.

By any metric, Britain is one of the world’s most successful multi-racial democracies. Unlike most major European nations, we lack a successful hard or far right party. Surveys suggest Britain has very little racism compared to other countries; immigrants perform better economically. We are country with a Hindu Prime Minister but couldn’t care less.

Which provides one obvious reason why Braverman’s attack on multiculturalism might be misguided. As Paul Goodman has repeatedly pointed out, the Tories have struggled to attract more than a fifth of ethnic minority voters at any general election since 2010. Since they represent the fastest growing voter group in the UK, continually attacking multiculturalism would only drive them further from the Tories – and alienate those white voters uninterested in mirroring America’s racial neuroses.

But the Home Secretary’s approach is unwise on an even more basic level. Whether or not you think the scenes of the last week suggest multiculturalism has failed, to declare that it has is a serious tactical own goal. Braverman may have only been mirroring David Cameron, who suggested multiculturalism had failed in 2011. But if the Conservatives had failed then and are still failing now – after thirteen years in government – then who is to blame?

Labour threatens only to introduce further acts to address an institutional racism that Tony Sewell’s Commission on Race and Ethic Disparities showed to be an absurd spectre and cannot be trusted to reduce either legal or illegal immigration. Conservative inaction will enable Labour to double down on the worse aspects of the status quo.

The Conservatives would therefore be unwise in going to war over multiculturalism before the next election. Not only because it might alienate both ethnic minority and white voters when every tick next to a Conservative candidate is needed, but because it highlights their own shortcomings in the area. Trashing the record of Conservative governments does nothing for those currently facing the consequences of failed integration on our streets, in our cities, and in our schools.

William Atkinson is the assistant editor at ConservativeHome.