The slow death of the “multicultural society”
1, Danish justice abandoned at the beginning of January, for lack of proof of incitement to violence, from prosecuting imams established in Denmark who had carried out a “tour” in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in December 2005 to draw attention to the publication of the caricatures and the lack of reactions from the Copenhagen government (see also below). On the other hand, those responsible for “Charlie Hebdo” are being prosecuted in French justice, whose trial will be held on February 7 and 8 for breach of the law which punishes “insult committed (towards) a person or a group of people because of their origin or their belonging to a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion. The weekly had published the caricatures in the wake of the Danish newspaper as well as a caricature by Cabu, on the cover of its issue of February 8, 2006, representing Mohammed under the title “Mahomet overwhelmed by the fundamentalists” and declaring: “It’s hard to be loved by idiots.” However, everything indicates that fundamentalists have further gained ground in Arab-Muslim countries. As proof, the censorship which struck, in modernist Tunisia, the January-February delivery of the magazine “Historia” which reproduced a painting depicting Mohammed among his disciples. (La Libre 02/02/2007)
2, Will the British “multicultural society” survive the next elections? In an important speech on Monday, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party and likely winner of the next election, strongly condemned a doctrine which “undermines the cohesion” of the nation. (…) His condemnation of the “multicultural society” invented by Tony Blair and “New Labour” should be a landmark. For Mr. Cameron, “multiculturalism has undermined the cohesion of the nation because it emphasizes what divides us more than what brings us together. This doctrine has been manipulated to entrench the right to difference (a concept that divides us) at the expense of the right to equal treatment (a concept that unites us (…) This declaration of intentions comes at an important time. A research center close to the Conservative Party, the “Populus for Policy Exchange”, revealed Monday the radicalization of young Muslims who prefer to send their children to Islamic schools (37 pc), want Islamic laws, Sharia, to replace British laws (37 pc), want Muslim women wear the hijab leaving only the face and hands visible (74 pc) or admire organizations fighting the West like al Qaeda (13 pc). These figures show that far from assimilating the values of British society, as imagined by experts and the political class, certain young Muslims aged 16 to 24, interviewed by investigators, reject the infinitely more tolerant attitude of their parents. This radicalization is all the more surprising given that the enormous majority of Muslims (84 pc) believe they have been treated fairly by English society and a significant minority (28 pc) believe that the authorities are doing too much not to cause harm. Offense to Muslims. (La Libre 02/02/2007).
Strictly speaking, no society can, of course, be “multicultural”. If by hypothesis it were, it would disintegrate immediately, as when matter and antimatter come into contact. Culture is the social contract of a society and there cannot be several of them concurrently, even if there may be localized elements of folklore. The expression used by exhausted politicians such as Blair or Chirac testifies to the enormity of the incompetence of those who claim to govern, accustomed as they are, it is true, to playing with ambiguity, hidden contradiction and doublespeak.
The proliferation of research showing the radicalization of young men from the second or third generation of immigrants is not new, even if the Leviathan favors the bureaucratic co-optation of right-thinking “scientists” within institutions. prey to union and activist influence. You only need to read the press to see the interracial violence which is exploding here and there in many developed countries, and which pits immigrant minorities against white majorities, white majorities against immigrant minorities, immigrant minorities against police forces, and minorities immigrants among themselves. You just need to have eyes to see the latent civil war that ethnic groups wage against each other on a daily basis and which involves economic, demographic and sexual competition.
Things are moving, however: the timid confusion of the Danish justice system in the affair of the Mohammed caricatures is opposed among the new British conservatives by a belated awareness that multiculturalist policy could have undermined social cohesion – it had not elsewhere no other goal – but also that this undermining effect turns out to be less and less controllable and that it is likely to threaten the established order itself.
