Author: regan

The Rt Hon Baroness Warsi , December 2007 Speaking to the Guardian Diversity Conference (Archive speech) Baroness Warsi spoke on community cohesion and diversity in modern Britain at the QEII Conference Centre. The speech was followed by a question and answer session on a range of topics including the role of faith schools and improving access to locally driven community funding. Her speech was as follows: Last week I spent three extraordinary days in Khartoum. I went with my Labour colleague Lord Ahmed to try to get Gillian Gibbons out of jail – the primary school teacher who allowed her pupils to give the class teddy bear the name Mohammed. It was extraordinary because we were dealing with a situation which, thankfully, could never happen in Britain. And yet it had echoes of situations we do get in Britain. First, although it was a crisis with national and international impact, it was sparked by a very local dispute – in this case between a school principal and a mischievous school secretary. Second, the crisis developed because of cultural misunderstanding. They simply don’t go in for teddy bears in Sudan and so some people wrongly thought Ms Gibbons was mocking the Prophet Mohammed pbuh. And third, the crisis really took off because there were religious and political leaders in Sudan who were busting for a fight, and were prepared to exploit the issue for their own purposes. Lessons for Sudan These three factors – local disputes; cultural misunderstandings; and hardliners stirring up trouble – these are very familiar to us in Britain. I am glad we were able to play a role in ending the crisis. And before I discuss the lessons I brought from Sudan, let me suggest that our mission also had a lesson for Sudan. Nazir Ahmed and I were not an official delegation. We had no powers to offer anything to the Sudanese Government in exchange for leniency in this case. We were there as members of the British Parliament, and as British Muslims. And I hope that as Muslims and as Parliamentarians in a democracy, we helped represent to the Sudanese government and people a very simple and very important principle. That you can be a Muslim and believe in democracy and the rule of law. We wanted, in a small way, to show the people of Sudan that Muslim politicians can have different values to those responsible, for instance, for what is happening in Darfur. Exclusion But I have a hope closer to home too, which is what I want to talk about today. I hope our mission to Sudan demonstrated to people in Britain, and in other western countries, that you can be a Muslim and hold firm to your country’s values and interests – even if your country isn’t Muslim in its constitution or its national religion. I believe that diversity is a positive force – one of the great things about Britain. I am proud to be Muslim and British – and proud that Britain and Islam each accommodate the other. This principle must be the basis of any attempt to build community cohesion in this country. None of the world’s religions – not Judaism or Christianity or Islam, not Hinduism or Sikhism or Confucianism – none of the world’s religions are incompatible with democracy, unless they choose to make themselves so. A religion can make itself incompatible with democracy in two ways – either by demanding the exclusion of other cultures from the public space, or by voluntarily excluding itself from the public space. Let me deal with these tendencies in turn. Diversity within Britain The first tendency – to demand the exclusion of other cultures – is almost as old as politics. Every religion on earth has tried at different times to have a monopoly in particular countries. The Church of England enjoyed a virtual monopoly in 18th century England – we had laws restricting the rights of Catholics, Jews and even Protestant dissenters. And out of the struggle of those years came: the principle of tolerance and religious freedom under the rule of law. This principle is one of our country’s greatest gifts to the world. And that is why it so distresses me when I hear extremist groups like the BNP, who say you cannot be Black and British or Muslim and British. And it distresses me when I see a minority of people who claim to represent my own faith, Islam, arguing that Britain should be an Islamic state, either wholly or partly, or those who support opting-out of British law rather than demanding equal treatment under the law. When Nazir Ahmed and I went to Sudan last week we were proud to do so as members of a House of Parliament which has bishops and the Chief Rabbi as fellow members. We do not want to belong to a political system which only gives room to one faith – even if that faith is our own. Diversity within communities Let me turn to the other way in which a religion can make itself incompatible with democracy: by voluntarily excluding itself from the mainstream. Retreating into a theological corner of its own making. Telling people of the faith they must stay isolated in the corner if they want to be true believers. Of course, this isn’t just the fault of some religious leaders within the faith. Many believers now feel pushed into the corner – marginalised by legislation and language that creates a siege mentality. Of course, the Government’s security measures – whether we agree with them or not – are designed to protect all citizens, and are not part of some official campaign against Muslims. But proposals like 42 day detention – presented without evidence for its necessity – creates a victim culture which encourages rather than limits extremism. In the same way, commentators who suggest that certain people’s ‘way of life’ is incompatible with mainstream Britain, or the media stories like the Manchester airport plot that turn out simply to be wrong– are part of the problem. That’s why I say that politicians who want to engage with our minority faith or race communities have to do a lot more than the photocall outside the mosque or church or temple. You’ve got to go inside, sit down, talk and listen. You’ve got to understand the building you’re posing in front of – and understand the extraordinary diversity within Britain’s minority communities. Culture and religion But that diversity also needs to be preserved from within – preserved against those who want to control everything that believers do. I believe that as a nation – and for reasons I’ll explain, British Muslims have the foremost responsibility here – we need to make a vital distinction, and to act on it. The distinction is between the cultural and the religious. This distinction is vital because there is a growing tendency among some people to describe what are really social expectations – and often pretty dubious ones – as religious requirements. There are people in Saudi Arabia who say women driving cars is unIslamic. In Somalia some say Muslim girls should be circumcised. That’s not the Islam I know. But there are ideas we get here in Britain which are just as wrong. Take forced marriages. Islam is unambiguous in its condemnation of forced marriage – it’s not a religious requirement, it’s a cultural outrage and Muslims reject it. Or take honour killings, I even find this label offensive because there is nothing honourable about these murders and perpetrators of such crimes should not be allowed to hide behind any faith. Or take the simple handshake between colleagues which stirred much debate last year, and yet when I was in Sudan last week, some of the most conservative religious leaders I met put out their hands for me to shake. Freedom Confusing the cultural and the religious is wrong because it’s divisive – it leads to separation as devout young people think it’s their religious duty to cut themselves off from wider society. If a woman wants to wear the face veil in her private life she should be free to do so. But she should be free to do so, as she is free to wear any other dress she feels appropriate. No one has a right to insist that she should wear the veil in her private life – just as no-one has a right to insist she should not. And of course schools must be allowed to set their own rules on uniform. And of course security or health and safety can mean it’s necessary to ask a woman to remove a face veil for identification purposes, provided it’s done sensitively – for example by a woman in a private space. And we shouldn’t be scared to say this. Cultural engagement But there’s another, deeper reason why it’s important not to confuse the cultural with the religious. If an issue is religious, it is less appropriate for society and the state to monitor, regulate or comment on it – so long as its doctrines and practises are legal, of course. My point is that, within the constraints of the law and basic humanity, the freedom of conscience is a cornerstone of liberal democracy – one of the things that places like Sudan are crying out for and which Britain is so rightly proud of. But culture is different. Culture is in the sphere of criticism and commentary and, if necessary, of interference by politicians. I don’t often quote Labour politicians but I think Mike O’Brien was spot on when he said that cultural sensitivity is not a reason for moral blindness. I want us to respect religious doctrine. But I want us to be able to engage robustly with cultural opinions, where those opinions threaten a real separation between the communities of the UK. I said that British Muslims have the foremost responsibility here. As long as the Muslim community remains in a victim culture, a siege mentality, they allow others to control the debate. When it comes to Islam, the majority of Muslims understand the difference between culture and religion. It’s not for others to tell Muslims what is and isn’t Islam. It’s for the community, and in that I include myself, to expound the truth about our faith – not let others interpret it for us. It is for us to be the change – not let others impose it on us. So I’ve got a clear message to the hardliners and hotheads who claim to speak for British Muslims. When you say that voting is un-Islamic, you’re wrong. When you say that women should not have access to education or employment, you are wrong; that women’s equality is un-Islamic, you are wrong ; or that women should not adopt leadership positions like politics, you’re wrong. When you say these things, you’re putting forward a cultural argument, not a religious one, and while we should always be tolerant of religious faith, we can and must be utterly intolerant of cultural arguments that try to divide our country and our communities. Guiding principles So let me set out what I believe the government’s role should be: the priorities for ensuring cohesion in a diverse nation. And I go back to the observations I made in Sudan. First, cohesion must be local: problems and solutions are found in local circumstances, as much as in far-away national and international events. Second, cohesion requires understanding: because what is perfectly innocent in one context – a teddy bear in a classroom, for instance – can cause offence in another. There can be no special pleading for different groups, and of course tolerance means learning to live with people and opinions you don’t like – but for tolerance to work, there must be real sensitivity to how different groups see the world, and to how we use language. And third, cohesion requires responsibility, and discernment: because there will always be hardliners or one sort or another, the sort of people for whom compromise and empathy and understanding are signs of weakness not signs of strength. Let me take these principles in turn. Local Cohesion is local. That means people learning to live alongside each other in neighbourhoods – not artificial national unity, achieved by buying off different groups with a bit of patronage here, a bit of money there. I went with to Sudan with a Labour peer, and I was proud to be part of a bipartisan effort – party differences didn’t matter on that mission. But this is not to say that there are no differences between the parties when it comes to cohesion at home. For me, cohesion means that where there is local diversity, different races and religions get along. Cohesion should never mean multiculturalism, in the way that this concept has been translated by Labour: the doctrine of separate identity, with each group encouraged to feel that identity requires the expression of difference to the point of hostility. Multiculturalism has been manipulated to entrench the right to difference, a divisive concept, at the expense of the right to equal treatment despite difference, a unifying concept. And the fact that cohesion is local, means Labour get it wrong when they go in the other direction too. After years of promoting top-down multiculturalism, Gordon Brown is now promoting top-down unity. Of course, localism has to be in the context of a national consciousness – and that’s why I want us to reverse the failed state multicultural approach and ensure there is sufficient English language teaching for new arrivals, and proper teaching of English history for our children so that they have a deep understanding of our great institutions and how they came to be as they are. But to me, Britishness means the opposite of what it means to Gordon. I was bought up to believe that being British meant you didn’t go on about it! It’s not about planting flags on lawns, or inventing a new Veterans Day – as if we should celebrate our country by importing traditions from America. Gordon is even consulting far and wide on six words, a motto believe it or not, that encapsulates our nation. Well let me tell him: you’re searching for something you won’t find. Britishness is not something that can be put in words. It is about institutions, and traditions, and the shared values which are often felt more than spoken. Cultural understanding Britishness is bottom-up. And that’s vital for the second principle I mentioned: the importance of understanding. Labour’s use of patronage politics leads to reliance upon self appointed community leaders, mainly men. This has left many in our communities unheard. Like the Asian women in Dewsbury who I met in the 2005 election, who told me I was the first politician to canvass their views. Women are the bedrock of our communities. But too often they have been forgotten and left behind. I want to see far more real representation of Muslims and other communities in our country. Not because we need quotas on faith or race – but because to responsibly govern Britain we must encompass all of Britain in its governance. I am pleased the Conservative Party is working so hard to engage with minority communities and I look forward to further discussions with many of the people here today. Responsibility Finally, there is the principle of responsibility, the need to resist the siren call of the hardliners. We must accept that we’re in all in this together – but Muslims have an added responsibility to defeat extremism, because extremism is claimed in the name of Islam. It’s also more personal to us because it’s in our community that any backlash is also felt. So the government and wider society needs to empower communities to tackle extremism. We must inspire people to feel part of the British system, and help them make the changes that are necessary through engaging with democracy. I have suggested a voluntary support network, a national foundation to provide support and guidance, somewhere families and individuals can turn when they pick up on the signs of disenchantment with our country and its democratic ways and institutions. Something that comes from the community, with an understanding of its culture and beliefs but as professional and dedicated as any charity. A key question is to what degree political parties should engage with people and organisations who have extremist or separatist views. My view is clear. Of course we should be willing to engage with individuals and groups who don’t share our philosophy – including disillusioned and alienated young men who are vulnerable to Al Qaeda. But engagement doesn’t mean partnership. This Government clearly believes in partnership with national organisations that claim to represent communities. This is wrong – firstly because it’s patronising to suggest that diverse communities can be represented by single homogenous groups. It suggests that individuals – particularly women – within those communities aren’t capable of representing themselves. And this approach is wrong because some such groups often hold ambiguous views on cohesion and integration. And as a responsible government, engagement must involve what diplomats call ‘a robust exchange of views’, in which the Government asserts without apology or concession, that the attitudes of certain groups are hindering a cohesive Britain. The next Conservative Government will take instead a fresh, new and more localist approach – listening to individual voices and ideas, particularly from women and young people, and devolving power through local government to the grassroots. Conclusion The unfortunate fact is that this is a polarised debate. I saw that myself when I was appointed to my present job. Some blogs described me as an Islamist jihadist. Others called me a Zionist sell-out. And that illustrates how his debate often works. We have a tendency to deal with everything in terms of soundbites – and to pigeon-hole people into clear and hostile categories. Well, I’m probably a square peg in a round pigeon-hole. I represent the diversity there is in Britain today. And I think we should have an honest, grown-up debate, with real depth and understanding – but a debate which is also prepared to tackle those difficult issues that need to be tackled. I hope I’ve tackled some of them today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I’m delighted to be here. Let me start by thanking James Arbuthnot and Denis Macshane for inviting me. I know in the past Jim Murphy has given this lecture on behalf of the Labour Party. And two years ago, you had Nick Clegg representing the Lib Dems. So I take very seriously that you’ve invited me to speak for the Conservative Party. When I was appointed Chairman of the Conservative Party last year, I realised that the Party had changed for the better when I heard that my Co-Chairman was Andrew Feldman. A Jewish man and Muslim woman running the Party. We have been given a great opportunity to send a clear signal to the communities we originate from and to the wider community… ….that people of different faiths share the same values and can work together to advance a common cause, a common interest: the interests of the Party and the interests of the country they love… …respecting and enjoying our differences but recognising the importance of what binds us together. I am privileged to have a long and close relationship with the British Jewish community. Whether it’s with the Coexistence Trust… ….the Jewish-Muslim Roadshow alongside Parry Mitchell and Michael Howard… …the launch of the Campus Ambassadors programme earlier on this year… …my visit to Yad Vashem in Israel… …my subsequent trip to Auschwitz as a guest of the Holocaust Education Trust…where I saw the horrors of what happened under the Nazis – horrors which have a unique place in modern history. Whether it’s my regular visits to Stamford Hill… …my close connections with the Orthodox Community… …my ongoing discussions with Gerald Ronson of the CST… ….or – how can I forget? – my dinner with the Chief Rabbi… ….who didn’t throw me out when I asked if his chicken was kosher! MY VISION Why does this relationship matter so much to me? First, because I profoundly believe that faith is a force for good in our country. That’s why in September last year I went to the Anglican Bishops’ Conference and said that this government would do God. I said that faith inspires charity. … it shapes behaviour…it strengthens our society. Just look at the British Jewish community. For over 150 years, since the Jewish Board of Guardians was set up to help the poor… …the Jewish community has been giving back to society… …it’s been the Big Society in action… …whether it’s the extraordinary work done by Jewish Care… …literally from the cradle to the grave… …or the high standards and sense of community I see when I visit Jewish faith schools across the country. I strongly believe government needs to understand and appreciate this work. But as I explained last year, in the last few years we’ve seen the rise of what I call secular fundamentalism… …fuelling a sense of suspicion about the role of faith in our country. This is one of the biggest threats we face in faith communities And I am absolutely committed to defeating it. It’s a matter I’m committed to, it’s a matter I keep returning to… …and I realised I was making progress when a Cabinet colleague told me that one of my articles about faith had been quoted by his vicar during Sunday prayers! The second reason I value my relationship with the Jewish community is because I deeply admire and respect their ongoing fight against bigotry. I fundamentally believe no community has had to fight the battle as strongly and for as long as the Jewish community has. All my life, I’ve fought and campaigned against racial and religious discrimination. As a teenager I marched against Apartheid. In my students days I campaigned for racial equality. I helped launch Operation Black Vote. And more recently in Government I’ve done the same thing. …I’ve spoken out against those who persecute Christians around the world… …I’ve highlighted the rising tide of Islamophobia across Europe and in the UK… …and, not for the first time, today I am addressing the challenge of anti-Semitism. And in all these campaigns, the lesson I’ve learned all boils down to this: If we really want to defeat racism and bigotry… …if we’re serious about social harmony… …and if we’re actually going to destroy the scourge of anti-Semitism in this country…. …then we need all faiths and none to stand up against it, united. And that’s the main point I want to make today. ISLAM AND JUDAISM But first, let me step back a little bit. Now, I have always believed there is far more which unites religious communities than divides them. And I take comfort from the fact that in my own religion and the Jewish religion, there is much that brings us together. Whether it’s the father of our faiths… …in Judaism, it’s Avraham… …in Islam, it’s Ibraheem…. ….Whether it’s the covenant with God… …our dietary requirements… …or our shared values, which place the family as the bedrock of our society. What’s more, if you take the last two thousand years of history, at times there has been a stronger relationship between Jews and Muslims than between other communities. For part of Moorish history, Jews in Spain enjoyed a golden age. For many years, Jewish cultural and economic life thrived. Later, under the Ottoman Empire, many Jewish communities prospered. Jewish immigration was welcomed by many Sultans. As one Rabbi put it: “Is it not better to live under Muslims than under Christians?” You may wonder why I’m giving you a history lesson: Because it deeply concerns me that so much of modern Jewish and Muslim relations are defined not by what happened historically. …but by a revision of history based on current events. The ugly strain of anti-Semitism found in some parts of the Muslim community arose in the late 20th century. The point is that there’s nothing in our history which suggests that hatred between Muslim and Jews is inevitable. Instead we should learn from history that there’s a slippery slope with discrimination…. …when one community is attacked, it’s only a matter of time before another is. As the Chief Rabbi said in 1993: Hatred laid the groundwork for the Holocaust in the 1930s. It paved the way for the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. It led to the massacre in Bosnia in 1995. As he put it: “we have too much knowledge to ignore the line that leads from hatred to holocaust” ANTI-SEMITISM TODAY And that brings me to the state of anti-Semitism in Britain today. It’s appalling that anti-Semitism even exists in today’s Britain. What’s even more abhorrent is that some people actually believe that it does not. But on our streets, in our schools, on the internet… ….anti-Semitism is still a sad reality in today’s society. According to the CST there were 283 anti-Semitic attacks in the first half of this year. 41 violent assaults. 35 attacks on Jewish property. As well as threats, abusive behaviour, graffiti, hate mail and literature. Despicable and deplorable. Only recently a colleague of mine, Mike Freer MP was branded a ‘Jewish homosexual pig’ when he held a constituency surgery at his local mosque last month. He was attacked by a group formerly known as Muslim Against Crusades, Islam 4 UK, and Al Muhajiroun. …a group of hate-filled individuals, whatever name they choose to adopt at any time… ….whose single aim is to divide communities… …who attacked me with eggs in Luton… …and whose leader tried to shout me down on Newsnight for not wearing a face veil. My colleague, the Home Secretary banned them last week. My response is even less sympathetic: It’s probably the same response as I gave to their leader, Anjem Choudry, in 2009: If you can’t live by our values, get off our island. Today’s anti-Semitism comes in various forms. First, there are the thugs who attack synagogues and people in traditional dress. As the CST put it: ‘random, spontaneous, verbal…abuse, directed at people who look Jewish while they go about their business in public places’. Then there is the far left. Those who think shadowy Jewish financiers cause all the problems of the world… …control the media… …run the money markets… …and dominate our politics. Third, there are the fascists, people like the British National Party, who add racial hate to the mix. And finally, there are the religious fanatics. The people who claim faith drives them to acts of hatred…. …but who in reality are nothing more than bigots, who hijack their faith to justify their acts. It’s ironic really. The Jewish people are at once targeted by the far left and the far right. And they are at once branded superior and inferior by those who seek to attack them. It just shows how serious this problem is. GOVERNMENT ACTION Now I’m delighted that this government is so front-footed when it comes to dealing with anti-Semitism… … building on the work done by the previous government . We are pledging more money to protect Jewish schools. Police are now recording anti-Semitism separately rather than as a catchall ‘hate crime’ category. The CPS is improving in its prosecution of hate crime. The last government supported the London Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Commission for Combating Anti-Semitism. There is also a strong, cross-government working group, on anti-Semitism, bringing together community leaders, politicians and senior civil servants. And in specific areas where we know there is a problem, like higher education, progress is being made. Our Business Innovation and Skills department has established an Anti-Semitism and Higher Education group. Universities UK has established an academic freedom working group. And the academic community are doing more to live up to their responsibilities. COMMUNITY ACTION But the problem is that government will always be a blunt instrument when it comes to dealing with problems like this. This is a social problem – and so society has to be involved too. We have to reach deep to root out this poison. And we all have a role to play. We don’t just need zero tolerance from government – which you will always get. We need zero tolerance from society too. That means Parliamentarians and the All Party Parliamentary Group continuing the work they’re doing. That means every community speaking out against anti-Jewish hatred. I want to see a sort of broken-windows policy applied. Where we stop anti-Semitism at the thin end of the wedge… …highlighting every possible example of discrimination. That’s why I’m glad we have organisations like yours studying anti-Semitism. That’s why I have such respect for the Community Security Trust. But we also need to do something even more fundamental. We need cross-community campaigns. And that brings me to the main point that I want to make. PROTECT THY NEIGHBOUR When I was a teenager, I didn’t march against Apartheid because of my skin colour. My grandfathers didn’t fight for Britain in the Second World War because they were part of the British Empire. They did it because of a fundamental belief: Persecution somewhere is persecution everywhere. Oppress my neighbour and you oppress me. Of course it’s right that individuals take the lead to expose problems their communities are facing. Because for them – it’s real, and it’s personal. That’s why, as a Muslim, I have been working to establish a similar group to the CST for British Muslim communities. But what we really need is for our communities and these organisations to work together. In the words of Rabbi Hillel, which capture this point beautifully: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” So, when Christian employees are put under pressure for wearing a cross. When Jewish children are heckled for their traditional dress….When Muslim women are demonised for donning a headscarf. Isn’t this the same thing? An attack on freedom to express one’s faith? Shouldn’t we therefore, as communities, unite? I’m pleased to say that Jewish community is already taking the lead at this. Take the Jewish Board of Deputies, who condemned the banning of minarets in Switzerland. … condemned the EDL for its anti-Muslim rhetoric… …and condemned the attack on a mosque in Israel. This sort of cross-faith unanimity sends out a clear message. It says: if you discriminate against my faith, you are discriminating against all faiths. Because you are stifling people’s right to believe. In the way that straight people march through Brighton during Gay Pride. In the way that able-bodied people fight for disabled rights. In the way that men are feminists too. All faiths need to come together to tackle the scourge of religious bigotry. That means Muslims condemning anti-Semitism. It means Jews fighting Islamophobia. It means an attack on a gudwara is an attack on a mosque, a church, a temple, a synagogue. Because an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths. It’s an extension of the principle love thy neighbour: Protect thy neighbour too. So today… …as the first Muslim to serve in the full Cabinet… …as the first Muslim Chairman of the Conservative Party… …I want to send an unmistakeable message to every community: We must drain the poison of anti-Semitism from our country. As a Muslim, for me, Islamophobia is personal. But for me, Anti-Semitism is just as important. CONCLUSION I know that many have issued this call before me. But I make this argument now because I believe it is urgently needed. And I want to end by reading a statement we all know to illustrate my point: It is about ignoring the persecution of your neighbour at your peril… …because eventually the persecution will knock at your door too. “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.” This was true during the Second World War. And it’s just as true today. Thank you.