Category: Speeches

By Baroness Warsi, Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Baroness Warsi Madam Prime Minister. Thank you for convening today’s debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the important issue of peace building. I would like to pay tribute to the long-standing commitment and leadership shown by Bangladesh on the Peacebuilding agenda. Thank you also to His Excellency Mr Abulkalam Abdul Momen, for his ongoing commitment and dedication, in his role as chairman of the Peacebuilding Commission. When violent conflict breaks out, the costs to both the affected country and the international community are enormous. Lives are lost, people are displaced, trade links are cut, and criminals and terrorists can take advantage of instability and chaos. It is therefore clear that peace building is a shared goal. It affects those caught up in the conflict, but it also affects those who are not. Madam Chairman, I believe the only way to sustainable peace and security is for peace building to be conducted in genuine partnership with states affected by conflict. There are three principles for effective peacebuilding partnerships without which we will not be able to succeed. These are: First, effective co-ordination amongst the international community, both in the affected countries and at the UN, raised by Prime Minister Gillard. Second, strong ownership of peace building from the affected state. And thirdly genuine mutual accountability for delivering of results. Peace building has to be done with a comprehensive approach. It cannot be done in silos. Peacebuilding must be holistic. It requires co-ordination from the international community in any given country. Individual donors must resist the temptation to pursue national interests and in doing so duplicating the activities of others at best, undermining it at worst. Without proper international coordination, there is a real danger that peacebuilding will not be effective. Institutions cannot act independently. So we must accept the need to be co-ordinated, as well as to co-ordinate with others. The UN must also co-ordinate internally. Peacebuilding is not just about the Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacebuilding Support Office. It is a job for all of the UN, who must work together as one. And as donors, we can help the UN to co-ordinate, with coherent messaging and coherent funding. The real key, however, lies with the affected countries themselves. Understanding the local context is essential. There is little point trying to replicate exactly what works in one country in another emerging from conflict. As we have seen in Timor Leste, and as we heard today from Prime Minister Gusmao, a government with clear priorities can help direct the international community. So strong national ownership is imperative. And that ownership must include a broad range of voices especially recognising the role of women. How can peacebuilding possibly be effective if we do not include half of our populations? Lastly, there is the need for mutual accountability. Today the international community has committed today to responsible peacebuilding. It means remaining engaged as long as necessary. It means finding the funds that are needed. The UK has already committed fifty-five million pounds to the Peacebuilding Fund, and we urge others to follow this contribution. There are also responsibilities on the part of countries affected by conflict. New administrations must govern for all the people, regardless of the outcome of the conflict. Issues such as corruption should be addressed so that donors have confidence their support will reach the right people. And new political, security and justice structures should be truly inclusive, not simply composed of existing elites. Madam Chairman. Building sustainable peace and security in post conflict countries is an enormously difficult and complicated task. But, with clear coordination, commitment and partnership, it can be achieved.

INTRODUCTION It’s great to be here today. I have a personal link with this event. I hail from Dewsbury – a Victorian textile town… Leeds University – to whom you are closely linked – is my former uni… The family business that I’m privileged to be a part of is a furniture manufacturer … And, above all, I am a great believer in innovation in industry. And that’s exactly what I want to talk about today. As the fastest growing sector of the textile industry, you demonstrate the power of innovation and reinvention. You show that an industry of the past can have a strong, dynamic future… …that tradition is not incompatible with innovation. Today there are many other industries that could take heed from your example. NONWOVENS I have to say, at the weekly diary meetings in my office this opportunity to give a speech to the Nonwovens Network raised a few eyebrows. A lot of questions were asked about what you do. I was even told it was probably going to be a boring conference. What people don’t realise is that nonwovens are woven through our lives. They’re part and parcel of the modern world. Under the carpet we walk on, on the chairs we sit on, in the face wipes we use, the dusters we clean with. Indeed, the fabric of society! Personally I am more familiar with the woven side of the textile industry. Whether it be the spinning and weaving mills my father came to work in during the 1960s… …or the materials used in our bed manufacturing business many years later. But here’s why I believe your industry is such a crucial one. It shows the importance of tradition and modernisation in manufacturing. TEXTILE DECLINE But let’s look for a moment at the story of which you are a part. Britain’s long history of manufacturing and textiles. A century ago we were exporting seven billion square yards of cloth a year. Textiles became synonymous with the north. One of Britain’s greatest success stories. But sadly that peak is something of the past. Textiles now account for just 0.2 per cent of the UK economy. The sector declined particularly in recent years. With 10,000 jobs lost in the textile and clothing industries in one year alone (2006). And the number of UK textile jobs halving in the previous decade (from 372, 000 to 155,000). In that period, the whole of manufacturing suffered a blow. The number of firms had shrunk and the sector had declined the fastest as a share of the economy. Meanwhile, as we well know, the wider economy shifted to a reliance on finance and debt. FUTURE Ladies and gentlemen, this is a sad story of decline. This government recognises that. It’s why we want to put Britain on the map for what it makes. And you are part of that. We want to rebalance our economy to make it sustainable. We know that to make our country better, we need to start making more things again. That is the true route to economic recovery. So we are getting full square behind British manufacturing. That’s why we’ve cut business taxes, reformed planning, improved skills and rolled out enterprise zones… Making it easier to start-up businesses and to grow businesses. But what this government knows is that future trade opportunities lie beyond our immediate neighbours. A large plank of this government’s foreign policy has been about trade, reaching out to opportunities further afield. And we’ve had some great success stories. For the first time since 1976 we are a net exporter of cars. We sell vodka to Poland, cheese to France, tacos to Mexico We even sell canoes to the Eskimos! So the sign is on the door once more: Britain is wide open for business. That’s why the Prime Minister says that it isn’t just his job and the Foreign Secretary’s job to bang the drum for trade abroad. It’s the job of each and every minister in this government and I’m delighted to play my part in that. Last time I was here in Bradford, I said that the town was uniquely positioned to drive forward the British economy. Its diverse demographic gives it global trade links that others could only dream of. And this afternoon I’m delighted to be hosting Dr Ishrat Khan, the Governor of Sindh, who is in the country to sign a trade deal worth up to $17 billion. And I know there are opportunities in this region as well. CONCLUSION All these opportunities are part of a new era of manufacturing. And you’re at the forefront of this new era. You are a rapidly growing part of an industry many said was a thing of the past. You have achieved that success by bringing together the best aspects of design, of science, of technology and business. By forever innovating and surviving. By being as versatile as your products! I really want others to take your example and be inspired and send out the message: That Britain is open for business again. My husband is a manufacturer and so is my father. I come from the north – the powerhouse of manufacturing I know from the work I do overseas on behalf of the government that the ‘Made in Britain’ stamp is the most prestigious designer label you can get. So I wish you the very best of luck with your conference and urge you to keep on banging the drum for British business. Thank you.

INTRODUCTION Your Eminences. Excellencies. Reverend Fathers. Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is an immense honour for me to stand here today… …in what is, for more than a billion people, the spiritual capital of the world. And it is a further privilege to lead the largest ever ministerial delegation from the United Kingdom to the Holy See. To celebrate the relationship between our two states: The oldest formal diplomatic relationship in my country’s history. …and today, one of the strongest. Our diplomatic relationship began here in 1479, only a short distance from where we now stand. For reasons we all know too well, we broke diplomatic relations… …only to restore them during the First World War. This year marks 30 years since full diplomatic relations were re-established between us. We want to build upon our bond, to show it to the rest of the world, and to let it inspire others. Because our relationship enables us to act together in the name of the common good: To promote democracy. To fight for human rights. To encourage fair, responsible trade. To tackle climate change. And to help build stable nations. We are grateful for the superb work our Ambassador Nigel Baker is doing here… …building on the tremendous tenure of his predecessor Francis Campbell. The UK recognises that, as the smallest state in the world, the Holy See has the widest global reach. It therefore seems inevitable that the UK with its global reach and historic and current interests should nurture, strengthen and promote our relationship. The areas upon which, by working together, we can achieve tangible, practical outcomes are both so vast and so important that they, in many ways, contextualise our differences. And I believe the strength of our relationship can give tremendous hope and inspiration to others across the world. This year, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth are celebrating a person who has worked hard to bring our two great states closer. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty’s visits here to the Vatican over a 60-year reign, and before when she came as a young Princess Elizabeth… Her work to encourage harmony between Catholics and Protestants… Her groundbreaking visit to the people of Ireland in 2011… And her steadfast commitment to all her people… …are just some of the reasons her Diamond Jubilee makes this year such a special one for my country. And of course it was on her invitation that the Holy Father graced the United Kingdom with the first papal State Visit in our history. PAPAL VISIT The visit of September 2010 was historic, momentous and unforgettable… …and I want to thank the Holy Father on behalf of all four nations in our country. The hand of friendship was warmly received across our isles. Reaching out to Catholics and non-Catholics. To those of faith and those of none. From the cheering crowds on the streets of Scotland… …to those in silent contemplation during the Mass in Birmingham. And the many millions watching on their television screens or holding special events… …in school assemblies, community groups and workplaces. It was a milestone in our relationship, a milestone in UK history – where heart truly spoke unto heart. On a personal level, I heeded the words of the Holy Father during his landmark speech in Westminster Hall. And I had the immense honour of enjoying an audience during a special event to promote interfaith relations. It was a humbling, moving moment for me. And having made my speech at the Anglican Bishops’ Conference two days earlier on the importance of governments ‘doing God’… …marking a clean break with the approach from the past, saying that our Government would be on the side of faith…. …the Holy Father urged me to carry on making the case for faith in society. MAIN ARGUMENT So today I want to make one simple argument. That in order to ensure faith has a proper space in the public sphere… In order to encourage social harmony… People need to feel stronger in their religious identities, more confident in their beliefs. In practice this means individuals not diluting their faith… …and nations not denying their religious heritage. If you take this thought to its conclusion then the idea you’re left with is this: Europe needs to become more confident in its Christianity. Let us be honest: Too often there is a suspicion of faith in our continent…. …where signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings. …where states won’t fund faith schools. …and where faith is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded. It all hinges on a basic misconception: That somehow to create equality and space for minority faiths and cultures we need to erase our majority religious heritage. But it is my belief that the societies we are, the cultures we’ve created, the values we hold and the things we fight for… …stem from something we’ve argued over, dissented from, discussed and built up: Centuries of Christianity. It’s what the Holy Father called the “unrenounceable Christian roots of [our] culture and civilisation”. Which shine through our politics, our public life, our culture, our economics, our language and our architecture. You cannot and should not erase these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes. Let me get one thing very clear: I am not saying that everything done in the name of faith has been a blessing for our continent. Too much blood has been shed in the name of religion. But trying to erase this history or blind ourselves to the role of religion on our continent is wrong. We need to realise what drives us, what binds us and what inspires us is a history we are in danger of denying. I know, in a globalised world, it is easy to think that to relate to others you must water down your identity. But my point today is that being sure of who you are is the only way in which you will be more accommodating of others. And there is a second strand to this argument. That true confidence has the power to guarantee openness. Because only when you’re content in your own identity… …only when you realise that the ‘Other’ does not jeopardise who you are… …can you truly accept and not merely tolerate the presence of difference. Just as the bully bullies because he or she is insecure… …so too the state suppresses, marginalises, dictates and dismisses… …when it feels its identity is at stake. In the United Kingdom, we have guarded against such fear… …by recognising the importance of the Established Church and our Christian heritage – our majority faith… And that is what has created religious freedom and a home for people like me, of minority faiths. Majority faiths and minority faiths – as a Muslim who was born and raised in – and now serves – a Christian country, I have experience of both. So I hope you will permit me to start by telling you a bit about my early life in the north of England in the 1970s and 80s. PERSONAL When I was growing up, as the daughter of Pakistani immigrants, the debate in my country was not about religion but race. As a teenager what shaped me was the obvious injustice of Apartheid. In my student days I campaigned for racial equality. And in the years that followed I launched campaigns to bolster race relations. But after 9/11 I saw the debate shifting – with difference being defined not by race but by religion. My loyalty to my country was not in question because of my parents’ home country or even the colour of my skin, but because of the religion I was born into. I began to look back at my faith and the choices I made, as well as the lessons I learnt from my parents. I attended a relatively conservative mosque. My father inspired me to learn – to seek knowledge of both the history of my country and the foundation of my faith. He said that to truly understand my religion I needed to understand history as much as theology. He taught me to think about my identity in the following way: To see my religious identity, my faith, as a river that changes its appearance according to the bed on which it flows. The river reflecting the colour and the texture of the bed. Like the river, my faith reflects the nation I belong to. So what made me feel even more confident as a British Muslim… What truly enabled me to learn about my faith and to practice it… Was that my country – the bed over which the river of my faith flowed – had a strong Christian identity. This defined, shaped and gave me confidence in my own faith… Which, combined with the confidence of my country’s principles and values…. …Have since been evident in the decisions I’ve taken as an adult. One decision which I think demonstrates how strongly I believe this… …was my choice of school for my daughter: An Anglican convent school. Many might think it is unusual for a Muslim mother to send her daughter to a Christian school. But I knew she would be free to follow her faith there… …that she would not be looked down on because she believed. And as I had hoped, she found it strengthened her faith. Allowing her to define her Muslim identity, allowing her to reflect Christianity within that, adopting the Lord’s Prayer as her own by simply substituting the word “Amen” with “Ameen” It also left her posing a lot of questions about religion. As she once said to me, during one of the frequent debates about religious symbols: “Mother Robina is going to get really upset about everyone being nasty about women who wear the hijab, because she wears one.” As so often is the case, the youth shed light on situations like this and innocence brings clarity… …with my 9-year-old daughter bringing into sharp focus the similarities between the veil and the hijab. Summing up exactly why I don’t support the outright banning of religious symbols… Because, for me, it’s about personal choice and the right to express one’s faith – whatever their faith. So with my daughter’s school, as with my own upbringing, a strong sense of Christianity didn’t threaten our Muslim identity – it actually reinforced it. It enabled me to make the case for further interfaith debate, discussion and work. It motivated me to stand up and speak out against anti-Muslim hatred, the persecution of Christians and anti-Semitism. And it inspired me to challenge the growing marginalisation of faith in my country and in Europe. AROUND THE WORLD As I look around the world today, my resolve is strengthened. Where we see faith inspiring, driving and motivating good works… …is where certainty of conviction is at its strongest. As the Bible teaches us: “For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.” The Quran teaches us something similar – that: “those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings”. We see the proof every day – globally, locally and individually. From the Catholic Church being instrumental in toppling communism… …to its key role in securing peace in Northern Ireland. From the Catholic Schools in the UK, many of which are outperforming other institutions… …to the domestic response to the earthquake in Haiti, the floods in Pakistan and the drought in East Africa. And where day by day, faith sustains people through their darkest, most desperate periods… There is no denying the link between these positive actions and faith. Perhaps the best example I have seen of this was on my visit to Pakistan last month…. …a visit I promised the late Shahbaz Bhatti, the country’s tragically assassinated minorities minister, I would undertake: meeting the Christian communities of Karachi. There I met four wonderful sisters at the Convent of Jesus and Mary School, including two Irish nuns. One of them had spent 58 years of her life teaching girls in Pakistan. Sister Berchmans, a native of County Clare – one of the most westerly spots in Europe – had left rural Ireland as a young nun to go and work in Pakistan. There in Karachi, at the age of 80, and wearing her white habit and veil, she led the morning assembly in prayer in English. And then she led the singing of the Pakistan national anthem in Urdu. It was remarkable to see and to think of the practical and silent, discreet witness that Sister Berchmans and her fellow Nuns have shown to generations of young Pakistani girls, many of them Muslim… …and one of them who grew up to become a Prime Minister, the first female to govern the modern Islamic world: the late Benazir Bhutto. Sister Berchmans did not have to dilute her own faith or require others to dilute theirs. Rather she was doing what countless generations have done before her – witnessing and living side by side with other cultures and faiths. With Sister Berchmans rooted in her beliefs, and the Pakistani community she serves unwavering in its… …I saw not the diminishment of faith but the ultimate enactment of the common good. And I want to share some news with you today. Sister Berchmans, and another person of faith who has laboured in Pakistan for over 35 years – Father Robert McCulloch of Australia, who is with us here today… …have just been recognised for their lifetime of services to the people and development of Pakistan… And the President of Pakistan have awarded them Pakistan’s highest civilian honour: the Sitarai-e- Quaid-i-Azam. INTERFAITH I believe the same commitment is needed for dialogue and service between faiths to continue to succeed. Its interlocutors need to demonstrate the strength of faith shown by Sister Berchmans… …and the strength of appreciation and gratitude shown by the people of Pakistan. Because different faiths must realise that, just because they don’t worship together, doesn’t mean that they can’t work together. A great deal of this progress has been made thanks to the efforts of the Catholic Church… …through its educational outreach or the work of groups like Caritas International and its federation of aid agencies around the world… …and landmark documents like in Britain Meeting God in Friend and Stranger. As a UK cabinet minister of the Muslim faith, representing a country with an Anglican Established Church, visiting our friends in the spiritual home of Catholicism… …you will find no greater champion of understanding between faiths than me. But I believe that where interfaith dialogue does not work… …is where faiths are dumbed down in order to find common ground. Just as the European language of Esperanto, which attempted to build a new tongue, neautralises our component languages… …a common language between faiths risks watering down the diversity and intensity of our respective religions. Instead, interfaith dialogue works when we debate our differences, when we wear our beliefs on our sleeves. It’s not about you giving your version of God, and me giving my version of God. And us coming to some watered-down compromise. But about establishing our areas of consensus. And being firm enough in our devotion to work together. That’s why, when I visited the Tomb of David in Jerusalem… …I felt no contradiction saying my nafils, or prayers, in an alternative place of worship. It’s why when Vatican Two, whose 50th anniversary we celebrate this year, set out Nostra Aetate, its acceptance of other faiths… …it was not a sign of the church’s weakness of belief, but a sign of its strength. And why, when the Holy Father made his historic visit to the Blue Mosque in Istanbul… …he was not weakening his own faith but reaffirming it. DEFEATING BIGOTRY The point is that in so many ways, being sure of your faith adds a layer of strength to society. Confidence in our own beliefs enables us to defend attacks on others. Faith asks you to stand up for your neighbour. As the fourth Muslim caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib said: “Every man is your brother…either your brother in faith or your brother in humanity.” This is the spirit which inspired Muslims to protect Jews during the Holocaust. …which motivated Christians to support Muslims fleeing persecution in Darfur… …and which led Chief Rabbi Sacks to call for action against persecution in Bosnia. It’s something I’ve been arguing for a long time. That persecution somewhere is persecution everywhere. That if you oppress my neighbour you are oppressing me. That an attack on a gudwara is an attack on a mosque, a church, a temple, a synagogue. Today I’m moving that thought on… …and saying that standing up for your neighbour of another faith doesn’t make you less of a Christian, less of a Jew or less of a Muslim – it makes you more of one. When British Jews stand up to the political factions promoting anti Muslim hatred… When Christians understand the horrors of the Holocaust and tackle anti-Semitism… When Muslims and Sikhs stand shoulder to shoulder to protect their temples and Mosques… …it is not a betrayal of their own faith or a threat to it. …it is the most powerful demonstration of security in their own faith. MARGINALISATION OF FAITH But the confident affirmation of religion which I have spoken of is under threat. It is what the Holy Father called ‘the increasing marginalisation of religion’ during his speech in Westminster Hall. I see it in United Kingdom and I see it in Europe. Spirituality, suppressed. Divinity, downgraded. Where, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, faith is looked down on… …as the hobby of ‘oddities, foreigners and minorities’. Where religion is dismissed as an eccentricity… …because it’s infused with tradition. Where we undermine people who attribute good works to their belief… …and require them to deny it as their motivation. And where faith is overlooked in the public sphere… …with not even a word about Christianity in the preface of the “European Constitution”. When I pledged that the new government in the United Kingdom would ‘do God’, in some quarters there was uproar. More telling were the countless comments I received of quiet support… …a relief that finally someone had said what they had been thinking. This fact alone shows the extent to which religion has been sidelined by some. Because in parts of Europe there have been misguided beliefs that in order to accommodate people from other backgrounds, we must somehow become less religious or less Christian. That somehow society must level itself out so that faith becomes something that is marginalised… …and limited to the private confines of one’s home or even one’s mind. But those calls are not coming from other faith communities. They are coming from two types of people. First, the well-intentioned liberal elite… …who, conversely, are trying to create equality by marginalising faith in society. …who think that the route to religious pluralism is by creating a path of faith-neutrality. …who downgrade religion to a mere subcategory in public life. But look at their supposed level playing field. Its terrain is all but impassable to anyone of belief. One of the arguments of the liberal elite is that faith and reason are incompatible. But they don’t realise, as the Holy Father has argued for many years, that faith and reason go hand in hand. As he said to us in Westminster Hall: “…the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief…need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilisation.” In other words, just as reason should not be excluded from debates about faith… …so too spirituality should not be excluded when we look at worldly matters. Second, there are the anti-religionists, the faith deniers. The people who dine out on free-flowing media and sustain a vocabulary of secularist intolerance…. …attempting to remove all trace of religion from culture, history and public discourse. While ignoring the fact that people of faith give more to charity and that the number of people going to a place of worship is globally on the up. My theory is that we are so afraid – and rightly so – of going backwards in history to the bad days when religion was imposed on people by despotic regimes… …that we have got to the stage where aggressive secularism is being imposed by stealth. Leaving us with the ironic situation where, to stave off intolerance against minorities… …we end up being intolerant towards religion itself. For me, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity and failing to understand the relationship between religious loyalty and loyalty to the state. That’s why in the 20th Century, one of the first acts of totalitarian regimes was the targeting of organised religion. Why? Because, to them, a religious identity struck at the heart of their totalitarian ideology. In a free market of ideas, they knew their ideology was weak. And with the strength of religions, established over many years, followed by many billions… …their totalitarian regimes would be jeopardised. Our response to militant secularisation today has to be simple. Holding firm in our faiths. Holding back intolerance. Reaffirming the religious foundations on which our societies are built… And reasserting the fact that, for centuries, Christianity in Europe has been inspiring, motivating, strengthening and improving our societies. In public life – driving people to do great things, like setting up schools, creating public services, leading the way in charitable acts. In politics – inspiring parties on both the left and the right. In economics – providing many of the foundations for our market economy and capitalism. In culture – influencing our monuments, our music, our paintings, and our engravings. I’m delighted that the UK Government understands this… …from supporting faith schools and faith charities at home and abroad… …to helping religious groups to deliver vital public services… And, most powerfully, when our Prime Minister spoke out unequivocally about the lasting impact of the King James Bible on our country. THE FUTURE But we must take this confident, open faith and apply it beyond the present. I see a growing problem in some parts of our world today… …with governments dictating: What is a church and what isn’t. Where people can build a place of worship and where they cannot. Which faith they can belong to and which they cannot. And whether they can display their beliefs in public or not. I believe this is a misguided attempt at shoring up majority religions. These governments need to realise that pluralism is not a threat to tradition. Closer to home we see a similar suspicion. For example, from the politicians who say that inviting Turkey to join the European Union is a threat to the roots of Europe and its Christian heritage. Because they worry that the inclusion of a Muslim-majority country would diminish the Christianity of other countries. They are mistaken. The solution is not to shut the door on people of other faiths, but to strengthen our continent’s identity. Just as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said of her country: “The problem is not that we have too much Islam, it’s that we have too little Christianity and too few discussions about the Christian view of mankind.” Those discussions will only come about if Europe is more confident in its Christianity. So our continent needs the zeal of a convert… …not from discovering something new but rediscovering something which has underpinned our civilisations for centuries. FAITH’S SEAT AT THE TABLE At the same time, politicians need to give faith a seat at the table in public life. Not the privileged position of a theocracy, but that of an equal informer of our public debate. So we are not afraid to acknowledge when the debate derives from a religious basis. And not afraid to take onboard – and take on – the solutions offered up by religion. Politicians must also not be afraid to speak out when we think people who speak in the name of faith have got it wrong. For example, in the UK today, Bishops in the House of Lords, the chamber in which I sit, are opposing the government’s reforms to welfare… …where the government is trying to restore the dignity of work by putting responsibility back at the heart of society. I welcome the role of the Bishops in scrutinising the legislation. I support their right to bring their view to the table. But I reserve the right to disagree. I am not saying that faith leaders should have a monopoly on morality. Because, of course, as our Prime Minister David Cameron said, there are Christians who don’t live by a moral code and there are atheists and agnostics who do. But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction. Therefore, I’m arguing that religion needs a role when we look at the problems today. So that even the most committed atheist can find that those who are committed to religion have something to offer… …and that faith can be good for society, good for communities and good for those who choose to follow a faith. When religion has a role in public life, it enables us to look at our economy and refer to the Christian principles on which our markets were founded. It means we can take solace from teachings such a Rerum Novarum and Caritas in Veritate, which offer up answers for creating moral markets. It means we can look at our social problems and be inspired by Catholic Social Teaching. …looking at our welfare system and thinking, how does this impact on human dignity? …looking at social breakdown and thinking, are we reinforcing responsibility between citizens? …looking at governance and thinking, are we relying on large organisations to do what smaller units could achieve? …all the while thinking and remembering that many of our values… …loving our neighbours… …acting as the Good Samaritan would… …supporting and championing the family unit… …doing to others as you would be done by… … are Biblical, spiritual and religious in their origin. UNDERSTANDING FAITH This action at a national and at a political level should have an impact at a social level. Where individuals’ stronger rooting in their own religion will inspire a stronger understanding of faith. And there is no better remedy to the distortion of our respective faiths. As the Holy Father said last year in Assisi: “[Violence] is not the true nature of religion. It is the antithesis of religion and contributes to its destruction.” Yet it remains a sad fact that in the modern world we see faith hijacked in the name of evil acts. Utterly contrary to the teachings of the mainstream religions of the world. Perhaps if states were more rooted in their religious heritages then faiths would be less prone to being distorted and hijacked for political gains. At the same time it is this distortion which leads to believers being victimised for the actions of their co-religionists. Whether it’s Christians in Pakistan… Muslims in the USA… Or Jews in Britain… Targeted, victimised and facing the backlash of actions by their co-religionists. It’s unacceptable and it must stop. CONCLUSION I started today by talking about the bond between the UK and the Holy See… …about how we have overcome our differences to form our oldest formal diplomatic relationship. I established that appreciating these differences was a sign of our strength, not weakness. And this strength of identity has shone through… …in our actions in the name of the common good… …in the Holy Father’s State Visit to the UK in 2010… …and, I trust, in our visit today. Today I am urging individuals and nations to take the same approach when it comes to faith. And saying that in order to create harmony… …people need to strengthen their own identity… …being sure of their nation’s religious foundations… …and secure in their own beliefs. At a time of great change taking place throughout the Muslim world, particularly during the Arab awakening. Many countries, political parties and individuals are redefining their identity. They are looking to their faith as source of inspiration to define the values by which they want to govern. This is a great opportunity for them… …to show that good governance can be rooted in religion…. …to show the world the true, peaceful spirit of religion… …to demonstrate that defending your neighbour, whatever their faith, is an obligation defined by religion…. ….to openly say that their countries are a home for all people of any religion. …recognising that defending another faith does not diminish your own… …being sure of your foundations and protecting minorities… …preventing faith from being undermined and creating a space for faith – any faith – to thrive. For Europe this means becoming more confident in its Christianity… …and with that confidence, becoming more open. People need to realise that, in our continent and beyond, Christianity’s teachings and values… …are as permanent as Westminster Abbey… …as indelible as Da Vinci’s Last Supper… …and as solid as Christ the Redeemer. And that Christianity is as vital to our future as it is to our past. Our two states have lots to learn and much to teach… …and I have hope, and yes faith, that others will continue with us on this path.

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.