Blunkett's Blunder
In the classic 70s television comedy Rising Damp, the plain spoken landlord Rigsby treated his black tenant Philip with open prejudice. His overtly ignorant comments about voodoo magic and tribal customs were so ridiculous that it was impossible to find anything but humour in them.
No producer worth his salt would dare create such a show these days. But like the blacked-up minstrel shows of earlier years, the programme was a reflection of the times. When immigrants could expect to be greeted by British landlords with signs declaring "No Blacks" and families would fear their house prices would fall if Black or Asian people moved in next door.
But times have changed and brought with them laws against racism and discrimination. However, for some, the new age of political correctness has gone a little too far. It seems sometimes that freedom of speech is limited by the threat that a comment will be deemed offensive by some minority.
Perhaps this was the thought in Home Secretary David Blunkett's mind in early December, before the reports on last summer's race riots were published, when he called for ethnic minorities to integrate more into British society. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said afterwards "There are issues about how different racial groups live together in this country... It's perfectly right to have this debate." And so was marked a watershed. Some of the first contributions to the 'national debate' came from BNP leader Nick Griffin who interpreted Blunkett's words as recognition of public support behind the British National Party.
The remarks that provoked most consternation were those which suggested immigrants should follow British 'norms of acceptability'. There was doubt among many as to the nature of these norms. Do they include, for example, going to the pub and getting drunk every Friday? Or football hooliganism? Or perhaps immigrants should model themselves after such icons of the national game as Leeds players Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate?
The core of David Blunkett's aims is to help minorities develop a sense of 'belonging', even patriotism. But then many would argue that we have no more right to expect an immigrant to be patriotic to Britain than we have to ask a conscientious objector to take up arms. And why should any immigrant be proud to be a British national when the British National Party's major policy is voluntary repatriation?
The Asian victim of the incident in which two Leeds footballers were involved recently explained how his sense of British belonging had been taken away following the violent attack. The story is true of all that have been victimised for their race or religion. Racist abuse steals from individuals any desire for integration and replaces it with fear. It is this fear that explains, to some extent, the isolation of some ethnic communities. It is this fear that Blunkett should have taken greater time to address. If immigrants are unwilling to integrate, it is as much out of an attachment to their culture as a fear of the new one they are entering.
Until the basic concerns of minority communities and immigrants have been addressed - such as the long-term religious and cultural education of all members of society, less harsh asylum and immigration laws, a greater representation of minorities in government - Blunkett has no hope of seeing widespread integration. Until then, asking immigrants to comply with vague 'norms' and be obliged to learn English sounds less like a call for integration and suspiciously more like destructive criticism.
Of course, David Blunkett is no raving Rigsby, but is it the place of the Home Secretary to make such comments? No doubt his words needed to be said, and no doubt he was right to ask for increased debate, but it is questionable whether the words were given at the right time by the right person.
10th Jan 2002