A few questions for Mr Cameron...

“Muslims must embrace our British values” argues David Cameron in a speech delivered in Munich.

Well, I have a few questions for our Prime Minister about this all.

Why the division between Muslim and British?

Perhaps Muslim values and British values are not so different? As a British Muslim, I have found a lot of common ground, on family values, a culture of charity, even stoicism (the ‘stiff upper lip’).

And since we're on the topic, what are ‘British values’? You talk of freedom and equality. These are not just British values, they are Muslim values, they are secular values, they human values. No one would reject them as being virtuous.

But if you try to get more precise than this, we run into problems. The diversity of opinion in Britain, as in any country, precludes making such generalised and grand statements as ‘British values’, unless you include all values held by Britons, the full diversity of them.

I find it uncomfortable how you talk of ‘Muslims’ who must embrace ‘our British values’. I was born in Britain, raised in Britain, educated in Britain. I speak English as well you. I’m not sure why my values, which are born out of my Muslim faith, are not considered ‘British’? Do you not consider me British?

Maybe it's worth remembering that Muslims have been in Britain for centuries, not decades, and have been contributing to British life for just as long.

Intergration is a two-way process. Perhaps it’s time you embraced Muslims as part of Britain?

Has multiculturalism really failed, or are you just being fashionable?

Multiculturalism was the buzz word of the 90s, these days it’s all about ‘intergration’ and ‘community cohesion’.

Buzz words aside, we're really still having the same conversation I think.

There are two sides to multiculturalism. First is the reality, then there is the hope.

The reality is that there different cultures in Britain, these cultures are not just ‘white’ and ‘ethnic’. They are Welsh cultures, Muslim cultures, student cultures, working-class cultures. There is even a discernible ‘rich Oxbridge politician’ culture. They all weave into the fabric of the society we live in. There is no denying it.

Then there is the hope of multiculturalism. This is that these different cultures can interact and engage with each other. That they can find common ground in a shared identity with shared ambitions of the world they want to live in. This is not a two-way conversation, it’s a conversation takes place between lots of groups and cultures, over a long period of time. More than just 30 years.

So perhaps a bit early to call multiculturalism a failure. Especially when it's delivered success in so many areas. Feel free to visit Cardiff for an example. Or Liverpool. Or London. The vibrancy and life of these cities is due to the diversity of those who live there.

You talk of living 'separate lives'. The only ones I find who live 'separate lives' are the super rich, who live in a bubble away from the struggles and concerns of the majority of Britain. Who are so lacking in contact with everyone else they think there is no recession and Brits have 'never had it so good'.

The problems faced by society today have little to do with multiculturalism, which is a scape-goat for social ills caused by poverty, unemployment and disillusionment.

If you really want to solve the problems society faces, you have to be honest about the causes.

Is this about Muslims, or about foreigners? I’m getting a bit confused.

You talk about the need for ‘equality and freedom’, but suddenly you start talking about ‘ensuring immigrants learn to speak English’. Big jump there. Did I miss something?

And then there’s the bit where you say ‘when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.’

Okay, we seem to be blurring the lines here a bit. There are plenty of white Muslims out there, have you been too cautious to stand up to them as well? Or only the brown ones? Or are you really just making naïve assumptions of ethnicity and religion based upon skin colour?

Surely you’re more educated and nuanced than that.

Why did you deliver this speech at a European security conference?

Violent extremism is a threat and a danger that should be combated with no hesitations.

But perhaps it’s worth remembering, that out of 294 terrorist attacks in Europe in 2009, only one was carried out by a Muslim.

Regards,
Someone who didn’t vote for you. Or Nick Clegg for that matter.

NB: At time of publishing this blog, David Cameron had not yet delivered his speech, but speeches are released early to the press. As I'm not a fan of writing in the future tense, since I find it a bit weird and almost prophetic in tone, I've written in the past tense. I do however hope Cameron has a change of heart and decides to deliver a speech on fiscal reduction instead.

A brief word on the Labour Leadership

Today it was announced that Ed Miliband is the new leader of the Labour Party.

Some have hailed this as a success for the left – a return to the socialist roots of the party and a leader that will address social injustice, help the poor, rebuild Britain and create a ‘progressive’ government.

By nature, I’m not a cynic, but I can’t share the optimism of others. In 1997, Tony Blair was elected with a strong mandate (400 MPs in the House of Parliament from the Labour Party!) – if social justice and Labour policies were ever to be enacted in this country – 1997 was the time. Yet Tony Blair’s legacy is not one to be proud of. The Iraq War still causes unimaginable suffering and even domestic policy didn’t solve long standing problems.

Likewise – Obama elected in the USA in 2008. ‘Change We Can Believe In’ apparently, yet the change was not so significant. Yes, the USA has not invaded any foreign countries yet, but that isn’t quite a measure of success. The rhetoric from Obama is the same as his predecessors, republican or otherwise.

Essentially it comes down to this – politicians don’t change the world. The less we look to politicians to make a difference, the better. They are public servants, fulfilling a role necessary for the maintenance of the state.

If we want a fairer society, we need fairer people. If we want ethical foreign policy, we need ethical politicians to begin with. No amount of government legislation will ever replace human goodwill.

Which for me, emphasises the role of faith leaders in the UK. They are able to cultivate individuals with social awareness and responsibility. After all, it was the Christian Church that taught Britain to read and write, it was the Christian community which led the way for social justice well before the political left through the Social Gospel movement.

Today, now that Britain is a country of many faiths, it falls upon all of them to address social injustice and poverty.

Edit (26/09/10): Just realised that the above might be taken as an argument for 'Big Society'. It really isn't. Government is part of society.