I await with interest – and some trepidation – the reaction to Hazel Blears’ upcoming speech urging a ‘dividing line’ between those embracing and rejecting British ‘core values’.
Apparently she will say: “There is a need for moral clarity, a dividing line rooted in our overriding sense of what is right and wrong.”
The speech is being widely trailed as a ‘warning’ to Muslim groups that they will not be engaged with unless they end radical rhetoric.
One of the things Britain has traditionally been good at is respecting cultural differences within a broader political, legal and social framework that makes certain over-arching demands. (Equality before the law, freedom of speech, no general right not to be offended, etc.) In the past, where ‘rights clashes’ have emerged, they have broadly been dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Other countries – like France – have been much more dogmatic in defining and defending their ‘core values’. You could argue that minority rights (for example, the right to freedom of religious expression) have been compromised as a result. Certainly, it has affected cohesion.
What has changed, in Britain, is the emergence of extremism, which is pushing our ’softly, softly’ approach to its limits. There are those, now, who are committed to using British tolerance to try to destroy British tolerance. The question is how to react.
Perhaps there is a need now to make explicit what has previously been implicit; but doing so will inevitably have a marginalising, polarising effect. There are those who deserve to be marginalised. But once you start drawing thick black lines it is very difficult to ensure the right people find themselves on the right side.
