Criterion of culture
David Lovibond (‘The real racists’, 10 April) is quite right in his assertion that culture rather than race and ethnicity is what determines whether an immigrant will integrate well in the host society. To me it matters little if the person next to me is from India or the West Indies, is African or Chinese, if they broadly share my cultural priorities and values, and are willing to promote the good of our common society. What does concern me is when I read of second- or third-generation immigrants who not only show no interest in doing this but who also actively attack those values and condemn the society in which they live. I am, of course, referring here to those British Muslim youths who recently set fire to the Union flag.
What is required at this juncture is an open debate on Islamic values and practice. Where these are incompatible with British norms, they should be ruthlessly challenged and not politely ignored on the grounds of political correctness or misplaced tolerance. This is not Islamophobia, but honest confrontation with Muslim realities. It is time for those in power to acknowledge openly that not all religions are the same or equally beneficial, and that much of what we consider worthwhile in the West can be traced directly back to our Christian past. That too needs to be re-evaluated and recognised for the good that it has done us — and continues to do — and to be seen again as the measure of much of what we hold dear.
Colin Sowden
Abergavenny, Newport
David Lovibond says that we should welcome migrants prepared to share an anglocentric world view. I’m sure that, like you, he thinks Eastern Europeans are an essential part of our economy, as they are willing to do jobs that we are too lazy to do.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in