Article in the Independent today looks at Challenge Network research on integration and tells us "only one in ten Britons has a close friend of different race" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/only-one-in-10-britons-has-close-friend-of-different-race-8750993.html
Leaving on one side the disputatious issue of how they are defining "race" (you can record someone's country of origin, and note their "heritage" affiliation, but measuring biological differences between groups of people is a scientific nonsense) the news that only ten per cent of the United Kingdom population is interacting with people from communities perceived as "other" must be of concern to those advocating continued immigration.
I have looked at the Challenge Network website but cannot see any mention of the research (perhaps they have not put it up yet, although you would expect to see it in the News tab) http://www.the-challenge.org/
Is it possible that the ten per cent of the population that is interacting with "different races" is comprised largely from individuals drawn themselves from immigrant communities (West Indians making friends with Indians, southern Irish making friends with Muslims, Chinese making friends Somalis etc)? This would seem to be a natural assumption since immigrants are often crowded together and have similar "immigrant rites of passage" (to use an American expression). It would also indicate that the non-immigrant mainstream population is indifferent to social interaction with immigrant communities, which would confirm what we already know - that the discredited (and expensive) policy of multiculturalism has entirely failed.
Incidentally, I am sure the Challenge Network is a worthy organisation and within its own terms of reference means well, but there is no escaping the fact that they are putting a very positive spin on the political messages of multiculturalism. As Challenge Network is engaged in propagating a positive view of a highly controversial political policy is it really appropriate that the organisation should have charitable status? Charitable status effectively means a public subsidy, and this subsidy should not be used to fund political activities whether overt or covert.
Leaving on one side the disputatious issue of how they are defining "race" (you can record someone's country of origin, and note their "heritage" affiliation, but measuring biological differences between groups of people is a scientific nonsense) the news that only ten per cent of the United Kingdom population is interacting with people from communities perceived as "other" must be of concern to those advocating continued immigration.
I have looked at the Challenge Network website but cannot see any mention of the research (perhaps they have not put it up yet, although you would expect to see it in the News tab) http://www.the-challenge.org/
Is it possible that the ten per cent of the population that is interacting with "different races" is comprised largely from individuals drawn themselves from immigrant communities (West Indians making friends with Indians, southern Irish making friends with Muslims, Chinese making friends Somalis etc)? This would seem to be a natural assumption since immigrants are often crowded together and have similar "immigrant rites of passage" (to use an American expression). It would also indicate that the non-immigrant mainstream population is indifferent to social interaction with immigrant communities, which would confirm what we already know - that the discredited (and expensive) policy of multiculturalism has entirely failed.
Incidentally, I am sure the Challenge Network is a worthy organisation and within its own terms of reference means well, but there is no escaping the fact that they are putting a very positive spin on the political messages of multiculturalism. As Challenge Network is engaged in propagating a positive view of a highly controversial political policy is it really appropriate that the organisation should have charitable status? Charitable status effectively means a public subsidy, and this subsidy should not be used to fund political activities whether overt or covert.
No comments:
Post a Comment