Large sections
of liberal and left opinion have gone soft on their commitment to
universal human rights. They rightly condemn the excesses of UK and US
government policy, but rarely speak out against oppressors who are
non-white or adherents of minority faiths. There are no mass protests
against female genital mutilation, forced marriages, the stoning of
women and gender apartheid in the Middle East.
A perverse interpretation of multiculturalism has resulted in race and
religion ruling the roost in a tainted hierarchy of oppression. In the
name of "unity" against Islamophobia and racism, much of the left
tolerates misogyny and homophobia in minority communities. It rejects
common standards of rights and responsibilities; demanding that we
"make allowances" and show "sensitivity" with regard to the prejudices
of ethnic and faith communities. This attitude is patronising, even
racist. It judges minority peoples by different standards.
A moral hierarchy has shaped public policy on discrimination.
Legislation against racism is much tougher than legislation against
homophobia. Racial slurs provoke far stronger public condemnation than
sexist ones. Some liberals and left-wingers mute their condemnation of
intolerance when it emanates from non-white people; whereas they would
strenuously denounce similar prejudice if it was being vented by whites
against blacks or by Christians against Muslims. They argue that we
have to "understand" bigots from racial and religious minorities; yet
few of them ever urge the same "understanding" of white working class
bigots.
Some argue that western Christianisation and colonialism are
responsible for prejudice in minority communities. The hate-mongers in
these communities are deemed more or less blameless. They are victims,
not perpetrators, according to this guilt-ridden "anti-racism". Such
nonsense infantilises non-white people; treating them as inferiors who
are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions and of moral
behaviour.
Double standards on human rights influence law enforcement.
Fundamentalist Muslim clerics are permitted to endorse the so-called
"honour" killing of unchaste women; whereas any woman who dared
advocate violent retribution against Islamist misogynists would soon
find herself in court.
We have long experienced the hypocrisy of the political right. In
the name of defending "freedom", many conservatives defended the very
unfree regimes of Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile. Alarmingly, this
selective approach to human rights is now echoed by sections of the
left, with their lack of protests against the murderous regimes in
Iran, Zimbabwe and Sudan. President Mugabe has massacred more black
Africans than PW Botha in South Africa. In contrast to the global
anti-apartheid movement, there are no worldwide protests to support the
Zimbabwean struggle for democracy. Why does a black tyrant murdering
black people merit less outrage than a white tyrant murdering black
people?
These double standards have many downsides. Respect for diversity
has sometimes degenerated into the toleration of abuses; as when the
anti-fascist left embraced the Muslim leader Iqbal Sacranie after he
denounced gays as immoral, harmful and diseased. Sadly, the right to be
different has often become a trojan horse for the subversion of human
rights.
It would be a mistake to dump multiculturalism because of its
sometimes oppressive interpretation. But we also need to recognise that
by celebrating difference, multiculturalism can divide people,
especially on racial and religious lines. This has resulted in conflict
- such as the riots between Afro-Caribbean and Asian youths, and
tensions between sections of the Muslim and Jewish communities.
Too much focus on difference can spill over into separateness, which
subverts an appreciation of our common humanity and undermines notions
of universal rights and equal citizenship. It can produce a new form of
tribalism, where societies are fragmented into myriad communities, each
loyal primarily to itself and with little interest in the common good
of society as a whole.
The anti-racist struggle has been weakened by the excesses of the
"diversity agenda". In the 1960s and 1970s, all non-whites united
together as "black people" to fight their common oppression: racism.
Then black divided into Afro-Caribbean, African and Asian. More
recently, part of the Asian community has split off to identify
primarily as Muslim, distancing themselves from other Asians - Hindus,
Sikhs, Buddhists and atheists. This fragmentation has been endorsed by
some on the left, who have colluded with communalism and the division
of the Asian community on religious lines. These left-wingers have a
great deal to say about the oppression of Muslims but little or nothing
to say about the racism and disadvantage experienced by Asians of other
faiths or of no faith at all.
Multiculturalism can thus foster a "Balkanisation" of the
humanitarian agenda, fracturing communities according to their
different cultural identities, values and traditions. When these
differences are prioritised, our common interests get sidelined.
Progressive multiculturalism is about respecting and celebrating
difference, but within a framework of equality and human rights. It is
premised on embracing cultural diversity, providing it does not involve
the oppression of other people. Human rights are universal and
indivisible.
You can view Peter Tatchell's website at www.petertatchell.net