Zrinka Bralo (see link below) argues that British people's attitudes to outsiders an evasion of truths about themselves. Some things she says our true, but elsewhere, I fear she fails to deal with the genuinely serious problems caused by recent mass immigration, and that this failure is too widespread amongst liberals like me. http://www.opendemocracy.com/debates/article-10-96-1631.jsp I am by nature a liberal. But, perhaps ten years ago, my attitude to immigration took a serious knock when election canvassing in an estate in northeastern London. An elderly lady answered the door, full of anger about her immigrant neighbours. I was about to dismiss her as a racist bigot when she opened up. "I was brought up here as a small girl," she said. "This used to be a lovely neighbourhood. But now I am surrounded by people who want nothing to do with me. I have become a foreigner in my own land." I look around, this time trying to see with her eyes. She was right. Most of her neighbours were immigrants with a very different culture. I would like to have dismissed her, told myself she was socially isolated simply because of her racist attitudes - but I'm afraid I don't believe it. I see myself as left-of-centre, in the sense that I believe those in politics should try to speak up for the underprivileged and powerless. What challenged me, on that dreary, depressing estate, was that the immigrants weren't the only ones who were powerless or oppressed. In relation to that lonely woman, they had the power to befriend, or ostracise her. She had almost no power at all. I realised that I, living in a comfortable leafy suburb, didn't have to live with the consequences of the failings of our immigration policy. She did. I think this is at the root of one of the two serious problems immigration is causing the UK today. That in some parts of the country, large communities have settled that actively resist integrating with British culture. That, in our liberal desire to be tolerant, we have made "multi-culturalism" an almost religious mantra, and have made the word "assimilation" into a political taboo. But that, because most of us live in leafy suburbs, we have shut our eyes to the consequences: of a graowing racial apartheid in many of our cities, and deep anger among those driven out by the inflow of thousands from an alien culture. The most dramatic consequence of this problem was in the riots that preceded the last election, when Asian communities rioted in some northern English towns. In the newspaper reports that followed, we read that youths in those communities were openly trying to prevent white people from entering their communities. Since then, the BNP gained councillors in those areas, though thankfully, the mainstream parties have had some success in fighting back. Of course, this is rare. Few communities riot, most are law abiding, and only the worst examples reach the news headlines. But what is not unusual is for immigrant communities to deliberately form their own ghettos, where anyone who doesn't know their languages will be socially isolated, and for their women folk to not even know rudimentary English. Anyone who has done political canvassing in deprived areas with large south asian populations knows this to be true. But we avoid talking about it: we do not want to give ammunition to the British National Party. Gradually, we are realising our mistake. If we fail to tell the truth about the failings of our immigration policies, and if we condemn anyone who does as racists, then the only ones who address these issues will be the real racists. The law of unintended consequences often applies to politics. I fear it applies to immigration politics with a vengeance. That we can be so strident in our opposition to racism, that we prevent moderates from addressing the issue honestly, and see a rise in the racist vote as a consequence. So if there is a problem, what should be our response? Frankly, there are no easy answers. We already have serious racial partition in some of our cities. I doubt we can undo that, but we can try to limit it in future. I think David Blunkett was right to introduce an elementary language test into the requirements for British citizenship. I think moves to limit illegal immigration are prudent. But how we prevent the creation of ghettos, I don't know. Probably the real battle to resolve these problems lies within the immigrant population themselves. They need people from their communities to campaign for English teaching for their women folk. If Asian mothers don't speak English, this does not just isolate those women, and prevent them from enjoying the full benefits of British life. It damages the wider community. I even have sympathy for the recent French moves to restrict the wearing of headscarves (and scull caps and skull caps), among children at school. They, like most European countries have serious problems with ghettoisation, a failure of immigrants to integrate, and a rise in racist political parties. However, the problem with moves like this is that they are seen as imposed by the white leadership of France. What would be far better is if there were more from the immigrant communities who spoke out vigorously for more integration into their national culture. The second serious problem is, I am afraid, militant Islam. Many spokesmen for the Muslim community in the UK complain about Islamophobia. I wish they were right. But a phobia is an irrational fear, I am afraid that after September 11th that fear is no longer irrational. And the source of this fear goes a lot further back. Fourteen years ago, the late Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death sentence on Salman Rushdie. In itself, that wasn't a big problem. What was shocking was the deafening silence from the leadership of the UK Muslim community when asked to condemn calls for the murder of a UK citizen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/180002.stm). Thankfully, no British citizen was killed as a result, though I recall that a Muslim in the Netherlands was killed, when he spoke out against the fatwa at the time - so maybe British Muslims have good reason to be reluctant to speak out as well. The Rushdie case seemed to me to set a pattern. Where an outrageous crime (incitment to murder) was committed by members of the Muslim community, and the Muslim leadership, instead of condemning it, complained about Islamophobia. After September 11th, there were condemnations, but not enough have been unqualified condemnations, and not enough Muslims have spoken out unequivalently against the heretical minority who voice support of Al-Qaeda. Islam is not the only religion that has suffered from evil heretical sects, who have blackened the name of their parent religion. For example, Apartheid had its roots in Christianity. However, apartheid was almost universally condemned by church leaders across the globe. What is depressing about the Rushdie affair, and the Al-Qaeda issue, is that moderate Muslims seem to be intimidated into half-condemnations, or, even worse, silence. And if this evil is to be defeated, the front line soldiers will be Muslims, fighting against the barbarians for the future of their own religion. But there are signs of hope. More recently, I have heard more Muslims speak out against violent Islamic fundamentalists. Not enough, but if this is the start of a trend, there is hope. Because if the immigrant communities are willing to fight for British principles of democracy and the rule of law, then the fear of their neighbours will subside, and racists like the BNP will lose their electoral support.