Would you be “migrating” to homogeneous Rutland in order to get away from “vibrant” multicultural London by any chance?
Surely not.

“As many would welcome demand for their houses and services as would want to keep out Peterborians or Lincolnians with their funny accents and stinking food. But 600 migrants to Rutland is equivalent to over a million into the UK.”

How about asking people how many they might welcome?
Or might they come up with the wrong answer?

Under Nozick’s system, people have a right of disassociation besides free association so people could live in an entirely homogenous community if they found that to be their chosen utopia, rather than the enforced “YOU WILL BE DIVERSE” form of multiculturalism that we have being pushed by government at the moment. Nozick never specified what any society should look like, merely tried to work out how you could get people with remarkably different ethics and tastes to have their individual rights respected.

Besides that, I agree with you in principle. It would, however, take a greater degree of reciprocity between nation states before we could have entirely free immigration as we do between counties at the moment. Immigration, under the current system, also tends to impact negatively on the least well off, at least to begin with, which is why there is a wide call for some management of migration at the moment.

Nick, how, through it’s current set of actions is the government forcing people to be diverse?

The most substantive form of this push is to outlaw discrimination in employment, demanding that employers account for their hiring practices to state officials, AND taking deviancy in the ethnic make up of employees from the societal norm as evidence of discrimination. In other words, to be safe from accusations of prejudice, companies have to actively seek to make their workplace more diverse. This process is more active in the public sector where, for example, police forces are compelled to adopt obtuse selection assessments and to positively discriminate in favour of minority ethnic candidates rather than seeking out the most effective workforce.

Discrimination is barred in other areas too. For example, gay couples cannot be barred from staying at a hotel or guest house no matter what the feelings of the owners. This allows people who are not welcome in a private venue to force themselves upon others. I am pretty sure you cannot choose who to sell your house to on the basis of ethnic background either. Quite the opposite of what Nozick’s rights based system would endorse.

Of course, it is worth noting that I choose to live in one of the most diverse parts of London because I like and am delighted to associate with homosexuals. But that is MY choice and my right. Racists and homophobes have rights too. And that is a right not have to anything to do with those they abhor (for whatever silly reasons they have). That is what individual liberty is all about.

Sorry, that should be “Of course, it is worth noting that I choose to live in one of the most diverse parts of London because I like IT and am delighted to associate with homosexuals.” Without the “it”, it sounds even more weird than I intended:)

What annoys me most is how the word ‘multiculturalism’ is used as a whipping boy for everything by the Spectator crew.

There are are two aspects two multiculturalism in my view: lived and state multiculturalism. In ‘lived’ multiculturalism people live how they want to and then engage with society generally on pre-existing and equal platforms (like using services in English, paying taxes, following the law etc).

State multiculturalism is where the govt affords identity to minority groups only on the basis of their ethnic / religious identity and treats them as such, and communicates through ‘community leaders’ etc. On the second aspect, while Labour has had a bad record of only dealing with the Muslim Council of Britain for a long time (and now has thankfully changed position), the Tories were just as bad. After all, they helped set up the MCB.

So not only is this sort of criticism intellectually disingenuous, its just whining really.

#1

> How about asking people how many they might welcome?
Or might they come up with the wrong answer?

I’ve got a better idea. How about asking people if they’d like you flogged in public purely for the entertainment of the rest of us. Because if they vote yes, that would *automatically make it a good idea*, wouldn’t it? Or might they come up with the wrong answer?

How about asking people how many they might welcome?

In addition to Donald’s suggestion above, which I’d like to second, there’s another point here: People did have the opportunity to have their say on the matter – by voting. And yet it has never been seen as a major issue until very recently (apart from with BNP types of course).

Oh, you liberals…

I wonder what line this show will take tonight (8pm)?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/immigration+the+inconvenient+truth/1933847

“People did have the opportunity to have their say on the matter – by voting. And yet it has never been seen as a major issue until very recently (apart from with BNP types of course).”

They did but they were also had the facts misrepresented to them by shoddy, frequently government backed research about how much immigration was likely given, for example, greater integration with the European Union. I believe it was going to be less than 20,000 a year according to the Home Office:)

cjcjc – well, they’ve had Rod Liddle make a programme about immigration for them too, so I’m not sure what your implication is. Though I detest the fact that every programme on the issue is so apocalyptic and sensationalist that it has to start with bloody Enoch Powell.

Nick, its easy to blame the govt, though I think thats more to do with Home Office incompetence and the slow moving way in which our govt tracks people, than any wilful misrepresentation. Though you’re welcome to dispute me.

And anyway, this relates to recent stuff, while most people who complain about ‘we were never asked abot this immigration business’ are referring to the brown / black people allowed here in the 70s’.

You also seem to let the media off a bit lightly. You don’t think the rubbish and misrepresentation that coems out of the Mail / Express / Mirror articles makes things worse?
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1831
http://www.septicisle.info/2008/04/immigration-and-where-to-go-from-here.html

I am sure incompetence plays a role but when the errors all seem to happen in one direction to suggest “immigration will be small, but even if it was big, it would be beneficial”, I think it is also safe to say there is an ideology playing a part too. In other words, incompetent research that comes up with the right answer gets a pass.

And I agree, newspapers misrepresent too and tend to be systematically factually inaccurate. I must say, I have never heard of anyone being quoted correctly in a newspaper before and plenty of times when they haven’t. They are best considered to be a form of entertainment rather than a source of accurate information. Home Office research, by contrast, certainly isn’t very entertaining. So if it isn’t accurate, it pretty much serves no puporse whatsoever. And while we elect do governments, we don’t elect newspapers. There is a difference in kind there.

And of course, there have always been racists out there and I am not advocating a policy that panders to them (just a laissez-faire policy of leave them be and let them live in their own boring communities if they so wish). This country could cope with a relatively steady stream of immigration and prove perfectly able to integrate them all over a few generations, rather better than most other nations in history. But I think there are legitimate concerns about the current level. It is unprecedented and happened without official warning or even evidence that it was beneficial.

Sunny,

re: ‘lived’ and ‘state’ multiculturalism

Do you mean to say you are making a distinction between micro and macro-cultural levels (to use Brownite terms), or between culture as is and the statistical boxes the government would like everything to neatly fit into?

The problem with discussions over ‘multiculturalism’ is how it works differently in theory from the widescale result of ghettoising communities in practice.

Pluralism and diversity are less ambiguous terms which, though they may be equally hotly debated, are less controversial by nature – but where, oh where has the old idea of the ‘mixed’ society gone?

I’ve got a better idea. How about asking people if they’d like you flogged in public purely for the entertainment of the rest of us. Because if they vote yes, that would *automatically make it a good idea*, wouldn’t it? Or might they come up with the wrong answer?

Doesn’t this question boil down to whether or not a nation is sovereign over its territory, rather than being an argumentum ad numerum?

> Doesn’t this question boil down to whether or not a nation is sovereign over its territory

No. It comes down to this: if I were to make a list of “stuff that ought to be none of a government’s (or anyone else’s) damn business”, then where I choose to live would be pretty high up that list.

” if I were to make a list of “stuff that ought to be none of a government’s (or anyone else’s) damn business”, then where I choose to live would be pretty high up that list ”

Fair enough.

But it might be that your choice of abode imposes costs on others.

DonaldS, does a nation not have the right to exclude people from its territory? (I honestly can’t decide)

Out of interest, what do those who think ‘current levels’ of immgration are too high propose to do about it?