Multiculturalism has run its course, and it is time to move on. It was a fine,
even noble idea in its time. It was designed to make ethnic and religious
minorities feel more at home, more appreciated and respected, and therefore
better able to mesh with the larger society. It affirmed their culture. It
gave dignity to difference. And in many ways it achieved its aims. Britain
is a more open, diverse, energising, cosmopolitan environment than it was
when I was growing up.
But there has been a price to pay, and it grows year by year. Multiculturalism
has led not to integration but to segregation. It has allowed groups to live
separately, with no incentive to integrate and every incentive not to. It
was intended to promote tolerance. Instead the result has been, in countries
where it has been tried, societies more abrasive, fractured and intolerant
than they once were.
Liberal democracy is in danger. Britain is becoming a place where free speech
is at risk, non-political institutions are becoming politicised, and a
combination of political correctness and ethnic-religious separatism is
eroding the graciousness of civil society. Religious groups are becoming
pressure groups. Boycotts and political campaigns are infecting professional
bodies. Culture is fragmenting into systems of belief in which civil
discourse ends and reasoned argument becomes impossible. The political
process is in danger of being abandoned in favour of the
media-attention-grabbing gesture. The politics of freedom risks descending
into the politics of fear.
Multiculturalism emerged, more as a fact than a value, in the 1970s in the
wake of mass migration from nonWestern to Western nations. It found a
supportive environment in the intellectual mood of the time. The idea of one
nation, one culture had come to seem dangerous and wrong.
But there was something else happening at the same time, of great consequence:
the slow demise of morality itself, conceived as the moral bond linking
individuals in the shared project of society.
In 1961, suicide ceased to be a crime. This might seem a minor and obviously
humane measure, but it was the beginning of the end of England as a
Christian country; that is, one in which Christian ethics was reflected in
law. It was a prelude to other and more significant reforms. In 1967
abortion was legalised, as was homosexual behaviour.
Collectively these changes represented a decisive move away from the idea that
society had, or was entitled to have, a moral code at its base, covering
many areas of life that might otherwise be regarded as private. Society was
no longer conceived of in terms of a moral consensus. The law would
intervene only to prevent individuals from harming one another.
What happens when we lose moral consensus? Morality is reduced to taste.
“Good” and “bad” become like yum and yugh: I like this; I don’t like that.
Imagine two people, one of whom says: “I like ice cream”; the other: “I
don’t”. They are not arguing. Each is simply declaring his or her taste.
We have lost the basis of morality as a shared set of values holding society
together. We are living “after virtue”; that is to say, in an age in which
people no longer have roles and duties within a stable social structure.
When that happens, morality becomes a mere façade. Arguments become
interminable and intolerable. The only adequate answer to an opposing
viewpoint is: “Says who?” In a debate in which there are no shared
standards, the loudest voice wins. The only way to defeat opponents is to
ridicule them.
If there is no agreed moral truth, we cannot reason together. All truth
becomes subjective or relative, no more than a construction, a narrative,
one way among many of telling the story. Each represents a point of view,
and each point of view is the expression of a group. On this account,
Western civilisation is not truth but the hegemony of the ruling elite.
Therefore, it must be exposed and opposed. Western civilisation becomes the
rule of dead white males. There are other truths: Marxist, feminist,
homosexual, African-American, and so on. Which prevails will depend not on
reason but on power. Force must be met by force. Lacking a shared language,
we attack the arguer, not the argument.
This is done by ruling certain opinions out of order, not because they are
untrue – there is no moral truth – but because they represent an assault on
the dignity of those who believe otherwise. So: Christians are homophobic.
People on the Right are fascist. Those who believe in the right of Jews to a
state are racist. Those who believe in traditional marriage are
heterosexist. Political correctness, created to avoid stigmatising speech,
becomes the supreme example of stigmatising speech.
One example: in 1957 the Wolfenden committee, then the cutting-edge of
liberalism, declared that homosexual behaviour was a sin, but should not be
a crime. In 2004, Rocco Buttiglione, a minister in the Italian Government,
was chosen by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso,
to be its justice commissioner. During questioning, he acknowledged that, as
a Catholic, he believed that homosexual behaviour is a sin but should not be
a crime. He was then disqualified from taking up office as his private moral
convictions were “in direct contradiction of European law”. He described
this as the “new totalitarianism”.
Right or wrong, one thing is clear: the new tolerance is far less permissive
than the old intolerance.
So a series of events that began in the 1960s fundamentally changed the terms
of society and moral debate. Until recently, serious thinkers argued that
society depends on moral consensus. Without that, there is no such thing as
society, merely the clamour of competing voices and the clash of conflicting
wills. This view began to crumble with the rise of individualism. People
began to see morality in terms of personal autonomy, existential choice or
the will to power. If morality is private, there is no logic in imposing it
on society by legislation.
But if there is no moral truth, there is only victory. The pursuit of truth
mutates into the will to power. Instead of being refuted by rational
argument, dissenting views are stigmatised as guilty of postmodernism’s
cardinal sin: racism in any of its myriad, multiplying variants. So moral
consensus disappears and moral conversation dies. Opponents are demonised.
Ever-new “isms” are invented to exclude ever more opinions. New forms of
intimidation begin to appear: protests, threats of violence, sometimes
actual violence. For when there are no shared standards, there can be no
conversation, and where conversation ends, violence begins.
The divides that had driven politics hitherto, especially class and wealth,
became less salient after the 1960s. Other, more “lifestyle” issues took
their place. At first these were construed in terms of the individual, but
eventually they came to be framed in terms of groups: first Jews, then
African-Americans, then women, then gays. It was not merely that these
groups sought equal rights. The real change was that they defined themselves
as oppressed. This was a seismic shift.
Identity politics is deeply and inexorably divisive. If the withholding of
recognition is a form of oppression, then one way of achieving recognition
is to show that I have been oppressed. The logic is as follows: the group to
which I belong is a victim; it has been wronged; therefore we are entitled
to special treatment. This gives rise to an endlessly proliferating list of
the aggrieved. Each of their claims is surely true, but you cannot build a
free society on the basis of these truths, just as you cannot heal trauma by
endlessly attending to your wounds. A culture of victimhood sets group against
group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation, is
greater than that of others.
Ours is a transitional age, as revolutionary as the move from agriculture to
industry. The growth of computing, the internet and satellite television
will change life as much as any epoch-making development in the past.
With the new technologies the idea of an autonomous national culture
disintegrates. Until recently, national cultures were predicated on the idea
of a canon, a set of texts that everyone knew. In the case of Britain they
included the Bible, Shakespeare and the great novels. The existence of a
canon is essential to a culture. It means that people share a set of
references and resonances, a public vocabulary of narratives and discourse.
Until the early 1950s a politician could quote the Bible and expect people
to know what he was alluding to. No longer.
As long as there were newspapers and a small number of radio and television
news networks, people were exposed to a variety of views. Today we attend to
only those media we choose; we focus only on the stories that interest us.
If we see the world one way we will watch al-Jazeera; if another, we will
watch Fox. We can filter out the voices with which we disagree. We are
exposed to a selectively edited version of reality.
This is massively amplified by the phenomenon of blogs, which often present
the news in highly tendentious ways. The result is that our prejudices are
confirmed, and need never be disturbed.
The new technologies, by uniting people globally, divide people locally. They
strengthen nonnational affiliations. They can make people feel more Hindu or
Muslim or Jewish than British. They turn ethnic minorities into “diasporas”,
people whose home and heart is elsewhere.
The nation state was brought into being by one form of communications
technology – printing. It is today endangered by another. Whether the media,
or politicians, or we, will recognise the danger in time, no one can be
sure. Without a national culture, there is no nation. There are merely
people-in-proximity. Whether this is sufficient to generate loyalty,
belonging and a sense of the common good is an open question. National
cultures make nations. Global cultures may yet break them.
Sir Jonathan Sacks is the Chief Rabbi. Extracted from The Home We Build
Together: Recreating Society (Continuum, £16.99), £15.29 (inc UK p&p)
from The Times BooksFirst on 0870 1608080; timesonline.co.uk/booksfirst
culture and language are more important than people think. an english person and a spanish neighbour may have very similar moral codes, but if they can't communicate, there will be no relationship to speak of, ever.
and let's be sincere here: the PRIMARY reason most immigrants come to the UK is the money, both earned and unearned. its not the culture, its not the people, its certainly not the weather. its the money. so dont be surprised if they show little interest in 'building England'..
henry, london, england
I noticed a few commentators believe that up here in Scotland were shouting from the rooftops celebrating our culture endorsed by the SNP. I must inform my English brothers the situation is the very same up here as it is in your parts. Scottish history is taught in schools but its exposure is limited as Norwegian or Middle East history. This land is PC policed to the max at every opportunity
Most of those who voted SNP thought they were voting for a party that would protect their heritage and identity. Little do they know the SNP are willing Euroists and fervent multiculturalists. The way the SNP has paraded their one muslim MP in every PR stunt they can think of is a very sad inducement of the state of todays political makers. The man has had more interviews than the rest of Holyrood put together. It wouldn't be so bad if the man said something about all of Scotland people. But no, we get an earful of how we must integrate and embrace multiculturalism.
Robert Hendry, Aberdeen,
Surely England is to big (in terms of population) and with it's regional differences to have shared values.
Surely it is time to move to Federalism. Places sharing modern Western Values (Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and much of South America and most of the States making up the USA), then at a more Federal scale, Europe, and then - the next layer in the case of the UK, that would be Wales, Scotland, Nortrhern Ireland and an England of the Regions.
Alan Moroney, Brighton, Sussex
Dr Sacks's words are as heavy as stones. British multiculturalism should set European citizens and politicians thinking. It's already happening.
Claudio Bosco, Cittadella, Italy
Geoffrey writes: "I don't think we should mourn demise of our deeply-flawed nations. I agree with Amnesty International that there are basic human rights (like no imprisonment without trial, no torture and no violence to women) that transcend the de facto behaviour of our country".
This itself is a western ideal. How shall you enforce your western ideal (feminism, say) against competeing visions of the role of women, such as Islam?
The American neo-conservatives are so sure that their way is the right way that they are willing to send the US Army to help "convince" recalcitrant tribes of the value of democracy, educating women, plurality, etc.
Nations may be deeply flawed, but the existence of multiple ones, in and of itself, premits a level of freedom destined not to exist in the utopian envisioned by Geoff. The nation-state is the bullwork of civilization, for all the reasons explained in the article. The end of the nation will be the start of true mob rule.
Richard, State of Washington, USA
Sir Jonathan Sacks article is brilliant and carefully constructed. A very clever man.
Tony Bagget, Bicester, England
The British force the Muslims onto a Trail of Tears all the way back to the middle east. This is no time for weakness. Only strength will save the British now!
George, Blackheart, USA
Was the Chief Rabbi saying all this 40, 20 or even 10 years ago? I doubt it very much.
In the 1960s there were PLENTY of people, Enoch Powell for one, who said Government policies would eventually break up the social structure of Britain.
Is'nt 20/20 hindsight vision wonderful Mr. Sacks.
Bernard, London, UK
Multiculturalism has one more separate cultural divide to set up -- a Native English community.
In the United States during the 19th century, the Native Americans were forced to live in reservations, the unexpected result of which was that they were able to preseve their own culture and way of life. We Native English should be allowed the same. Perhaps a border could be drawn from the Wash to the Thames to allow those English who wish to do so to live in East Anglia in our own community to preserve our own culture and language. This would allow those English who wish to do so to live amongst the other separate communities and integrate with them if they are able to do so.
This is not racism, but generosity, giving the rest of our country to immigrants and asylum seekers from other countries.
Sonya Porter, Woking, England
While I have the greatest respect for Rabbi Sacks, I think his arguments are just a rehash of the "it was better in my day" opinion which everyone succumbs to at a certain age when they're feeling all nostalgic about a time gone by. Yes, there are far more opportunities for exposure to different media outlets, blogging and so forth these days but i can only see that as a good thing, it gives people more choices. Britain is a democracy, not a communist state, and we should be thankful for it. Some argue that fewer choices make life easier, but it also limits you. Furthermore, I do not believe that technologies divide people or make people feel more Hindu, Muslim or British, it is a simple case of a person's social identity. In one situation a person may feel more British, in another situation a person may feel more Muslim, it just depends on that specific moment in time. People identify with many different social catergories during their lifetimes and they are not set in stone.
Melanie, Tel Aviv, Israel
a ali, who exactly is trying to force "drunkeness" and "entertainment sex" on you? Your claims are ridiculous. If you would like to live in a society where such things are prohibited, you have plenty of choices of places to move to.
mike, gold coast, Australia
What Rabbi Sachs has written about is what many of us have been muttering under our breaths for fear of being labelled as racists.
W.S.Becket, Deiniolen, North Wales
A really outstanding, articulate article. In just 60 years, one cynical, selfish generation after the next has imported other societies while, dismantling and ridiculing their own, one that had been painfully built over almost two thousand years.
Show me a great "multi-cultural" society in history- there is not one! Even thought the Roman empire crossed many borders and encompassed many people, ultimately there was only one way, "the Roman way" and when that was forgotten, it crumbled.
I am hoping the Swiss will look at the Anglo disaster and vote to preserve their own national identity.
Richard, Europa, Europa
Multiculturalism is a feature deliberately introduced to this country by the Establishment. We don t need to consider why. I am sure it will remain. After all, the Jews have always lived on that understanding without adverse moral or cultural consequences. With respect, I think it is a false correlation to blame the deterioration in this country s society on multiculturalism. It has altogether other causes to do with consumerism, technological advance, changes in employment, and changes in accepted morality, amongst other things. While a more reasoned attempt should be made to bring common cultural pursuits into education, I think we are committed to multiculturalism and it may be that that will prove a force for stability in society. It all depends on how it is handled by central government.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Well said - too much victimology gets us nowhere, Even in South Africa, where there is muticulturalism of sorts, people cling to an ethnic identity as well as a sense of nationhood.
Wilhelm, Cape Town, South Africa
Great article ! I wish I had more time to read it again and again and digest it - and meditate on it.
Ondrej, Prague, Czech Republic
For a society to become a true multicultural one, every member of that society must also be multicultural. Since this has not (and may never happen) in the UK, the Rabbi is correct in saying, that the British society is made up of segregated groups.
Dave, Rutland,
The moral perspectivism that the author laments is, contrary to his implied criticisms of liberal government policies, not instigated by the house of commons.
This is a question that is parasitic on philosophy, as the author proves by drawing heavily on terms from MacIntyre's "After Virtue".
If the author could provide a foundation for moral objectivism then I would love to hear it. My suspicion is that he cannot do so without reference to his faith. The plain truth is that 'yum-yuck' moral judgements are all that the sceptical mind has available for moral discourse.
Luckily a great many people feel 'yuck' in response to the same actions, eg genocide. As such, society will continue: it will merely be a little more complicated, a little more gritty and, I dare say, a lot more interesting.
Chris Wright, Durham,
I dont understand why Jonathan Mills thinks that Sir Jonathan Sachs will get 'flack ' from his own community. The Chief Rabbi is giving a very Jewish interpretation of of Jewish thought. Not just Leviticaus but also Ithe Prophets.
The Community Security Trust is not a 'private army', it is a
regretable need in this violent age, and is advised and backed by our various Police forces.
Stanley . London
stanley Cohen, London, UK
While Jonathan Sacks has made some good points, this critique of multiculturalism and post modernism is missing a very important emerging technological factor. The Internet is not creating a global village (as Thomas Friedman argued in his best-selling book "The World is Flat", 2005) but is creating a network of local tribes as illustrated by the MySpace, Facebook phenomena.
I don't think we should mourn demise of our deeply-flawed nations. I agree with Amnesty International that there are basic human rights (like no imprisonment without trial, no torture and no violence to women) that transcend the de facto behaviour of our country.
Geoffrey Morton-Haworth, London, UK
Rabby Sacks confuses "culture" and "morality". Moraity is the way of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the basic humans behaviour. Its basic concerns are: honesty in dealing between people, and perservation of the family unit. This can be found in all societies, in all cultures and religions. Culture is the customs and ways people speak, dress, eat, pass their time. Morality is universal, culture is superficial.
There is no problem with people dressing differently, eating differently, or passing their time in different ways.
The problem is that the culture promoted today by the "political establishment" is devoid of morality and even contrary to it. Dishonesty, drunkennes, gambling, enetertainment "sex" - are seen as immoral in all traditinal cultures. But they are encouraged and practiced by the political establishment. And it is this immoral culture that politicians are proclaiming to be "British" or even "Christian" and want to impose on all.
a ali, Birminghan, UK
Superb article. As a Christian I have always felt I had more in common with the views of Dr Sacks than the wishy-washy liberal atheist consensus.
Clothilde Simon, Leeds, UK
Rabbi : Never fear it takes more than a few liunatics with half baked ideas (and the education to match).
A couple more generations will have ended the whole sorry nonsense.
Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK
A brilliant article by the man of highest moral authority and stature in Britain today. It is always a deight and an inspiration to hear Sir Jonathan speak and one wishes that other religious leaders in Britain today had similar moral courage, eloquence and gravitas. This article deserves to be read and discussed in every Sixth Form and University Class in the country.
D.O'Neill, Farnham, UK
Orwell mis-dated '1984'. By a quarter-century?
Noel and Heather Falconer, COUIZA, France
As one of the older members of British society, I would simply like to say that I have noticed a steady decline since the 1950s, when I left school, in every aspect of live here in England.
Simple visible signs include the habit of many of just dropping their litter wherever they may be, getting drunk especially at weekends, creating a nuisance generally, not queing for buses anymore. All of these are minor in themselves but are symptoms of an increasing number of people who just don't care about others in any way whatsoever, "S** you Jack, I'm alright"
Jim Andress, Chippenham, Wilts, UK
Dave in London. You have just made Dr. Sack's point. Firstly you've described one part of the debate as 'us' and the other 'them', (which might be said to be exclusionary/divisive in itself) and next, you've defined your side as a victim of his predjudicies, saying he finds your yum and yuck ugly and your morals base, which frankly he didn't say. Finally, you have attempted to demonise him, saying (nicely tho'), that he is an ogre who wants to dominate you.
This is unfair. I think he just wants to talk with you and come to agreements through a process of concensus and mutual sacrifice, but this is very difficult to do when everyone insists on ultimate victimhood.
Dr Sacks is amongst other things an academic. He probably believes, as I do, that something approaching an objective truth can be found by considering the best and latest evidence, citing respected figures and approaching discussions in good faith. From your note I feel maybe you are someone who understands this deep down.
Kate, Cardiff,
There is a tension between secular liberal democracy and certain apsects of multiculturalism. This is why the former must defend itself as the basic ground rule for a civilised post enlightenment society. I suspect the Rabbi fails to see this. His particular conception of morality is not shared by an increasingly humanist and secular West. After all, a sympathiser of Islamism could equally condemn the multiculturalist experiment, but the remedy they might put forward is no more pallatable than a return to the supposed moral certainties of Leviticus.
Alan Jordan, London, UK
The most disturbing feature of this accurate analysis is that it offers little hope of progress in a charitable sense.
The wide present diversity of standards of acceptable behaviour, and the emergence of localities where gang cultures and crime have become dominant, with the forces of law and order taking a hands-off approach, are of immense concern to residents unable to relocate. The almost total abdication of a state education system from concepts of excellence in a competitive environment without universal effective discipline weakens any consensus based on traditional concepts of decency.
Regrettably, the stage is set for emergence of extremism of one sort or another, though the possibility that environmental concerns may mandate a new and gentler value system is a hopeful sign.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
In the UK, Scots, Welsh (& presumably Northern Irish) children learn about their culture & traditions at school (good!). But English children are not allowed to learn about English culture and traditions - that would be 'racist'. Indeed the English are not allowed officially to exist - they are merely 'white British' (see the 2001 census form).
Multiculturalism is a contradiction in terms: a society is defined by its culture - multi-cultures mean multi-societies. We are firstly Welsh, Scottish, Irish (in UK), or English, and secondly British - nothing wrong with that, it makes the UK a more interesting country.
Would Sir Jonathan Sachs care to stand as Prime Minister (Independant)? With similar minded followers he would sweep the country.
Dave, Wrexham,
AMEN !
Bob Hall, New York, United States
The consequence of belief in a divided world with different races and peoples as being separate from each other genetically, racially and culturally has fostered the internal and external divisions globally and now nationally. It is a mistake to think the world or society was more moral previously, but yes social divisions did not have the degree of fracture we see today. It is that nations were more self contained- aside from the experience of countries with imperial or other forceful rulers.
Morality is not an external thing, each of us is a total of what society is, greed, envy, divisive, etc. Our education system is based on the drives of competitive development, grades, material success. Humanity will of essence die (Read Conrad Lorenz's book on the Waning of Humanity). We are so out of touch with the basics of life now that it would take a global 'mind' revolution to create a meaninful society. Dependance on immoral and ambitious self promoting policiticians is pointless.
SD, London,
'Multicultural society' is an oxymoron, top-down enforcement of which has contrubuted to Britain's banarepublicanisation during the past thirty years. Was it enforced by fools or subversives?
Jack, London,
But there is a general moral consensus. We're all products of society and we all take on its values to a greater or lesser extent. The values we take on are shaped by our laws and our values shape our laws. I expect the values are also shaped by biology so there's a solid base to it all.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Your narrative of events holds much truth. The only point is if we chose one from many sources or have a shared morality and have a single source, can we not be equally biased and in conflict with other groups as before.
The consequence is that there are forces that are opposing those that set up the nation state. The nation state is itself imperfect - with better results where there is more of a shared morality but often not best described by the borders that are claimed. So if we are in a state of flux and in the process of developing new sets of shared identities - in which direction should we go.
We are coming from a localised geographic structures in Europe. Should we seek larger geographic structures - the EU or the West, religious - Christain or invent a combining religion of monotheism (just to be controversal with Herbert's Dune and Orange Catholic Bible), or shared values sports/business/scientific. or other.
Euan Taylor, Zug, Switzerland
An Italian national, I went to live in England in 1970, when I married an Englishman. England was a very different place then. The English were a noble race of people , honourable, enduring, restrained, courageous, honest, proud of their national identity and culture. The pursuit of excellence was still very much in evidence. Giving good service was a matter of pride, in small shops and big department stores, at train stations, in restaurants and hotels, in every aspect of life. I lived in the heart of London; a friend of mine came to visit from europe; she left her handbag with 200 pounds sterling on a train in the tube (200 pounds in 1971 was no small sum). I told her not to worry, and to go to the local Police Station, where she was duly reunited with her handbag and the 200 pounds, which somebody had handed in. Honesty was taken for granted then, and decent behaviour was expected. In 1970, foreigners were still expected to adopt the rules and learn the language.
E. Braithwhite, Sarasota, Florida, USA
The only trouble is I don't like the way the country has been forced to become, and I don't really want to "celebrate" the diversity of it all. When I was growing up in the 1980s it wasn't a sin to be a native Englishman. Being white didn't make you a nasty racist and having parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc who were also from this island wasn't the worst thing in the world. 20 years on and every day we've got to discuss what "Britishness" is, the Scots and Welsh can revel in their uniqueness whilst the English are forced to be British in order to accomodate millions of foreigners and migrants who've decided to move here. The country has changed beyond all recognition in the last 20 odd years, and in terms of its social impact unlimited immigration/migration has been a disaster which has destroyed the fabric of the nation built over the 900 years since 1066. No wonder everyone's leaving for Aus, NZ, France, USA etc. GB is a wholly different & worse place now.
Steve, London,
So Joseph Ratzinger, saying Mass at the steps of St. Peter's before going into the conclave, was bang on when he warned Europe about the tyranny of relativism?
Garard Brown, Manchester,
"Good and bad become like yum and yugh" Well, yes! Good and bad ARE just yuk and yum. But the thing is people instinctively care for each other, we are not purely selfish. Just trust us... you'll find our yum and yugh are not so ugly to you. Your problem is that you don't trust people. You think our innate values are base and selfish, and so you regret that it is no longer possible to impose an external moral code on us. Shame on you.
David, London, UK
What insight. Essential reading for all politicians and activists, I would of thought. Helps shed light in those deeeper recesses of the psyche for those who wish to "know thyselves".
Geoff Naylor, Winchester, England, UK
Multiculturalism is highly overrated. It seems we live in a world where people migrate from on part of the world to another and then condemn the society they haved moved to instead of embracing it. Why did they emigrate? As more and more people from the islamic world emigrate to Europe, at some time in the not so distant future they may find themselves in the majority. Whjat happens when they call for Islamic law and other things non western?? As the majority could they be denied.If they do not wish to embrace the society and culture of the land to which they have moved perhaps they should just remain where they are.
Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA
A concise picture of our nation. Whilst the value of a varied culture and society is a positive, it seems that the different parts that form our nation remain segmented and disconnected, interested in themselves and their values without a common bond. I'm currently living in Australia as an expat and see adverts attempting to communicate the 'Aussie Values' that they wish to promote to help gain concensus. Whether it achieve's a tie between culture's remains to be seen, but at least they're trying.
Alistair, Perth , Western Australia
The move away from laws preventing victimless crimes towards laws preventing actual harm (a process which is far from complete) is not a sign of moral relativism. It is a development in moral theories. The general disdain for "roles and duties" is also an improvement in moral theories - the theory here being that it's good to allow a person to define their own identity - and does not indicate disdain for morality. I agree that there *is* a widespread distrust of the idea of morality (or at least of the word), and that's precisely because people (wrongly) associate it with roles and duties and having one's personal life interfered with. And this distrust also breeds moral relativism, which is a shame. You now appear to be attempting to sneak obedience and conformity back in under the guise of being the solution to the problem which they in fact caused (through being unbearable).
_Felix, Nottingham,
A refreshing view on modern society and the changes to our 'culture base'. I suspect Sir Jonathan will get a fair amount of flak from his own congregation over the sections dealing with segregation of communities and special treatment for supposedly 'wronged' groups. The Hassidic communities in North London, and the Jewish Community's private army in the shape of the 'Community Security Trust' are cases in point. But this is an excellent example of someone seeking out the common truths even if this may not sit well with his own cultural group. It is high time that Sir Jonathan is invited to contribute further from the Upper House of the parliament.
Jonathan Mills, Brighton,