Hinsliff: The British hard right will exploit this war to claim multiculturalism has failed. They are wrong

Of note:

It is many years since I heard Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, sung. But the haunting sound of British Jews singing it inside a synagogue at the weekend stopped me in my tracks. Not everyone on the video clip that popped up on my phone seemed to know all the words. But perhaps that partly reflects who is seeking the comfort of collective worship in these frightened days.

Secular Jewish friends who once barely thought about their Jewish identity talk of feeling jolted into doing so now, while profound differences of opinion over the current Israeli government are momentarily bridged. The terrorists who murdered and abducted teenagers at a peace rave, or idealists drawn to live in kibbutzim near Gaza because of their support for cross-border peace projects, didn’t care after all how they voted or what they believed.

But neither, of course, will the fire raining down on Gaza now necessarily be able to distinguish between the views of Palestinian civilians caught beneath it; whether they full-bloodedly supported Hamas or had their reservations, or whether they were only in the strip visiting relatives (like the trapped and terrified parents-in-law of the Scottish first minister, Humza Yousaf). In peace you may choose a side but in war it chooses you. And now the consequences of those choices reverberate across a world that has never been more intimately connected.

War enters all our living rooms more than it once did for many reasons, from the unfiltered immediacy of social media – where images of headless bodies too graphic for mainstream publication are now ubiquitous – to the explosion of travel, work and study overseas that means a surprising number of Britons will feel their memories stirred by names or places in the headlines. But perhaps most intimately of all, the heightened emotions of war cascade down through diaspora communities, tied via family and friends to what is happening thousands of miles away but also fearful now of reprisals at home. Domestic tensions can arise in any conflict, of course. But the added risk in this one is that they could be actively stoked for cynical ends.

Already the British hard right is seizing on images of pro-Palestinian rallies across Europe, or diatribes by wannabe student politicians to proclaim the supposed grand failure of multiculturalism, or the idea that society is enriched by different groups being able to maintain their own religious and cultural traditions (within the confines of the law). What price that richness now, they sneer? To see anyone celebrating murder is obviously horrifying. Yet so, in its way, is some of what this ghoulishness unleashes in return.

“This is where multiculturalism leads – civil war. We cannot have different people, with different cultures living side by side without conflict,” tweeted Nick Buckley, self-styled independent candidate for Manchester’s next mayor. Britain First, an extreme rightwing party banned from Twitter until Elon Musk took over the platform, put it more bluntly: “Enoch Powell was right #riversofblood.” Where mainstream critics of multiculturalism used to argue that there were better ways of living alongside each other in a pluralistic world, its new opponents bellow that no such world is possible; that mass immigration has broken the west, and that citizenship should be revoked from those already here if they express unacceptable views. The twisted irony of this argument that Islamic and non-Islamic worlds cannot peacefully cohabit is that it’s the one jihadis make, too.

What happened in Israel feels like another 9/11 not just because of the terrifying death toll but because these unspeakable acts seem calculated to destabilise and confound wider society. The beheadings and the burnings, the sadistic atrocities filmed and uploaded for the world to see, are Islamic State-style tactics used as IS once used them, not only to project this conflict worldwide but to trigger the kind of primal emotions that make it hard to reason or think straight. But since that is the reaction Hamas wants, it is the one we must not give them.

Britain is, lord knows, not perfect. It struggles with the same challenges as every other liberal democracy, not always successfully. But it is still also a country where a Hindu prime minister can wear a kippah and join Hebrew prayers at a time of Jewish mourning, profoundly moving many who do not share his politics. It’s a country where a Muslim mayor of London who has managed these last days with exemplary grace can break bread in a kosher restaurant in Golders Green one day and visit the London office of a charity working in Gaza’s hospitals the next; where the wife of the Scottish first minister, Nadia El-Nakla, can speak emotionally of her fears for her parents’ lives while introducing a motion to the SNP’s conference that both unequivocally condemns the Hamas attacks and calls on Israel to respect international law in response.

These things too are multiculturalism in action; and so is the sound of British Jews singing another country’s anthem in their chosen place of worship, for reasons with which anyone can instinctively sympathise. The true richness of diversity is its capacity to build a new depth of understanding, a sensitivity to our neighbours, and an ability to hold sometimes painfully conflicting thoughts and feelings simultaneously in mind which helps us navigate a complex world. A politics that fuels division and hate leads ultimately only to fragmentation. But in our flexibility, our fluidity, lies Britain’s national strength. We will need it in the days to come.

  • Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist

Source: The British hard right will exploit this war to claim multiculturalism has failed. They are wrong – The Guardian

The part of Brexit everyone’s been avoiding is finally here: immigration

Some good commentary regarding Brexit and immigration:

Brexit was never really about immigration.

Or so liberal leavers fall over themselves to claim, at least. They can’t bear the idea of being associated with a racist backlash and so they insist it was really all about sovereignty; that all those inflammatory posters of dark-skinned migrants queuing at European borders and the cynical scaremongering about Turkey didn’t really have any bearing on the result, and that all they really wanted was just a fairer and more open system in which people could come to Britain more easily from Commonwealth countries.

Even Nigel Farage sounded as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth on the radio this morning, insisting all he ever wanted was control of our borders and equal opportunities for Indians to come here just as Romanians once did.

So it will be interesting to see what happens now the migration advisory committee has taken leavers at their word. Its long-awaited report on immigration after Brexit concludes, as expected, that once we leave the EU free movement should end, although it notes drily that that may leave us in the position of scrapping it “just as public concern falls about the migration flows that result from it”, and that both the benefits and the supposed negative impacts of it have been over-egged.

You can’t help wondering where its chart coolly summing up the facts – no evidence that EU migration has reduced wages or job opportunities for Britons on average, although some possible impact on the young and lower-skilled; some evidence that migration has pushed up house prices but also confirmation that migrants pay more in taxes than they take in benefits – was during the hysteria of the referendum debate.

But what’s done is done, so the committee recommends a Canadian-style system favouring higher-skilled workers over lower-skilled ones, focusing on what individuals contribute to the country rather than where they come from. It doesn’t put numbers on the table, or answer the potentially explosive question of whether Theresa May will now ditch her mythical and so far entirely unachievable target of reducing net immigration below 100,000.

But in suggesting that Britain could use work visas essentially as a bribe in trade talks, offering preferential access to countries prepared to strike free-trade deals with us, it certainly doesn’t suggest the goal is to keep numbers down at all costs. The question is whether that’s quite what angry voters who responded to Leave EU’s ugly rhetoric really had in mind, or whether this divides the leave movement between those for whom it genuinely wasn’t about keeping foreigners out and those for whom, to be blunt, it was.

Immigration has been oddly sidelined as an issue so far in the Brexit negotiations, partly because the EU didn’t make it an early priority for talks and partly because it suited much of Westminster to keep it that way. Downing Street is caught between two awkwardly irreconcilable opposites – the desire of many leave voters to pull up the drawbridge, versus employers’ fears that doing so will decimate the economy – and has been more than content to put the whole thing off for a bit.

Immigration has been a profoundly touchy issue for the prime minister personally ever since the “hostile environment” she herself created as home secretary returned to haunt her in the shape of the Windrush scandal. And Labour was no more eager for a showdown with voters in some of its heartlands who don’t see eye to eye with Jeremy Corbyn’s liberal views on immigration.

But like every other impossible question thrown up about Brexit, it can’t be dodged for ever. If nothing else, today brings us one step closer to the moment when everyone has to show their hand.

Source: The part of Brexit everyone’s been avoiding is finally here: immigration

And, in a related story, business leaders have been speaking out more:

UK employers condemn ‘ignorant, elitist’ Brexit immigration reportBusiness leaders have lined up to criticise the government’s migration advisory committee (MAC) after it proposed an “ignorant and elitist” ban on foreign workers earning less than £30,000 a year from obtaining visas to work in the UK after Brexit.

Organisations representing hauliers, housebuilders and the hospitality sector were among those to sound the alarm after the committee said only “higher skilled” workers should be allowed visas, with no preferential access given to European Union citizens.

Richard Burnett, the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, which represents 7,000 hauliers, said: “We need an immigration policy across all skill levels. It is about what our businesses need. The idea that only high-skilled immigration should be allowed is both ignorant and elitist.”

Brian Berry, the chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, warned that his industry would be crippled: “It’s not at all clear that EU workers with important skills already in short supply, like bricklaying and carpentry, will not fall foul of a crude and limited definition of ‘high-skilled’ worker.”

Des Gunewardena, the chairman and CEO of D&D London, the owner of 40 upmarket restaurants, warned that businesses like his could be affected if the recommendations were taken up. “I’ve got no doubt that if movement of staff becomes difficult, we will need to scale back sharply,” he said.

Source: UK employers condemn ‘ignorant, elitist’ Brexit immigration report