Whilst I was in Germany this weekend, Thilo Sarrazin, a Bundesbank board member, gave an interview to Welt am Sonntag, in which he said that Muslims do not want to fit into German society. Opprobrium rained down on him, with critics combing the statute book to see if he had broken any laws.
Why is this such a controversial statement? Would it be similarly controversial in the United Kingdom?
Can there be any doubt that there are some Muslims who do not want to integrate into British society? I don't think so. Some first generation Islamic immigrants at college with me were, to use a cliché, "more English than the English." They and those like them are signed-up democrats, believers in a free society, with all the freedoms that go with it. But as we know too well, others don't let women out of houses. Others do, but insist on them wearing full veils. Others applaud the deaths of British soldiers abroad. And so on.
Here's the reason I raise this is. I think it's deplorable that the first instinct of some supposedly tolerant people is to reach for the statute book to close off the expression of views with which they disagree (especially if they make excuses for repressive views expressed within the relevant faith with which they should by rights also disagree). This instinct is a salutary lesson for us in the United Kingdom as we explore the ramifications of so-called "hate crime" legislation and, in particular, hate speech.
Imagine if a statement like Sarrazin's had been made about another members of another faith. If it were made about some form or other of Christianity, it would be approached on its merits; the position of leading lights in society who are members of the relevant denomination would be discussed. Nobody, I think, would suggest that it was somehow an illegitimate or potentially unlawful question. Just such a question was (admittedly obliquely) aired in a thoughtful piece in the Financial Times recently about the Mormons. If made about a group about which it is fashionable to be critical, like Scientology, then it would pass entirely without criticism, regardless of its accuracy.
I do not pretend that Sarrazin is a model of diplomatic discourse. In the course of this same interview, he suggested that there is a "Jewish gene" - a position criticised by Jews in Germany which decries any attempt "to define Jews through genetics, even if it is meant as a compliment" - a position which is entirely understandable, particularly in the German context. But the discussion he is trying to have, or begin, is an important one. If it's not had in the mainstream, by Bundesbank board members and frontline politicians, then it will be had on the fringes, "underground". I think that leaving that explosive discussion there is a very bad idea.
I point out "for the record" that my position as a practising Christian is already noted here.
