Nowadays, ethnicity and faith invariably trump sexual orientation and gender
Peter Tatchell warns that promoting diversity can sometimes lead to collusion with human rights abuses
Paralysed by the fear of being branded racist, imperialist or Islamophobic, sizeable segments of liberal and left opinion have, in effect, gone soft on a commitment to universal human rights. Rightly, they condemn abuses by American and British governments, but rarely do many speak out against oppressors who happen to be non-white or adherents of minority faiths. Why the double standards?
Race and religion often rule the roost in a tainted hierarchy of oppression. The human rights of women and gay people are, for example, often deemed expendable for the sake of ‘the greater good’ of fighting racism or Islamophobia. Misogyny and homophobia are sometimes tolerated among minority groups in the name of ‘maintaining harmonious community relations’.
Indeed, the trend among many supposedly progressive people is to reject common standards of rights and responsibilities. They say we need to ‘make allowances’ or show ‘cultural sensitivity’ with regard to ethnic and faith prejudices. But isn’t it a wee bit patronising, at the very least, to judge black people by different standards?
While everyone in our society is, in theory, supposed to be equal, in reality some people are deemed more equal than others. Nowadays, ethnicity and faith invariably trump sexual orientation and gender.
We see this hierarchy of moral values in issues of discrimination. Not everyone is equal before the law. Legislation against racism is much tougher than legislation against homophobia and ageism. Racial slurs provoke far stronger public condemnation than disabilist and sexist ones. Why?
Faced with conflicts between different groups of people, some liberals and left-wingers mute their condemnation of intolerance when it emanates from ethnic minorities; whereas they would strenuously denounce similar prejudice if it was being vented, for example, by whites against black people or by Christians against Muslims.
The new vogue from sections of the left is the idea that we have to ‘understand’ bigots from racial and religious minorities; yet few of them ever urge the same ‘understanding’ of white working class bigots.
Another strand of ostensibly left-wing politics argues that our western history of Christianisation and colonialism is responsible for the existence of ethnic, religious, sexual and patriarchal prejudice in some sections of minority groups. The holders of such prejudices are, apparently, more or less blameless. According to this guilt-ridden, ‘anti-racist’ narrative, Britain exported such bigotry. We made others the intolerants they are.
We? It is true that Britain has a shameful history of colonial conquest and enslavement. But how can today’s generation of English people – white and black – be held responsible for what their forebears did 200 years ago in the evil days of empire?
Such infantilising nonsense is increasingly a feature of a certain strand of liberal discourse. It is, dare I say it, a form of racism to treat bigots differently on account of their ethnic origins.
These double standards on human rights influence even law enforcement. In Britain and Jamaica, several dancehall singers are free to incite the murder of ‘batty boys’ (queers) without fear of prosecution. As we all know, no gay person could get away with urging the killing of ‘n*ggers’. Likewise, certain fundamentalist Muslim clerics are permitted to encourage the so-called ‘honour’ killing of unchaste women, whereas any woman who dared advocate violent retribution against Islamist misogynists would soon find herself in court.
We are used to the hypocrisy of the political right. In the name of defending ‘freedom’, many Conservatives defended the very un-free regimes of Botha’s South Africa, Franco’s Spain, and Pinochet’s Chile. What is new is the way that a selective approach to human rights is now being echoed by sections of the left, with their inaction against – and occasional apologia for – the very un-left regimes in Iran, Zimbabwe, Palestine and Sudan.
How did such a bizarre political and ethical mess come to pass?
Some critics blame multiculturalism. They say respect for diversity has degenerated into a free-for-all, where anything goes. The right to difference has become a Trojan horse, subverting human rights.
I both agree and disagree. The multicultural ethos that has blossomed since the 1960s is an important advance in social evolution, and a welcome respite from the narrow-minded monocultural uniformity of the 1950s, where prejudice was openly tolerated. The voices and interests of minorities were either ignored or actively suppressed. There was racial segregation and the denial of voting rights to black people in the deep south of the United States. In the UK, male homosexuality was totally illegal and punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Throughout the West, women’s pay was barely half that of men and they were excluded from a wide range of job opportunities.
As an antidote to this exclusivist cultural hegemony, inclusive multicultural diversity was liberating and uplifting for millions of hitherto marginalised people – especially women and disabled, black, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. A right-to-be-different ethos allowed them to claim dignity, value and a place in the public sphere.
Some critics of multiculturalism now argue that minority groups should assimilate into the mainstream; surrendering their cultural differences for the sake of a unified, egalitarian society. This is, indeed, the model of the French Republic, which sees (in theory, if not in practice) all its citizens as equally French and equally deserving of rights. It claims to be indifferent to difference.
But it is surely wrong, impoverishing and unhelpful to demand a uniform conformity from everyone. Why should anyone be required to give up important aspects of culture or identity? Would not the abandonment of difference inevitably lead to a reversion to the stultifying, suffocating social blandness of the Macmillan and Eisenhower eras?
While others may extol assimilation, I say: vive la difference!
But while there are many positive, liberating benefits to multiculturalism, there is also a downside. The assertion and celebration of difference can also divide people on racial, religious and other grounds. Multiculturalism risks emphasising differences between groups that may evolve into rivalries and antagonisms. We have, for instance, witnessed riots between factions of African-Caribbean and Asian youths, and conflicts between Muslims and Jews.
Too much emphasis on difference can spill over into separateness, which subverts an understanding of our common humanity and undermines notions of universal rights and freedoms. It can produce a new form of tribalism, where societies are fragmented into myriad communities, each loyal primarily to itself and with little interest in the common good of society and the collective welfare of humankind as a whole.
This worrisome trend ought to compel us to question some aspects, or interpretations, of multiculturalism. Is it still a progressive force for the uplifting of suppressed peoples, or has it become a Trojan horse for the violation of human dignity in the name of cultural difference and tradition?
Perhaps it is a bit of both. I continue to defend multiculturalism, but with the following caveat: it is a force for good, providing it does not involve tolerating prejudice, injustice and suffering. Our freedom to live as we please must never be allowed to harm others or to diminish their freedom to do the same.
Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner and the Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford East. For information about his human rights campaigns, see www.petertatchell.net