So what exactly is multiculturalism?

BBC News Online asked in April 2004 a range of thinkers for a short definition.

PROFESSOR SIR BERNARD CRICK
Chair of the 'Life in the UK' report which led to the new citizenship tests

I see no incompatibility between multiculturalism and Britishness. Britishness must be part of multiculturalism.

In the report I chaired advocating language and citizenship education for immigrants, The New and the Old (2003), we said:

"Who are we British? For a long time the UK has been a multicultural state composed of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and also a multicultural society... made up of a diverse range of cultures and identities, and one that emphasises the need for a continuous process of mutual engagement and learning about each other with respect, understanding and tolerance."

In other words, dual identities have been common, even before large scale immigration.

We further wrote: "To be British means that we respect the laws, the parliamentary and democratic political structures, traditional values of mutual tolerance, respect for equal rights..."

But Britishness does not mean a single culture. Integration is the co-existence of communities and unimpeded movement between them, it is not assimilation.

Britishness is a strong concept but not all embracing.

RUTH LEA
Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, a centre-right think tank

There are two ways in which people interpret multiculturalism .

The first one is the more common way and that is every culture has the right to exist and there is no over-arching thread that holds them together.

That is the multiculturalism we think is so destructive because there's no thread to hold society together. (...)

There is another way to define multiculturalism which I would call diversity where people have their own cultural beliefs and they happily coexist - but there is a common thread of Britishness or whatever you want to call it to hold society together.

And that is clearly what I would support because you do accept that people have different cultures and you accept them.

It a positive acceptance not a negative tolerance.

LORD PAREKH, professor of political philosophy
Chair of the 2000 report, 'The Future of Multi-ethnic Britain'

Multiculturalism is sometimes taken to mean that different cultural communities should live their own ways of life in a self-contained manner .

This is not its only meaning and in fact it has long been obsolete.

Multiculturalism basically means that no culture is perfect or represents the best life and that it can therefore benefit from a critical dialogue with other cultures.

In this sense multiculturalism requires that all cultures should be open, self-critical, and interactive in their relations with other each other.

This was the basic message of my report on multi-ethnic Britain (The Future of Multi Ethnic Britain, Runnymede Trust 2000). As we argued in the report, Britain is and should remain a vibrant and democratic multicultural society that must combine respect for diversity with shared common values.

KAREN CHOUHAN
Chief Executive of The 1990 Trust, a black-led human rights organisation

Multiculturalism is not dead, in fact it has been reasserted by government policy in the form of 'valuing diversity'.

Neither is it incompatible with an appreciation or knowledge of British cultures. To suggest otherwise is to turn back the clock on race debates thirty years.

To understand multiculturalism is to appreciate that it means many different things.

To some it is merely sampling different cultures, such as a carnival or a mela [South Asian festival]. To others, it is the road to challenging structural inequalities.

One of Britain's strengths is its diversity. Our political system is founded on different values. White British culture itself is incredibly diverse. But we cannot have cultural diversity without tackling inequalities.

We need to do is move forward with a serious debate about how far we have to go in tackling race discrimination in every corner of society, not move it back by forcing everyone to be more (white) British.

Most minority ethnic communities have made substantial contributions to the making of Britain and have made huge efforts to learn British history and language, and engage in civic society despite encountering social exclusion and racism in practically every area of public policy and practice.

Let's not lose sight of this, or how far we have to go. Tackling racial disadvantage is the best way to engender a sense of belonging, being valued is a two-way street.

Interviews by Cindi John

Gurkhas: Q&A

The Guardian
April 24

Background to the campaign to give Gurkha veterans who left army before 1997 automatic right to settle in UK

Who are the Gurkhas?

The Brigade of Gurkhas are Nepalese soldiers who have been recruited to the British army since a peace treaty between the two countries was signed in 1815.

They have fought as British soldiers in two world wars and many other conflicts including those in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan.

They were described by a high court judge in 2003 as having "established a reputation as frontline troops which is second to none".

Do Gurkhas have the same rights as other foreign soldiers?

Since 1980, the Home Office has allowed foreign soldiers to settle in the UK in most circumstances, but Gurkhas have been excluded.

Home secretaries have said the terms of their service were different in order to maintain their links to Nepal.

While they were in active service, Gurkhas could enter and remain in the UK but, once finished, they were discharged to Nepal and not allowed to settle in Britain.

Is this still the case?

The government has become increasingly aware of public concern about the treatment of Gurkhas.

In 2003, the then prime minister and home secretary, Tony Blair and David Blunkett, delivered statements acknowledging that "the men of the Gurkha brigade have shown unquestioning loyalty to the Queen and people of the United Kingdom".

In 2004, the Home Office changed its policy and said Gurkhas who had been discharged from the army after 1997 could apply for indefinite leave to remain in the same way as other foreign soldiers.

What changed in 1997?

Until then, the Brigade of Gurkhas was based in Hong Kong.

After the handover of Hong Kong to China that year, the brigade relocated to the UK.

Gurkhas discharged before 1997 would not have been based in the UK, whereas Gurkhas discharged after that point were, so the year became the cutoff point.

What about Gurkhas discharged before 1997?

Hong Kong-based Gurkhas discharged before the handover were only likely to be granted settlement if they had served in the UK for at least three years.

Many Gurkhas had served in the army for long periods in other parts of the world, but had not spent three consecutive years in the UK.

The Home Office had the discretion to allow these Gurkhas to settle if they had children being educated in the UK, or had a chronic, long-term medical condition where treatment would significantly improve their quality of life.

The Gurkhas in court today claim this policy has very rarely been used in their favour and that even those with substantial and threatening medical conditions have not been granted settlement.

Why did the Home Office stand its ground?

Two reasons were given for the government's stance.

Firstly, as the pre-1997 Gurkhas were discharged to Nepal, they were seeking permission to enter, rather than remain in, the UK, putting them on a different footing to other foreign soldiers.

Secondly, the fact they were based in Hong Kong rather than the UK meant they had not developed the same "close ties" with Britain as other foreign soldiers who were based in the UK.

What did the pre-1997 Gurkhas argue?

They said their treatment was discriminatory and a violation of the human rights and race relations acts because they were being treated differently to other foreign soldiers and to other Gurkhas who were discharged after 1997.

They argued that the home secretary behaved irrationally by making three years service at British barracks – as opposed to service abroad, including in conflict zones – the criterion.

The current policy, which does not apply to pre-1997 Gurkhas, does allow foreign soldiers to count time spent serving abroad towards their application for UK citizenship.

The Gurkhas argue that their long and distinguished record of service for the British army, heavy losses in conflict zones and dedication to the UK should be given more weight than the amount of time they actually spent on UK soil.

What are the implications of the case?

If the policy is changed, it is estimated that between 7,000 and 10,000 Gurkhas may settle in Britain.

UK: more sciences, maths and IT specialists needed

UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, encouraged the specialists from the area of maths, sciences and IT, affected by the recession, to apply for teaching positions. These two areas of curricula will need, according to him, a new impetus and a reevaluation, in the coming period.

Long march of the black British soldier

The Army says it has come a long way since minority recruits were weeded out, but has Prince Harry's 'Paki' remark uncovered a less palatable truth?

By Cahal Milmo, Kim Sengupta and Terri Judd

January 13

The Independent

Photo: Getty Images, The Independent

They were known as "D Factor personnel". For 20 years, the British Army restricted the number of ethnic minority recruits to its ranks by instructing its medical officers to use the secret designation to single out would-be soldiers with "Asiatic or negroid features".

It was a policy which might have belonged to the 19th century or the First World War, but in reality it only ended in 1977 when medical examiners were told to stop classifying recruits according to physical characteristics which included looking like "Chinamen, Maltese or even swarthy Frenchmen".

Racial prejudice blighted the achievements of Second Lieutenant Walter Tull, who volunteered for the British Army a week after the declaration of war in 1914 and was recommended for the Military Cross by his superiors for his "gallantry and coolness under fire". The son of a former slave in Barbados, 2nd Lt Tull never received his award because military law forbade "any negro or person of colour" being commissioned and the medal seemed a step too far.

Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials have been at pains to underline that the armed services have come a long way in stamping out racism and increasing recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities. But as the row over Prince Harry's use of racist language to describe a Pakistani comrade continued yesterday, new figures revealed the problems the armed forces are facing in retaining black and Asian soldiers.

Data obtained by The Independent shows that the Army is losing ethnic minority recruits nearly 50 per cent faster than the rest of the services. In 2007, the last year for which complete figures are available, the Army lost 6.3 per cent of its black and Asian soldiers, compared to an average of 4.5 per cent.

The latest monthly figures show that the outflow of ethnic minority personnel across all services has risen to 5.2 per cent of all recruits.

One Whitehall defence source said: "Ethnic minority soldiers leaving the forces at a faster rate than others is not the direction we want to be heading in. There has been a big push in recruiting from our black and Asian communities and currently we have the lowest number of people leaving for four years. But it does not look good if we cannot persuade our minority recruits to stay."

Military chiefs can point with some justification to success in recruiting from the minorities. The proportion of non-white personnel in the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force has risen from 3.5 per cent in 2005 to 6.3 per cent last year. The Army now has 9 per cent of its intake from minorities – comfortably above its target of 5 per cent. The Navy and the Air Force lag behind with 2.7 per cent and 2.3 per cent respectively.

But critics, including the House of Commons Defence Committee, point out that about 60 per cent of minority recruits come from Commonwealth countries rather than Britain's own ethnic communities. The MoD said figures showing the number of British minority personnel are not produced.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said yesterday that it has "concerns" about the accuracy of the ethnic monitoring data produced by the armed forces and would be raising the issue of Prince Harry's remarks with senior military staff.

Despite success in recruiting non-white personnel to the lower ranks, few make it into the upper echelons of the services. Just 2.5 per cent of officers above the rank of lieutenant colonel or equivalent are from ethnic minorities, falling to 1.5 per cent in the Navy. However, the highest ranking ethnic minority officer in the forces is in the Navy. Admiral Amjad Hussain, who arrived in Britain from northern Pakistan at the age of three, was promoted to become the first non-white admiral in 2006.

Senior officers admitted that the damage caused by Prince Harry referring to Lieutenant Ahmed Raza Khan as "our little Paki friend" in a video diary shot while training at Sandhurst in 2006 would have a negative impact on ethnic minority recruiting. Colonel Paul Farrar, the Army's deputy head of recruiting, described the use of the term as "unacceptable". He said: "None of this helps the Army and whatever we do to try to encourage people from diverse backgrounds to join. I haven't seen the full context of what [Prince Harry] said, but any sort of throwaway line of this nature is to be regretted."

The controversy showed no sign of abating yesterday. Gordon Brown said that the prince's "genuine" apology should be accepted, but Keith Vaz, one of Britain's few Asian MPs, said: "What is important is, does it reveal a wider culture in the Army where words of this kind are acceptable?"

For its part, the MoD said: "Bullying and racism are not endemic in the armed forces and there are robust procedures for dealing with all forms of unacceptable behaviour."

Blogs Views from both sides

From military blogs

*Service people often use nicknames and pet names without meaning offence, it's all part of the comradeship. There are far more important issues going on than bothering about remarks made ages ago. rod-gearing

"Paki" is used all the time by racist scum, with venom. What the press are manipulating is the context, knowing full well that the military are merciless in taking the piss out of each other by exploiting individual differences. The majority of free-thinking people will recognise it for what it is. Dallas

*Brit is fine. Taff is OK. Jock is acceptable. Paddy is used quite often. We use these when addressing these people to their faces, more often than not they are our friends. So just what is racist?? SRENNAPS

From Asian blogs

*For years the term "Paki" was hurled at me in the street. This was meant as a racist and hurtful term. So, all of you saying that it is harmless name calling, think again. M Hussain

*An apology through a third person is unacceptable, so if he really is sorry we wait to see if he is man enough to own up to it. If not, then we know him better. Raheel

*If this was any other day they would be saying we are being PC about it etc. But, as the genocide in Gaza takes place they want to divert our attention, it's not going to work!!! Raja

A new way to earn UK citizenship

Analysis By Dominic Casciani Home affairs reporter, BBC News January 15

The idea of "probationary citizenship" is the key development

Migration is a journey - and the British government wants to make it a little bit longer and harder to complete.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's proposals to overhaul how a migrant becomes a UK citizen are being published later ahead of going before Parliament.

And the big theme is that migrants will need to take extra steps to "earn" citizenship and become fully paid-up members of society.

Ministers say that when a migrant steps into the arrivals lounge, that should not be the end of the journey they take to living in Britain.

In future, they will need to spend the next six to eight years proving their worth to the UK as part of a personal journey and contract with British society.

At present, an immigrant living in the UK can apply for permanent settlement after about five years.

But that can often be the end of the process - there is no compulsion to take the final step towards becoming a British citizen.

So it's this conveyor belt of belonging that will now change.

Under the new system, ministers say migrants - excluding those from the European Economic Area - will pass through three clear stages.

At first they will be classed as temporary residents - the status they receive as a worker, relative or recognised refugee.

After five years they will be given an entirely new status for a minimum of another 12 months - probationary citizen.

This probationary status will ultimately lead to someone becoming a British citizen or permanent foreign resident - or being told it's time to move on.

On probation

The critical difference between the current situation and the proposals is around the idea of a probationary period.

During this phase migrants will no longer have access to a full range of benefits that are currently available to permanently-settled foreign nationals.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME We had to get our people to adapt to this new life so that they would be accepted, rather than rejected Mahendra Kaul, presenter of 1960s BBC series to help people integrate How TV tried to integrate migrants

The home secretary says probationary citizenship seeks to address national concerns about how well people are integrating into society.

In other words, it will no longer be enough for a migrant to prove they are living in the UK - they will have to prove that they are actively taking steps to fit in.

So how will they be expected to do this?

Migrants will effectively be required to jump through more hoops.

They will have to show that not only have they made some effort to learn English - but they are making progress.

They will have to obey the law and where possible prove they are "active citizens".

On criminality, the equation is simple. Serious crimes will become a bar to achieving citizenship - and may lead to deportation. Minor offences would slow down the process.

Active citizenship is more nebulous. Assessors will be looking for proof that someone is more than just a taxpayer - and the more "active" they are in the local community the quicker their journey to citizenship will become.

Acceptable activities could include voluntary work, involvement in local groups or the school parent-teacher association. Migrants will need to find referees to vouch for these good deeds.

The scheme's architects think this idea of active citizenship will make the journey from migrant to citizen much more significant because it creates a social contract between individuals and their new society.

Crucially, ministers believe migrants would meet more British people more quickly and learn more quickly how to integrate.

Question of benefits

But there are some tougher measures still.

The government says it recognises that the past few years of record migration and mobility have created pressures on public services.

The Prince of Wales at the first citizenship ceremony in 2004

Under the proposals, would-be migrants will pay a levy on their normal visa fees towards a local impacts fund.

The Home Office says this could be operational from April 2009 and raise tens of millions of pounds.

This has already led to accusations that migrants, who are net contributors to the economy, will become "cash cows" who are being denied reasonable rights.

Secondly, there is the issue of withheld benefits. Migrants who are clearly settled but not naturalised currently have access to all main benefits, along with the right to send their children to school and use the NHS.

Other than schools, this picture may change dramatically. The new system proposes withholding a dozen key benefits to anyone who has not reached the final stage of citizenship or permanent foreign residency.

We don't know at this stage whether or not that will include access to some or all of the NHS - the Department of Health is separately reviewing foreign nationals' entitlement to the service.

Ministers know there is currently enormous concern among some grassroots Labour supporters about the effect of migration, particularly in areas that have seen significant upheaval since the arrival of Eastern European workers and are now facing the pressures of the credit crunch and downturn.

There is some anger and a perception that newcomers have become entitled to benefits in society without having first earned their way. These reforms are directly targeted at those fears.

Europe's Minorities Welcome Obama Election

By Sonja Pace, Voice of America

The election of Barack Obama as America's first African American president is leading Europe's minorities to ask themselves: could it happen here? The expressions of hope in the ethnic communities of Britain and France also are tempered with a certain amount of skepticism, a - "maybe not just yet."

US President-elect Barack Obama

Most Europeans were enamored with Barack Obama from early on - the young, energetic, well-spoken man who promised change, new leadership and a new partnership.

And Europe's ethnic minorities, on the streets or in the corridors of power, began asking the question - could it happen here.

Baroness Patricia Scotland, Britain's attorney general, says the U.S. election was a great day for democracy and showed people of all ethnic backgrounds that even the highest aspirations are possible to achieve.

"He has demonstrated it is possible if you have got the talent, if you have got the energy, the courage, if you have got the determination, if you have the ability and the passion all things are possible and it does not really matter the color that you come in or the shape or the size or the religious or sexual orientation," she said. "That is really powerful."

Baroness Scotland

Baroness Scotland is the first woman and the first black person to become Britain's top lawyer - she is the top legal advisor to the British government. She was born in Dominica in the Caribbean and came to Britain as a small child. Some say she is a prime example that minorities can advance to high jobs in government. So, will Britain one day have a black prime minister?

"Absolutely. I have to be very conscious that I am the first woman attorney general in 700 years," she said. "If you were to ask someone - is it likely that the United Kingdom would have a woman as attorney general after having waited 700 years you might think some people would say - not that likely. It is likely that the first woman to be made attorney general is likely to be a black woman - well, I think even less likely. So, I think change is possible - absolutely."

Britain has a rich mix of ethnic communities, often from former British colonies. They come from the Caribbean, Africa, South Asia and that mix is celebrated every year at London's Notting Hill Carnival with music, dance and ethnic food.

Blacks in London are part of the rich mix of ethnic communities

But, unlike in the United States, where most black Americans trace their roots back to the days of slavery, Europe's minorities came much later.

Their history may be different, but the process of fully integrating can remain a difficult one.

France has a large immigrant population - predominantly Arabs and Africans - estimated at between 10 to 15 percent of the overall population of more than 60 million. The Paris neighborhood of Barbes has a rich ethnic mix, and its people have mixed views about being able to replicate an Obama-style victory.

"I do not think we will have a black president elected here with all the racism in France; I do not think it could happen here," said one man.

"Given the conditions and the social situation here in France, I think that if it happened it would simply be a miracle," one woman said.

"You see the French have understood that why not? I am convinced that the French have understood that from now on they have to make room for black people," one man added.

France prides itself on its model of citizenship with an emphasis on being French without reference to race, religion or national origin.

But minorities often feel left out and complain about the lack of opportunities, says Louis-Georges Tin, spokesman for the Representative Council of Black Associations.

"France keeps on maintaining the philosophical principles of equality but, in practice, things are very different," he said. "We know, for example, that it is five times more difficult to have a job if you are black or of Arab origin."

Change has to go much further say minority rights activists. George Pau Langevin agrees. She is the only black member of mainland France in the National Assembly.

George Pau Langevin

"For us in France, we have to face facts that we are behind because we really struggle to get people elected who are representative of French society," she said.

Back in London in the ethnically-mixed neighborhood of Brixton people also wonder if and when the kind of change that brought Barack Obama to power in America, might come here.

"Most definitely, most definitely," said one man. "If we have a black candidate that want to reach and can get there on merit, I support that, I endorse that."

"You will probably see after the whole Obama thing, you will see a few people get to higher positions who are of color, but whether it will be that high up? In this country, I think it would take another 15 years probably," a woman added.

"Yes, we can," chanted Barack Obama supporters in America - the question is - will Europe follow and when.

Colour based future

A different skin colour could be an argument in not getting a job, in UK

Ph.D. students experiences: UK

Two pieces of articles from the Independent, on the personal challenges encountered by a PhD student and the time pressure in finishing the research in the UK sooner than a couple of years ago.