[Muslim in Britain]の記事一覧 | 芒洋の日々

1.Introduction, 2. Theoretical approaches to ethnic minority concentration

1. Introduction Since 7.7, residential segregation (or clustering) of Muslims has become a hot issue in the UK. It seems believed that “segregated community” bears antagonism and terrorism, even though there is no such evidence. The truth is that “Muslims living in large numbers together are not more likely to become involved in terrorism” (Simpson in The Guardian, Nov. 20 2006). On the other hand, since an earlier period of immigrant settlement in the UK, many scholars have discussed the factors effecting ethnic clustering.This essay consists of three parts. The first delivers a summary of several theories to explain ethnic clustering. The second examines the difference of residential patters within ethnic minority groups. The statistics say that the Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups manifest the highest level of segregation. Lastly, I try to analyze factors of Muslim clustering, based on my experiences living in one of Muslim areas in Birmingham.2. Theoretical approaches to ethnic minority concentrationThere are various theories which explain ethnic clustering in urban areas. In broad terms, those theories could be divided into two, which are characterized as “the constraints school” and “the ethnicity (or agency) school” (Ratcliffe 1999). John Rex is one of the most renowned scholars of “the constraints school”. His explanation of clustering focuses on external factors around ethnic minorities, such as an individualized or institutionalized racial discrimination. For example, in 1960s in Birmingham, immigrants couldn’t obtain qualification to apply for social houses, because houses were only allocated to applicants who have lived in the city at least five years. Discrimination in the private house sector was rather harsh and many immigrants experienced the rejection by white land lords. Thus, they had no other choices but to settle down in “the twilight zones” (Rex and Moore 1969). On the other hand, in the theory of “the ethnicity school”, the choices by ethnic minorities mainly accounted for their concentration in urban areas. As a base of this theory, different ethnic minority groups are assumed to have different sense of values, interest and aspirations toward housing. Badr Dahya, a proponent of this theory, criticized the assertion of Rex and Moore and suggested that “the immigrants voluntarily segregated themselves” “during the early sages of their settlement” (1974: p.110). There were several reasons why immigrants chose to settle in the zones of transition. For example, the environment such as places of worship and easy access to transport were essential factors to attract them. Further, especially for South Asia immigrants, what should be taken into account is the motive for migration and “the myth of return”. For them, the life in their homelands was more important than that in temporally lodging in the UK. Therefore, their main concern was to save the money as much as they could and to go back to their home lands as soon as possible. To achieve this goal, mutual aids and ethnic business within their community as well as cheaper housing could play important roles. Although Dahya discussed only the early stages of settlement, this tendency remained after the start of reunification of family by bringing their wife and children in the UK. As an evidence of this theory, several surveys showed that many ethnic minorities had preference to live with others from the same backgrounds, though it differed within ethnic minority groups (see Lakey 1997). However, the understanding of the ethnic clustering just as the result of their choices also would be erroneous, because their choices certainly are made within some limits. Roger Bellard and Catherine Bellard agreed with some aspects of Dahya’s claim, but at the same time they suggested that “the external constraints, such as the migrant’s position in the labour and housing markets or the discrimination he faces are ultimately prior to the internal preference” (1977: p.53). Therefore, the theory which reconciles these two explanations is needed. What Sarre, Phillips and Skellington tried to do was to adapt Giddens’ theory of structuration into ethnic minority housing (1989: p.39-57). Because of the fact that every individual is born and grows up in society, individual agency is influenced by the system and structure. On the other hand, social structures never can exist as a static frame, as agency is continuously reconstructing them. Therefore, every choice which individuals take is determined by external influences whether they are conscious of it or not. Such understanding enables us to overcome the constraints-choice dualism.

References

Abbas, T. (2005) Muslims in Birmingham, UK, Background paper for the University of Oxford Centre on Migration Policy and Society.Ahmed, N. (2005) “Tower Hamlets: Insulation in Isolation” in Abbas, T. (ed.) Muslim Britain, London & New York: Zed Books Anwar, M. (2005) “Muslims in Britain: Issues, Policy and Practices” in Abbas, T. (ed.) Muslim Britain, London and New York: Zed BooksBallard, R. (1980) “Migration and kinship: the differential effect of marriage rules on the processes of Punjabi migration to Britain” in Clarke, C., Peach, C. and Vertovec, S. (ed.) South Asians Overseas Cambridge: Cambridge University PressBallard, R. (1996) “The Pakistanis: stability and introspection”, in Peach, C. (ed.) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census: Volume 2. The ethnic minority populations of Great Britain, pp.95-119, London: HMSO Ballard, R. and Ballard, C. (1977) “The Sikhs: The Development of South Asian Settlements in Britain”, in Watson, J.L. (ed.) Between Two Cultures, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Birmingham City Council, Aston Ward Census 2001, Birmingham: Birmingham City CouncilBirmingham City Council (2003) Population Census in Birmingham: Cultural Background Topic, Birmingham: Birmingham City CouncilDahya, B. (1974) “The Nature of Pakistani Ethnicity in Industrial Cities in Britain”, in Cohen, A. (ed.) Urban Ethnicity, London: Tavistock, pp.77-118Dudrah, R.K. (2002) “Birmingham (UK) Constructing city spaces through Black popular cultures and the Black public sphere”, in City- Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 6, 3, pp.335-350 Eade, J., Vamplew, T. and Peach, C (1996) “The Bangladeshis: the encapsulated community” in Peach, C. (ed.) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census: Volume 2. The ethnic minority populations of Great Britain, pp.95-119, London: HMSO Howes, E. and Mullins, D. (1997) “Finding a place- the impact if locality on the housing experience of tenants from minority ethnic groups” in Karn, V. (ed.) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census: Volume 4. Employment, education and housing among the ethnic minority population of Britain, pp.189-220, London: HMSOLake, J. (1997) “Neighbourhoods and Housing” in Tariq Modood(ed.), Ethnic Minorities in Britain, London: Policy Studies Institute, pp.180-223 National Statistics Online (2004) “Risk of being a victim of a racially motivated incident: by ethnic group, England & Wales”https://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1088National Statistics Online (2004) “Average household size: by ethnic group of household reference person, April 2001, GB”http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=458&Pos=5&ColRank=2&Rank=128Nayak, A. (1993) “Racism in Birmingham: Some Underground Oversights”, in Les Black & Anoop Nayak(ed.) Invisible Europeans? Black People in the “New Europe”, Birmingham: All Faiths for One Race, pp.65-82Peach, C. (1996a) “Does Britain Have Ghettos?” in Transactions of Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol.21, No.1, pp.216-235 Peach, C (1996b) “Black-Caribbeans: class, gender and geography” in Peach, C. (ed.) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census: Volume 2. The ethnic minority populations of Great Britain, pp.95-119, London: HMSO Peach, C. (1998) “South Asian and Caribbean Ethnic Minority Housing Choice in Britain”, in Urban Studies, Vol.35, No.10, pp.1657-1680Peach, C. (2005) “Muslims in the UK” in Abbas, T. (ed.) Muslim Britain, London & New York: Zed BooksPeach, C. and Shah, S. (1980) “The Contribution of Council House Allocation to West Indian Desegregation in London, 1961-71”, in Urban Studies, Vol.17, pp.333-341Phillips, D. (1997) “The housing position of ethnic minority group home owners” in Karn, V. (ed.) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census: Volume 4. Employment, education and housing among the ethnic minority population of Britain, pp.170-188, London: HMSOPhillips, D. (1998) “Black Minority Ethnic Concentration, Segregation and Dispersal in Britain”, in Urban Studies, Vol.35, No.10, pp. 1681-1702Ratcliffe, P. (1997) “’Race’, ethnicity and housing differentials in Britain” in Karn, V. (ed.) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census: Volume 4. Employment, education and housing among the ethnic minority population of Britain, pp.170-188, London: HMSORatcliffe, P. (1999) ‘Housing inequality and ‘race’: some critical reflection on the concept of ‘social exclusion’, in Ethnicity and Racial Studies, Vol.22, Issue 1, pp.1-22Rex, J. (1994) “The Political Sociology of Multiculturalism and the Place of Muslims in West European Societies”, in Social Compass, Vol.41, Issue 1, pp.79-92 Rex, J. and Moore, R (1969) Race Community and Conflict -A study of Sparkbrook, London: Oxford University Press and Institute of Race Relations Robinson, V. (1996) “The Indians: onward and upward”, in Peach, C. (ed.) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census: Volume 2. The ethnic minority populations of Great Britain, pp.95-119, London: HMSO Sarre, P., Phillips, D., Skellington, R. (1989) Ethnic Minority Housing: Explanations and Policies, Aldershot: AveburySimpson, R. in Dodd, V. “No Greater terrorism threat from Muslim areas, says study”, The Guardian, Nov.20 2006Sims, R. (1981) “Spatial separation between Asian religious minorities: an aid to explanation or obfuscation?” in Jackson, P. and Smith, J.S. (ed.) Social Interaction and Ethnic Segregation: Institute of British Geographers Special Publication, No.12, London: Academic Press

Final Project 1

木曜日に提出したファイナル・エッセイ。毎度のことながら、ギリギリのところで何とかでっち上げた。文法のチェックも受けていないので（というのも、これで成績評価される）、穴だらけだと思うが、"晒すのは恥しかない"ということで…。月曜のプレゼンが終われば、語学コースはほぼ終了である。How has a media debate on “multiculturalism” changed? Abstract Nowadays, it is difficult to find only a single day when you don’t read an article about immigrants in Britain’s newspapers. Immigrants have much effect on the society, perhaps more than their real figures. As this tendency reinforces, more opinions which require integrated society are voiced. This report analysed reactions of newspapers when four big affairs occurred; the Salman Rushdie affair, the London terror attacks, the Danish cartoons affair and the terror threat to Heathrow. And it found that the consensus among newspapers on the idea of mono-cultural Britain rather than multicultural one has been reached. 1. Introduction -Rules of games have changed?- There has been a widespread debate whether the United Kingdom should continue a policy of multiculturalism or make its way to more integrated Britain. Some people believe that multiculturalism made this country more separated and brought “terrorism” here. In 5th August 2005, after one month of the London terror attacks, the prime-minister Tony Blair had made a speech at a special Downing Street press conference and said, “rules of the game have changed” [1-a]. Blair continued, “if people want to come here, either fleeing persecution, or seeking a better life, they play by our rules and our way of life. If they don't, they are going to have to go because they are threatening our people and way of life. Coming to Britain is not a right. And even when people come here, staying here carries with it a duty”. Then, he promised a launching of a new commission debating on multiculturalism. In this context, “rules of the game” mean the policy of immigration. Together with the Netherlands, Great Britain has been thought as one of most generous country to immigrants in Europe, due to its policy of multiculturalism. It has allowed previously that immigrants bring their own identity and culture and form their community inside the society. 　 2. Research questions The Guardian introduced this Blair’s speech as “a turning point in British postwar liberalism” [1-b]. But, is this really a turning point of the British social policy? If so, where does Britain go? If the policy of integration will be carried out, can we live close together in the more harmonized society, or not? In this report, we will examine how a debate on “multiculturalism” in the UK’s national newspaper have changed, especially comparing the time of the Salman Rushdie Affair in 1989 with the past year since the London terror attacks. There are good reasons that the Salman Rushdie affair draws attention as the first big collision between Islamic immigrant communities and the host society in Europe. Unfortunately, in the late 1980’s, the world experienced the collapse of the communism and increasing terrorism by extreme Islamists at the same time. So, it was no strange that some people started to regard Islam as the new enemy and this tendency grew even stronger when the Gulf War occurred in 1991. After 10 years, September 11th terrorist attacks have “changed the world” more or less. A large number of people have died in the “war on terrorism”. Also, “Islamohobia” prevailed through the society especially in the Western countries. In response to that, some Islamic extremists acted on terrorism in Spain, the UK and several resorts, targeting Occidental. Through these crises, the UK seems to shift its attitude toward immigrations. We will focus on three big events in the past year; the London terror attacks, the Danish cartoons affair and terror threat to Heathrow airport which brought wide debates on multiculturalism. We will try to analyse the way which Britain is going to.3. Methods All sources in this report were conducted research on Lexis Nexis. I entered key words “multicultural” or “multiculturalism” with such words as “Salman Rushdie”, “terrorism”, “London terror attacks”, “Danish cartoon Affair”, “terror threat to Heathrow”. Also, about the past month, I used words of “multiculturalism” and “integration” to find a debate. For example, we can find 136 articles in all UK national newspaper, when entering words, “multicultural” and “Salman Rushdie”. Among these, I selected reports which expressed an opinion, while excluding those which were only descriptive. Especially, I note three quality papers, that is, the Guardian, the Times and the Independent. Although these newspapers have less circulation comparing with tabloid papers such as the Sun, their opinions might effects more to this country as well as to the world. 4. The Salman Rushdie affair (1989)Summary;Salman Rushdie affair was one of the most important events which made an idea of “multicultural society” questionable. When Salman Rushdie and the penguin book published a novel “Satanic Verses” in January 1989, wide demonstrations and riots were provoked by Islamic people. Rushdie wrote a very complicated story which is coming and going between dream and reality. So, it was difficult enough for most people to read. However, what was unfavorable for him was that he depicted the prophet Muhammad and his wife as somewhat blasphemous. Therefore, Ayatollah Khomeini announced “The author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, against the Prophet of Islam, and against the Koran”, “is condemned to capital punishment” [2]. This is the famous “fatwa” in 14th February 1989, by the Iranian political leader, which made a trouble larger. Because of it, the United Kingdom and Iran broke off diplomatic relations with.

Final Project 2

A media debate on multiculturalism; The impact of this affair to the British society seemed so enormous that it drew many people’s attentions to Islamic communities inside the country. Then, “hopes of multicultural harmony and civic stability were replaced by fear of urban conflagration” [3]. 6 years later, an article, “Pride without the prejudice”, in Sunday Times looked back the Salman Rushdie Affair and said, “it was then that many of the old multicultural certainties started to crack” [4]. However, in the middle of the affair, there seemed few opinions which focused on the outcome of multiculturalism and objected to it. One of the exceptions was an article of The Times entitled “A blueprint for disaster from the best of intentions; Rushdie controversy” in 24th February 1989. The author, Barbara Amiel, concluded that “it seems to me that the solution to the problem facing Britain today must begin with the recognition that our aim of creating a multicultural society was an error” [5]. Although, she didn’t denied multiculturalism completely with saying “we can have a multiracial society and we can certainly say to our citizens that it doesn't matter where you come from”, but then later she reversed her opinion again, “I don't think we can go on saying it doesn't matter where you are going. If we want one country, our citizens must be going in the same direction”. On the other hand, some articles criticized this affair in the standpoint of pro-multiculturalism. For example, The Independent in 1st September 1989 carried an article, “Faith and Reason: Lessons learnt from multicultural life” which said that England has a tradition of multiculturalism “since long before the arrival of Muslim immigrants”, and everyone should to follow this culture [6]. Another report in The Independent made an appeal to readers in the same way with insisting that “all who live within a multicultural community are obliged to renounce force as a means of resolving moral conflicts” [7]. It is also interesting that as time has been passing, this affair is often remembered as the failure of the policy of multiculturalism. Besides the article which I mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, a report, “Just how "enriched" would our lives be?”, of News Quest Media Group Limited in 7th September 2001, made out that “the aggressive promotion of multiculturalism by such bodies as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Race Equality Councils must stop”, recalling the Salman Rushdie affair as “in connection with the denial of free speech” [8].Analysis; In 1989, newspapers seemed to struggle with protecting values of freedom of speech and multiculturalism both. This affair was an abnormal event as an Iranian national leader announced death sentence to a writer in other country. Such “fatwa” should never be justified and we have the right to protect Rushdie as well as freedom of speech. However, a serious mistake which most British media made was that they claimed their rights from the perspectve of protecting “British freedoms”, “British values” or “our values”. Robert Kilroy Silk, The Times commentator typically used words “British values” in his report titled as “Defending ethnic majorities” [9]. Although he preluded with saying “it is, of course, one of the hallmarks if British culture that it is prepared to tolerate other points of view”, his opinion went to contrary to this “British culture”. “If Muslim immigrants cannot and will not accept British values and laws then there is no reason at all why the British should feel any need, still less compulsion, to accommodate theirs”. We can find these claims from another newspaper, for example “Muslim leaders now make to destroy British freedoms” [10] in the Guardian or “Muslims deeply offended fundamental British liberal values” in the Independent [11]. Especially, because these two newspapers are so liberal, they stand for the multiculturalism, but also they intend to criticize the intolerance which they see it inside Muslim. It is true that Western countries developed “democratic values” such as liberalism or the right of equality as pioneers in the world. But, these values don’t necessarily conflict with other values in the world, due to their universality. But then again, we have to be careful if we want to call on these values, because historically they were often related to justifications of Western imperialism. So what they had to do was to appeal to Islamic people for protecting the universal right in the viewpoint of Islamic freedom and tolerance. 5.1. The London terror attacks (2005)Summary; We have to remember 2001 as the very important year in which two big events, riots in North part of England and September 11th happened. However, it is evident enough that London “terrorism” re-brought the deep debate on whether multiculturalism or integration, which we have to pay attention more. There is no need to depict the summary of this event, because everyone knows what happened in London in July 2005. However, at least what the important thing to say is that terrorism conductors were born and brought up in the United Kingdom, and this fact terribly astonished many people. The Independent report considered this as “uncomfortable facts that there were British citizens, British born, apparently integrated into our communities” [12]. That’s why the author came to the conclusion that “this must lead us to ask how successful we have been in balancing the need for diversity with the obvious requirements of integration in our society”.A media debate on multiculturalism; BBC opinion poll which was taken one month after London attacks showed that still 54% of British people thought “multiculturalism makes Britain better place”, while 34% thought it “threatens the British way of life” [13]. These results especially astonished Tony Blair who said that he didn’t know what people meant when they referred to “multiculturalism”. The picture was very complicated, because on the same poll, 58% supported the idea that “people who come to live in Britain should adopt the values of and traditions of British culture” which is contrary to policy of multiculturalism. Although, people were in two minds as to whether stay at multiculturalism or go for integration, a media debate seemed to proceed their way to integrated Britain. By that time, the Guardian became the almost only newspaper which was still defending the value of multiculturalism. A the Guardian commentator, Roy Hattersley started his editorial with saying “the best thing that can be said for the critics of multiculturalism is that they are confused” [14]. In fact, a media discussion around multiculturalism seem obscure and even themselves may not know what they exactly aim. Therefore, “the attack on multiculturalism is no more than a refined, middle-class version of “Paki-bashing”” as he says. On the other hand, the Times or the Independent or most tabloid newspapers responded to this terrorism by confirming the idea of integration. One week after the tragedy, Kenan Malik, wrote “Multiculturalism has fanned the flames of Islamic extremism” in the Times, and blamed multiculturalism as one of the causes of appearances of radical Islamist in the United Kingdom [15]. In his opinion, “the idea that we should aspire to a common identity and a set of values has been eroded in the name of multiculturalism”.　Another example is that, if we follow the independent article, “Iraq isn't the real problem”, “the real issue is how far we are going to have radically to rethink our whole approach to security and to multiculturalism” [16]. Daily Mail appealed for readers by telling a stereo typed story. That is, “multiculturalism has encouraged some minorities to believe that their extreme beliefs are superior to the values of the majority in this country” [17]. Analysis; Now, most of people think (more precisely 72%) what made Britain more of a target for terrorists is Blair’s foreign policy as the Guardian opinion poll shows in August 2006 [18]. “A reason to hate” seems obscure [19]. Peter Taylor writes on The Guardian that “top of their list was Iraq” when asking the families and friends of suicide bombers why they did so, after a year of his investigation. In “umma”, every Moslem all over the world feels that they belong to the one Islamic community, especially when “ummma” come under threat. For example, a legend lapper in the US, 2 Pac, who is a black Moslem calls people struggling in the Middle East as “brothers and sisters” in his song [20]. They regard all Moslem as family, so their desperate grief and anger were natural reaction when they saw what happened in Afghanistan or Iraq these five years as well as permanent occupation in Palestine. The Guardian carried a very ironical statistic on the day of 5th anniversaries of September 11th [21]. It showed 92,469 people were killed in the “war on terror”, while 4,319 people were killed in major terror attacks since 9/11, including 2973 deaths in New York and 52 deaths in London. As well as the foreign policy, permanent poverty is another reason to hate. As a national statistic shows in 2001, an unemployment rate of Moslem is 14% which is eminently high, comparing with average of 4% in the UK [22]. Some integration advocates insists that multicultural society makes minorities shut into their community, like “ghetto”. But, it is uncertain that their high unemployment rate is related to their closed society. These days, newspaper might want to leave the real problem into the air, by making use of a debate on multiculturalism.

Final Project 3

5.2. The Danish newspaper cartoons affair (2006)Summary;The same debate like in the Salman Rushdie affair occurred again, when the Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper published the series of cartoons which satirize the prophet Muhammad in September 2005. In Islam, idolatry is prohibited, so even drawing the portrait of him dreadfully offends and displeases the Muslim. In addition to that, one of cartoons draws Muhammad with a turban shaped like a bomb, and another is depicting him waiting for the dead in the entrance of the paradise and saying "Stop, stop! We ran out of virgins''. When newspapers in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands republished these cartoons in February 2006, a big firestorm occurred in the Islamic countries. People in Syria or Lebanon set fire to the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish embassies. Saudi Arabia, Libya and Syria withdrew their ambassador from Copenhagen. On the streets in the Middle East, the national flag of Denmark was burned and Danish products were boycotted. An Iranian newspaper appealed to the public for cartoons which satirize the “Holocaust” in order to retaliate against that. A media debate on multiculturalism;British media mostly tried to distance their selves from media in the continental Europe. They never published cartoons in the way such Le Monde did, because Britain experienced two big difficulties in the past, one was the Salman Rushdie affair and another was the London terror attacks. However, it was true that this affair brought a debate on multiculturalism afresh. For example, Daily Mail introduced the claim of the CRE (Commission for Race and Equality) “warning of the dangers of multiculturalism with mentioning “disruptive protests across Europe against the cartoons of Mohammed published by a Danish newspaper, as examples of the difficulties that segregation brings” [23]. The Observer depicted this affair and said “the institutionalization of multiculturalism, designed to help minorities, effectively ignored minority opinion within those minorities” [24].5.3. After the terror threat to Heathrow (11 Aug 2006)Summary;The communities secretary, Ruth Kelly, said at the launch of the new government’s Commission for Integration and Coherence in 24th August 2006 that “the landscape is changing before our eyes and, for some communities in particular, life in Britain feels different today than it did two weeks ago” [25]. This commission was planed to launch after London terror attacks in July 2005 and this month’s event directly hastened the government’s steps to do. In this speech, she declared that “we have moved from a period of uniform consensus on the value of multiculturalism to one where we can encourage that debate by questioning whether it is encouraging separateness” and required “a new and honest debate” on multiculturalism. Then, she promised to respond to the fears of some “Britons who do not feel comfortable with change”. Even though there have been a lot of “honest debates” on the failure of multiculturalism already, without saying this speech raised a debate again and again.A media debate on multiculturalism and integration;It should be noted that this time even The Guardian ran an article titled “Multiculturalism is fatally flawed” [26]. In this article, the author confessed that he had some sympathy with the view of “a multiculturalist integration that does not efface cultural difference but sublimates it to a shared nationalist ethic”. He finally concluded that it’s better to put off the debate on multiculturalism because it is infected by Islamophobia at any rate. However, if we compare with same newspaper’s articles of 15 years ago or even one year ago, we can easily perceive their changes. In fact, probably they cannot support the value of multiculturalism any more in this critical situation.The Daily Telegraph published a symbolical article that makes out changes in these twenty years [27]. It carried an interview with Mr. Honeyford, a former teacher who was suspended from school due to his neglect of multicultural education in 1984 which also brought a controversial debate, although this report doesn’t refer it. There was no need for Honeyford to loose his career, if he did it twenty years later. Because after all, he can bear out that he was right, as the report says. The only mistake what he made was “espousing anti-multiculturalism before it was socially acceptable to do so, just as it was once wrong to be an anti-communist before everyone one”.Analysis; Still some people support for the value of multiculturalism, especially when they talk about big events like Notting Hill Carnival. The Independent published an article praising successful story of the carnival with multiculturalism, with criticizing Kelly’s speech as “pessimism” [28]. However, when you see this year’s theme of this event, “unity”, you will find easily that now unity itself is needed rather than “multi” in this country. 6. Conclusion Britain may arrive at one conclusion, if we keep track of a debate among newspapers on whether multiculturalism or not. The answer is not. That is, “integration”, if not “assimilation”. In the words of A, Sivandan on the Guardian, integration “provides for the coexistence of minority of minority cultures with the majority culture” [29]. Many people hope so and claim that immigrants must accept the British way and identity; otherwise they have to go back. But, what are the British way and identity? That is sill on question. In the day before the fifth anniversaries of September 11th, I met a teacher of the primary school in Aston, Birmingham, where many immigrants live. When I asked her opinion about a debate on multiculturalism, she said “it’s too late, Britain is already multicultural society”, whether you like it or not. She has taught in this school for 30 years, and witnessed how this town has changed. It is easy to find an ideal world in the past, yet no one can turn back the clock. If one British identity is required, we have to find the way to make it with talking around every one, including “isolated minorities”. Otherwise, another conflict will occur in the very near future.

Final Project -References-

References;[1-a] Tony Blair in, “Blair vows to root out extremism: Lawyers and Muslim groups alarmed”, Patrick Wintour, Chief political correspondent. The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, August 6, 2005, Guardian Home Pages, Pg. 1[1-b] Patrick Wintour. “Blair vows to root out extremism: Lawyers and Muslim groups alarmed”, The Guardian (London)[2] Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran. Original written in Persian, cited in Ayahollah Djalal Gandjeih, “For Rushdie” in For Rushdie Essays by Arab and Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech, George Braziller, Inc 1994, page.149[3] Phillip Lewis, “Islamic Britain” I.B. Tauris Publishers, the second edition 2002, page.5[4] Cosmo Landesman. “Pride without the prejudice” Sunday Times, November 5, 1995, Monday, Features[5] Barbara Amiel. “A blueprint for disaster from the best of intentions; Rushdie controversy” The Times (London), February 24 1989, Friday[6] Andrew Brown, Religious Affairs Editor. “Faith and Reason: Lessons learnt from multicultural life: In a response to last week's article on Christian relations with Islam, Andrew Brown, Religious Affairs Editor, argues that race and religion cannot be separated” The Independent, August 19 1989, Saturday [7] Ross Kessel. “Faith and Reason: Medical ethics as a moral lingua franca: Our series on Alasdair MacIntyre resumes with this contribution from Professor Ross Kessel, former Dean of Maryland University School of Medicine” The Independent, April 1 1989, Saturday[8] “Just how "enriched" would our lives be?” NewsQuest Media Group Limited, September 7, 2001[9] Robert Kilroy-Silk. “Defending ethnic majorities; Salman Rushdie; Commentary” The Times (London), February 17 1989, Friday[10] Hugo Young. “Commentary: Terrorising the guardians of liberty” The Guardian (London), February 21, 1989[11] “Leading Article: Fears for Muslims as Bosnia burns”, The Independent (London), June 19, 1993, Saturday, COMMENT PAGE; Page 16[12] Gordon Brown. “Podium: You must have a clear view about what being British means” The Independent (London), January 16, 2006 Monday, First Edition, FEATURES; Pg. 34[13] “UK majority back multiculturalism”, BBC News, Last Updated: Wednesday, 10 August 2005, 22:53 GMT 23:53 UK. Access date: 10 September 2006 [14] Roy Hattersley. “Comment & Analysis: End this chorus of intolerance: It is uncivilised to demand that Muslims abandon their way of life”, The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, August 12, 2005, Guardian Leader Pages, Pg. 22[15] Kenan Malik. “Multiculturalism has fanned the flames of Islamic extremism” The Times (London), July 16, 2005, Saturday, Features; 25[16] Adrian Hamilton. “THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T PLAY IT BOTH WAYS ON TERROR; MUST WE RETHINK MULTICULTURALISM NOW THE TERRORISTS HAVE PROVED TO BE”, The Independent (London), July 14, 2005, Thursday, First Edition; COMMENT; Pg. 33[17] Simon Heffer. “What about the rights of the majority?”, Daily Mail (London), July 16, 2005, ED_2ND; Pg. 23[18] Julian Glover, “Tories open nine-point lead as Labour drops to 19-year low”, The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, August 22, 2006 Tuesday, GUARDIAN HOME PAGES; Pg. 1 [19] Peter Taylor. “G2: A reason to hate: What makes an al-Qaida suicide bomber? After a year spent talking to the terrorists and their families, Peter Taylor is convinced that it's all down to Iraq - whatever Tony Blair might claim”, The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, September 1, 2006 Friday, GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGES; Pg. 12[20] 2Pac, “Changes” in 2Pac - Greatest Hits Audio CD (23 Jul 2001) [21] Text: Ewen Macaskill; Source: IISS Armed Conflict Database, B’Tselem, UN. “Five years of attacks” The Guardian, September 11, 2006 Monday[22]”Unemployment rates: by religion and sex, 2004”, Annual Population Survey, January 2004 to December 2004, Office for National Statistics [23] Steve Doughty. “Cities where whites are the minority threaten stability, says race chief”, Daily Mail (London), March 20, 2006 Monday, ED 1ST 04; Pg. 26[24] Andrew Anthony. “Review: CULTURE: The end of freedom?: When is it a crime to give offence and when is it reasonable to take it? Who decides? The Danish cartoon affair and last weekend's violent protest around the world raise crucial questions about tolerance and free speech. In a provocative essay, Andrew Anthony claims Britain's government and the liberal left have failed us”, The Observer (England), February 12, 2006, OBSERVER REVIEW FEATURES PAGES; Pg. 11[25] Ruth Kelly. In Will Woodward, Chief political correspondent. “Kelly calls for a 'mature debate' on immigration to tackle rising tensions: Minister says terror alert has changed the landscape: New commission told to consider the tough issues” The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, August 22, 2006 Tuesday, GUARDIAN HOME PAGES; Pg. 6[26] Faisal Bodi. “Comment & Debate: Incoherent on cohesion: Multiculturalism is fatally flawed, and the debate around it is poisoned by Islamophobia”, The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, September 1, 2006 Friday, GUARDIAN COMMENT AND DEBATE PAGES; Pg. 34[27] Reporting team Karyn Miller, James Kite, Melissa Orr, Nina Goswami and Roya Nikkhah. “In 1984, this headteacher dared to criticise multiculturalism as divisive. He was vilified as a racist, hounded out of his job - and never taught again. Now, 22 years later: So why has the Government come round to the point of view?”, The Daily Telegraph (LONDON), August 27, 2006 Sunday, NEWS; News Review; Pg. 15[28] “Editorial&Opinion: The triumph of multiculturalism; NOTTING HILL CARNIVAL”, The Independent (London), August 29, 2006 Tuesday, Final Edition, FEATURES; Pg. 26[29] A, Sivanandan. “Attacks on multicultural Britain pave the way for enforced assimilation: The backward cultural discourse of mainland Europe, in which difference is decried, is infecting our thinking”, The Guardian (London), September 13, 2006 Wednesday, GUARDIAN COMMENT AND DEBATE PAGES ; Pg. 32

サマー・タイムはムスリムにとって有益か？

プレゼンが終わってホッとしていた木曜日、突然月曜日までに3000wordsエッセイのfirst draftの提出を言い渡された私。死にかけています･･･。取り組んでいるのは、89年のサルマン･ラシュディ事件以後、“multiculturalism”に対する言説がイギリスの新聞紙においていかに変容してきたか。大学のネットワークに接続することで、過去の新聞記事（イギリスのみ全国紙も地方紙も）が全て読めるようになっている。最初は興奮して喜んでいたが、だんだんうんざりするようになってきた。それにしても、サルマン・ラシュディというのはつくづく興味深い人間だと思う。唯一日本語で読んだことがある「Outside The Whale」は、私がもっとも気に入っているエッセイの一つでもある。図書館で彼のエッセイ集を借りてきたが、今のところ読んでいる時間がない。ところで、イランにはサマー・タイムが導入されているようで、日本にはないというとSaidはひどく驚いていた。ムスリムの今年のラマダーンは、9月下旬からでサマータイムのせいで大変だねというと、そんなことないと言って議論になった。私の主張は単純なもので、ラマダーンの時期は日が沈むまで食事も水も採ってはいけないのだが、サマータイムのために本来は6時で終わるものが7時まで延長されるというものだ。Saidは第一に、ムスリムは毎朝日の出に起きて礼拝をしなければならないのだが（ラマダーンとは関係なく。但し、10分程度の礼拝後また寝られる）、サマータイムのおかげで本来4時のところを5時まで寝ていられることを強調した。私の意見に対しては、日の入りから日の出までの時間は変化しないから、食べられない時間は同じで関係ないと言った。ただ、どうせ同じ時間までは寝ているのだから、起きてからの時間は長くなると私は思うのだが･･･。どうなのだろうか？　私も試しにやってみようかと考えている。また彼の話によれば、イランは中東地域で最も安全な地域で、ヨーロッパの都市よりも安全だという。冬にはどうせトルコまで行くので、イランに足を延ばしてみるのも悪くないのかも知れない。だが、2日前か、イランでの飛行機墜落のニュースが伝わってきた。経済制裁のせいで、国内にはろくな飛行機がないそうで、この５年で四機墜落しているとか。翌日には、彼の話は少し変わっていた。「イランは安全だよ。但し、国内便に乗らなければ」。

写真で語る“Islamic Britain”

三連休の一日目。３人のインドネシア人と一緒に、というよりも彼らに連れられて、バーミンガムの街へ買い物に行った。イギリスでは、今週末まで夏のバーゲン・セールが行われている。まず最初に訪れたのは、シティ・センターから更にバスを乗り継いで、アストンの郊外のショッピング･モール。アストンは、移民の、特にアジア系（イギリスでは、インド・バングラディッシュ系を指すが）移民の街として知られる。モールに着いてみると、驚いたことに白人の姿はあまり見られず、半数以上の客は非白人たちであった。イングランドのサッカー・チームのグッズだけが、ここがイギリスだということを教えてくれる。気合いの入ったイスラム教徒もたくさんいます。ちょっとオシャレなスカーフたち。このモールで私は革靴を、３人のインドネシア人は冬の寒さに備えた服を買った。そこにいたのは２時間ほどだったと思うが、イギリスとは別の国にでも来ているような感じを受けた。そして何より気になったのは、買い物に来ているほとんどのグループや家族は、同じ肌や髪の色、また似通った服装をしていた。白人と非白人が混じったグループは皆無と言っていいほどいないのだ。このことは、移民のコミュニティーがいかに閉じられてしまっているかを物語っている。次に向かったのは、バーミンガムのシティ・センターである。アストンのモールよりも割合は下がるものの、やはり移民やエスニック・マイノリティの姿が目立つ。バーガー・キングでさえ･･･にぎわう野菜市。パレスチナへの連帯を表明するおっさんもいた。イギリスでは、長年マルチ・カルチュラリズムの政策が取られ、エスニック･マイノリティの文化や習慣が尊重されてきた。しかし、それがマイノリティとイギリスのホスト社会との分断を深くしてしまったという声も上がっている。先週の新聞には、政府がマルチ・カルチュラリズムの政策を改める方向に方針転換しようとしていることが書かれていた。移民たちに、イギリスへの同化を求めていくというのである。変革を迫られていく移民のコミュニティ、そしてイギリス社会にはどんな結末が待っているのだろうか。インドネシア人の友人たち。街のシンボルである英国教会をバックに。左からＬ、LUL私たちは、シティ・センターでの買い物の後、中華街のレストランへ寄った。ポークとチキン、それにライスが山のように盛られた夕食で、久しぶりに私はおいしいものを食べた気がした。Lulは、チキンを注文して半分ぐらいまで食べていたが、途中でやめてしまった。そして、帰りのバスではずっと浮かない顔をしていた。食べきらなかったか、口に合わなかっただけだと思っていたのだが、後で聞いてみると違っていた。途中で、ある重大なことに気がついたというのだ。その店では、ポークを切った包丁で、そのままチキンも切っていたのである。お腹が空いたというLulは、家に戻って改めて料理を作らなければならなかった。

面接に行く

３年からの後期ゼミのための面接をした。２年次後期の入門ゼミを取っており、知っている先生。３時に研究室に行くと、やはり入門ゼミで一緒の友達が一人いた。話し始めるとすぐ教授会から呼び出しがかかり、先生退出。帰ってきたのは１時間半後。それから一時間程度、現在騒がれているムハンマドの風刺画問題の話などをする（面接に行ったはずだったが･･･）。午後６時、その風刺画の件で、日テレの取材班が来た。意外な展開。取材の撮影中、部屋にてやり取りを聞いている。明日の午後２時からの番組で使用されるとのこと。その後、先生のおごりで食事に。帰宅10時過ぎ。明日・明後日のテストに差し支えが･･･。しかし、テレビの取材に出くわしたのは初めてで、興味深かった。そういえば、先生の娘さんが八王子東高校出身で、僕の三つ上の代らしい。担任団など一緒だったのかも知れない。　以下は志望理由書の一部。１．なぜイスラム研究か？　イスラム教（徒）について意識的に興味を持ち始めたのは、９．１１のテロとアフガニスタン・イラクへと続く“報復戦争”への過程においてであった。殊に、2003年3月20日、アメリカが問答無用に始めたイラク戦争は、“対話不能な敵”として想定されるイスラム教徒とは一体何なのかを私に考えさせることになった。それから一年後、大学に入って初めてのゼミで、エドワード･サイードの『文化と帝国主義』を読んだ。この本でサイードは、例えばアルベール・カミュやジョージ・オーウェルといったヒューマニストと呼ばれる文学者でさえ、イスラムへのステレオタイプを受容し再生産し、そのことによってオリエントに対する西洋のヘゲモニーを補完する役割を果たしたと分析している。現代のメディアにも見られる歪んだイスラム表象が、いかに歴史的また政治的に作られてきたのかを私は初めて知った。と同時に、学問や“知”が有する暴力性についても学ぶこととなった。　更に、イスラム教徒への関心を決定的に深めたのは、2005年3月に東京で開催された「RING2005」（別資料参照）というイベントにおいて、実際のイスラム教徒（パレスチナ人・イラク人・チェチェン人）と出会ったことであった。そもそも現在世界で最も混迷を極めている場所（例えば上記の国・地域のような）は、イスラムと西洋諸国との対立によって問題が生じていることが多く、この関係性の改善が焦眉の問題であることを再確認させられた。しかし、何よりの収穫は、彼らとの2週間近くもの共同生活を送る中で、（一枚岩的でない）多様なイスラムを発見できたことである。そしてこの触れ合いを通して、私自身が抱いていたイスラムに対するステレオタイプは少なからず取り除かれたであろう（勿論、全く無くなったとは言えない）。　昨年７月のイギリスでの同時多発テロは、世界の注目を再び“イスラム過激派”（と“テロ”との繋がり）へと集めた。私にとっても、イギリスは高校時代に一年間を過ごした場所であり、この事件は殊さら衝撃であった。（イスラム）移民とはイギリス社会にとってどのような存在なのか、なぜ移民とイギリス“市民”との間の相互理解は促進されないのか、彼らに対するメディア表象がステレオタイプを助長し相互の壁を打ち立てているのだろうか。こうしたことを、現地に赴き自分の足で歩き、当事者からの話を聞くことによって考えていきたいと思い、イギリス・バーミンガム大学への留学を決意するに至った。　私の根底にある問題意識は、いかにして全くの他者同士が共生できる世界を作っていけるのか、あるいはいかにしてマイノリティが生きやすい社会を作っていけるのか、ということである。イスラムを通して、この問いに対する答えを模索していきたい。