By Rupa Huq
I've attended two Labour events recently which have had me feeling as if I was having an out-of-body experience - as I found myself addressed as part of the ethnic electorate.
On Friday Harriet Harman came to speak to an Ealing Southall CLP fundraising dinner.
She began by declaring that judging from the welcome she got (petals strewn at her feet and Indian dancers banging drums) she knew she was not in the House of Commons.
It’s good to see she can differentiate between her workplace of nearly 30 years and a restaurant in Southall.
The largely Indian Sikh crowd lapped it up and cheers also greeted the words of Jack Dromey, who told us that he was a son of Ireland but, had he not been, he would have wished to be Punjabi.
Dromey appealed to the assembled electorate by telling them that the NF had been driven out of Southall in the 70s when he was a shop steward there, adding, “I doubt the bootboy thugs of the BNP will show their face around here”. He ended with a plea for the spirit of Southall to permeate into the spirit of Britain.
Virendra Sharma, meanwhile, used his slot to attack the Tories for arrogance in cracking open the champagne at their conference and assuming the election was in the bag. An auction then proceeded for erm...a bottle of champagne from the European Parliament and a House of Commons whiskey bottle signed by Gordon Brown.
“I am tee-total myself,” Sharma told us “but I am assured the taste is very good”.
The bottles raised an eye-watering £700 and £500 respectively. It almost felt the recession hadn’t happened.
No booze in sight on Monday, though, as the Foreign Office was the site of the FCO's Eid celebration, attended by some 200 Muslims; a smattering of bearded blokes and hijab-ed women among them. Instead, juice and canapés did the rounds while an Arabic singer opened proceedings with a devotional song.
David Milliband told us how he, too, was the first generation of his family born in the UK and that we should feel welcome in the Foreign Office because it was there for us. John Denham said that we were all there as a result of decisions taken in that very building. Nobody pointed out that our opulent surroundings of imperial splendour were only there because of colonial rule.
On the whole, I felt the tone was softer than last year when Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith – who’ve both had something of an annus horriblis since – sternly warned us to be onside with them in the fight against terrorism. It seemed a bit misplaced in what was meant to be a happy occasion.
This year, Alan Johnson came closest to mentioning the T word when he told us that it would be mistaken to think that it was only the duty of Muslims to oppose Islamic extremism. All three ministers (“it’s like the three tenors isn’t it?” Johnson had quipped) were at pains to "do humble" and thank those assembled for their contribution to British society.
The two events addressed different constituencies but I felt as if I was almost an onlooker because at times bits of the speeches at both seemed to assume stuff about minority audiences. Anti-BNP messages are always rousing but changing demographics mean that there is more to Southall than just Punjabis; Poles and Somalis are also abundant to name but two, and the latter are progressing through the Labour party and some were present on the night.
Miliband spoke about how tough action was being taken by the FCO on Darfour and Sri Lanka. Quite apart from the fact that Sri Lanka is not a “Muslim issue”, most of the Muslim electorate will probably make their decision about the state of the parties based on domestic programmes as they are now a settled community, not newly arrived migrants. Most are now second and even third generation and see themselves as many things, not just a bloc ethnic vote.
See my post for Progress last week, which touched on some of those issues.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
One thing that does disturb me is the comment made by Dromey when he says “I doubt the bootboy thugs of the BNP will show their face around here”. Er, why? Thats a bit like a schoolboy threat as opposed to a statement of fact. What exactly is he saying?
Reminds me of a meeting I attended in the North where the speaker decided to tell us all if we didn't like his speech, he had a tray of pies in his car to placate us. Unfortunately for him, his humour went down like a lead balloon and strangely he decided to finish his slot early. Even more unusual he didn't stay behind afterwards for a drink. Maybe he thought we'd all be kicking him with hobnail boots and letting our whippets off a string to attack him?
The speeches change to suit the audience, but in an effort to please politicians can get it badly wrong. Why they can't just speak to people normally is beyond me, not every speech or public appearance has to be bottom-kissing and pretending to be at one with the audience. Or does it?
What's the difference? It's people knocking on my door telling me that I need to follow their imaginary friend.
Christians who do "preach the gospel" don't do so because they want to: they do so because they believe they are obeying Jesus Christ Himself."
I don't tell them to leave me alone because I want to, I do it because I'm obeying Jesus Christ himself. Jesus tells me that you need to stay the hell away from my door. Unless you want me to turn up at churches explaining evolution, keep your ideas about you magic invisible friend to yourself.
Erm, that'll be christians then.
As a Christian I believe it is my Christian duty to oppose fascism in all its forms - especially the BNP. We are equally opposed to Islamist terrorism but we are sensitive to the fact that we could seriously put our foot in it if we were too vocal about this. With the BNP, they claim to be "Christian" so we feel safe saying "oh no your not". We kinda have a mandate to say that. KWIM???
As for it being "incumbent on Christians to stop knocking on my door trying to push their imaginary friend" there are several issues here.
* Are you sure you're not confusing us with the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses? That tends to be their methodology rather than ours.
* If it was, in fact Christians, were they really trying to "push" their imaginary friend or were they doing a survey to find out what people locally believed or what they wanted from their local church?
* If they were, indeed, trying to "push" their imaginary friend onto you (which, in my experience, would be very unusual), could you not treat them the same way as you treat a double glazing salesman or a politician of the wrong colour - ie. politely advise them that you're not interested? I mean, it would be a bit foolish to argue that it'd be inappropriate for a Labour Party activist to canvass non-Labour voters!
* Christians who do "preach the gospel" don't do so because they want to: they do so because they believe they are obeying Jesus Christ Himself. Indeed it was His "last orders" before He ascended into heaven. Nevertheless most Christians know that people don't want to be evangelised which is why the wise ones put a great deal of thought into their methodology - and especially into making sure people don't feel forced or pressurised into anything.
He was born in London wasn't he?
HaHaHaHa!
Go on chaps - ignore the core vote and then wonder why no-one will vote for you.
Meanwhile, did that great warrior Jack Dromey also mention that he was being parachuted into a safe Labour seat? (And did Harriet explain why an all-women list was not required on this occasion?).
Muslims have never done that to me.
I served on a FCO delegation last year so I think that explains that invite.
It all reminds of when an academic pal once said of getting to tecah "race" courses at university "I'd rather be a token than unemployed".
This is very encouraging and I hope it's true. Identity politics are poison and patronise people.
It is however deeply incumbent on Muslims to oppose Islamic terror and fascism.
Do you think you were invited to these events almost purely because of your skin colour?
Is this is a wind-up? How craven.