The video of the public debate ‘Multiculturalism in the UK: Has it any future?’ has been uploaded to youtube. The public debate was held in the UK Parliament on the 9th May 2013 with politicians, academics, philosophers, journalists, writers and thinkers.
The debate was organised to answer David Cameron’s speech claiming Multiculturalism had failed. While everyone on the panel discussed the success of multiculturalism and ‘tolerance’, Abdullah al Andalusi provided the dissenting voice arguing that Western multiculturalism is not actually tolerant, but rather merely tolerates variety UNDER a Liberal worldview. Liberal multiculturalism may allow different races, foods and secondary languages, but it does not tolerate different values, laws or worldviews amongst its minorities.
Abdullah posited the Islamic alternative, using historical examples, that granted REAL multiculturalism to minorities. Abdullah suggested that Europe could do well to embrace the Islamic approach to treating minorities. Many of my fellow panellists (including the MP) argued against me saying that tolerance should be more limited, and many things in other cultures should not be tolerated.
Suffice to say, I rocked the boat (again). See the video to find out what happened.
The public debate was held in the UK Parliament on the 9th May 2013 with politicians, academics, philosophers, journalists, writers and thinkers.
The invited debate panellists:
British MP Jeremy Corbyn,
Abdullah al Andalusi (Muslim Debate Initiative)
Mónica del Pilar Uribe (Editor in chief of Prisma),
Zita Holbourne (Trade Union activist and writer),
Claudio Chipana Gutiérrez (Peruvian philosopher and coordinator in the Latin American Recognition Campaign (LARC) in London)
Nigel Pocock (Social scientist and theologian)
Mike Jempson (Author, journalist).
To read Abdullah al Andalusi’s review of the debate, please click here.
NOTE on AUDIO: The video audio is clear in many parts, and slightly faint (but audible) in others. However, Abdullah al Andalusi’s contributions throughout are very clear due to a recording of the debate audio using a dictaphone (which was next to him, and picking up his speech the clearest). This audio was used for his own contributions, and the panellists nearest to him.