Ayaan: "Abolish The Terms Integration And Diversity"

On Monday, Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke before the Swedish parliament. The Dutch moderate-conservative parliamentarian and feminist argues that the term (which in the European sense is akin to what we call assimilation of immigration in America) is too ambiguous. She is now changing her platform for being a proponent of integration, to one of freedom and tolerance (speech in Dutch): "I propose that we, in regards to ethnic minorities and their future in Europe, as of now abandon using the terms 'integration' and ' diversity' and that we no longer connect them with two other terms: 'freedom' and ' tolerance'. The term ' integration' is too ambiguous to be useful. The term ' diversity' can become at its best used to indicate what is obvious (for example that not all Moslems terrorists are, because they are not all the same) and at its worst a misleading term, concepts that are not entirely [classically] liberal. The terms 'freedom' and 'tolerance' have their origin in reduction. The words 'integration' and ' diversity' forms the crux of the theory of multi-culturalism. Proponents of the multicultural approach reject reduction, and romanticize and obfuscate the practices of ethnic minorities. Those ethnic and religious minorities which support intolerant ideas, are provided with an intellectual framework with which they receive legitimization and resources from liberal states in promoting culturally differentiated rights. In reality, it comes with self-segregation and the uncontested right of certain minority groups to oppress individual women, children and homosexuals as an oppressed community. Government policy that has been based on a theory of multi-culturalism has contributed to the durable establishment of ethnic enclaves. In these enclaves thrives radical Islam."

The atheist parliamentarian continues her speech: "The debate concerning the presence and the future of immigrants in Europe concerns a lot of matters, but the core of the debate centers around three questions about which a serious disagreement exists. These questions are: (1) The separation of religion and state: is there a place for religion in the public space and, if so, how large can that space be? And on the other side: can the government interfere with closed religious communities and, if so, can that go how far? (2) The dilemma of the welfare state and borders: can a welfare state maintain quality and its degree of care for its taxpayers and at the same time large numbers of immigrants that have not made the necessary contributions, but is for a large part dependent on that care? In other words: how many immigrants can a welfare state take and remain a welfare state? (3) The question of individual rights compared with national security: in an era of terror, citizens require that their elected government guarantee security. The same governments must however also guarantee that that citizen rights related to terrorism are not violated."

MP Hirsi Ali concludes her thesis: "What is good about freedom and tolerance is that they are universal, are related to individual rights and that groups are not overlooked, subject to everyone but loose enough that one can make himself part of a group when he wants.....As a spokeswoman for 'integration and emancipation' of the Dutch liberal party [which promotes classically liberal values like small government, free enterprise, and individual rights], I change the name of my task as spokeswoman for freedom and tolerance."