British integration policy elites recycled assimilationist rhetoric against Muslims decades after it failed

Evidence

Meanwhile, the ‘Muslim question’ continues to inform the current musings of former influencers of policy on integration. Trevor Phillips, for example, who introduced the term ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ into the UK policy sphere in the 2000s, has more recently returned to update his prophecies about an imminent clash of values represented in the threat of Muslims. In Race and Faith: The Deafening Silence (2016) Phillips argues that the ‘organic integration’ that accompanied post-war immigration is no longer suitable for 21st-century Britain faced with the Muslim question. In Phillips we hear echoes of David Cameron at the Munich Security Conference in 2011 when he too called for an approach that was more ‘muscular’ (Cabinet Office 2011). — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 457

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader Islamophobia-definition debate: these elite ‘muscular’ integration demands are the very discourse the Runnymede and critical-Muslim-studies camps treat as cultural racism. — connects to: UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 446; Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 425; UK integration discourse shifted from organic integration toward a muscular clash-of-values stance — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 452 (+1 more)

Related

• UK integration discourse shifted from organic integration toward a muscular clash-of-values stance (similarity 0.93)
• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism (similarity 0.86)
• Official UK integration strategy framed Muslims as a threat to national cohesion (similarity 0.86)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.84)
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.84)
• Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence (similarity 0.83)
• UK integration discourse framed Muslims as demographic threats to national existence (similarity 0.83)
• Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. (similarity 0.83)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.81)
• Governments select Muslim interlocutors only when they accept official assumptions. (similarity 0.79)
• British official dossier linked its own foreign policy to Muslim radicalization (similarity 0.79)
• UK integration strategy shifted from abstract policy language to mundane everyday practices (similarity 0.78)
• Islamophobia is one of several challenges British Muslims confront. (similarity 0.78)
• The Muslim threat was framed as infesting Britain’s body and values (similarity 0.78)
• UK state intervention shaped and rivalized Muslim political representation. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism #expands (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 446
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base #corroborates (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 425
• UK integration discourse shifted from organic integration toward a muscular clash-of-values stance #expands (0.78) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 452
• Questioning multiculturalism opened a path from policy critique to blaming Muslims #qualifies (0.75) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 360