The Relativistic Effects of Migration

Immigration into the UK for the period 2010–2015 was a little over ten times the rate seen for the period 1990–1995 [1]. The sheer annual migrant volume when compared to the relatively small size of the UK population is notable, but is not necessarily a problem in and of itself.

Problems begin to emerge when you combine mass migration with an absence of skills checks (impact on the low-skilled), no background checks (a security risk), an EU-legally mandated inability to plan (infrastructure, productivity and quality of life risks) and a native educational system devalued to the point of nullification (British youths unable to compete).

But these pale in comparison to the societal risk associated with the decades-old toxic policy mix of multiculturalism, moral relativism and socialism. Together these have compelled generations of British taxpayers to fund the ghettoisation of immigrant communities – reinforcing isolation and division – while a blind eye is turned to ethical aberrations that in any other circumstance would result in outrage.

Take, for example, female genital mutilation. To date there have been zero successful UK prosecutions for this crime. In 2014, however, there were nine specialist FGM clinics based in London alone [2].

So according to the law, there isn’t a problem; but according to empirical evidence, there is. Welcome to the world of moral relativism.

Moral relativism states that the morality of something depends on the cultural context within which it occurs. For adherents, this means that knifing off girls’ clitoris’ is unacceptable, unless it occurs within specific designated communities.

The problem with this approach is three-fold:

First it means that there is an inherent double standard which leads to legal absurdities – like having nine FGM clinics and no successful prosecutions. Or having West Midlands Police tweet that they will not prosecute parents of children found to have undergone FGM.

Second, it sets a dangerous and often confusing precedent for consequence-free law-breaking (“This law is OK to break because I am a Muslim. Presumably this other law is too?”).

Lastly, it results in a forking of cultural values within the same country. And communities with incompatible cultural value-sets living in close proximity tend to conflict. Especially so in socialist countries like the UK, where taxpayers are legally obliged to supply financial support.

Moral relativism, like multiculturalism is a product of ivory tower thinking that has been shown to be a failure in practice. It is time the UK stood up for the hard-won ethical, legal and cultural standards by which it has historically expected its citizens to live.

All UK nationals should be held to the same legal standard, regardless of their cultural identity.