Trevor Phillips has asserted that Muslims are integrating better into society than Christians. His evidence: they are less likely to take up actions against discrimination than their Christian counterparts. From this omission or gap, Phillips leaps to the conclusion that,
"Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they're doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy."
Perhaps Muslim communities are trying to integrate as much as possible, or perhaps Muslims as individuals are integrating. It would be nice to know.
The subtext of this approach is communalism. It is not Muslims as individuals who are cited, but Muslim communities. Again with Christians. You are not recognised without your church or your mosque.
This is the problem for Phillips. He can only infer certain trends from his legal evidence, but his bold assertion to bolster mosques and criticise churches. If an individual feel sdiscriminated against, they have been financed and motivated by their sect. If they are not doing this, then they must be better "integrated".
Instead of seeking to improve access and results from the Equalities Commission, Phillips prefers to pound his pulpit and seek public recognition. If that is his goal, then he can become a columnist, but tendentious arguments will bring his quango into disrepute.
I am always torn when I see this. Of course, the Equalities Commission achieves nothing in aggregate, although individual situatiosn of injustice are addressed. Any system will do some good. Within that schema, I prefer professional public servants who focus upon their service. A concept of public service does exist, though the argument that this is monopolised by the public sector is risible. One more virtuous motivation debased under Leviathan.
