Pandering to Muslims, U.K. Leftists Are Suppressing Another Part of British Culture

Are you a Briton who’s upset that your government is quashing free speech and arresting people for social-media posts? If so, well, don’t take for granted that you’ll be able to drink your woes away. Because now the speech-squelching Labour Party, the equivalent of U.S. Democrats, has another bright idea.

They want to tamp down the age-old tradition of English pub culture.

Oh, this isn’t over concern about health or drunkenness-associated problems. Rather, they’re reportedly doing it for a thoroughly modern(ist) reason: There are many Muslims in Britain now.

And Muslims don’t like alcohol.

The bigger issue, too, is that this is just part of a Western slouching toward cultural oblivion, an agenda that doesn’t require newcomers to assimilate, but natives to accommodate.

Not Just About the Booze

Providing background on the story, commentator Andrea Widburg points out that there’s perhaps nothing more quintessentially British than pub culture. Pubs are not just places to drink in the U.K., but also a center of social life. Thus is it not surprising that the term “pub” is short for “public house.” This centrality is reflected in art, too, with British novels and movies virtually always including a scene in a pub.

Widburg drives this point home by quoting famous British figures. Writer Samuel Johnson said, for example, that there “is nothing which has yet been contrived by man, by which so much happiness is produced as by a good tavern.” But Johnson is part of the old Britain — and dead. And apparently U.K. leftists are content to see British culture follow him into the grave.

Rallying Cry: No Taxation Without Inebriation

This brings us to the neo-Prohibitionist story. Per The National Pulse:

Staff at Britain’s Home Office, roughly equivalent to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, have been instructed to make every other social event alcohol-free amid concerns over inclusivity. Sources say senior bureaucrats want to make sure “every other social isn’t the pub” at a time when Muslims—who are forbidden to drink alcohol—are becoming an increasingly large share of the population, particularly in London and other urban centers.

… Other departments, including the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS), have similarly been encouraging staff to limit drinking during social events.

Not surprisingly, this just reflects the general woke mind virus infecting the West. As the Pulse also reports, illustrating the phenomenon’s intensity:

“The inclusion, understanding, and celebration of our many faiths and beliefs and diverse cultures and experiences is an important part of how we effectively deliver our services and develop policies to help protect our communities,” said Daniel Hobbs, Director General of the Home Office Migration and Borders Group, in one recent communication, urging staff to “show allyship by learning more about the diversity of our department.”

Sure, who needs unity when you’ve got “diversity”?

Widburg, a teetotaler (she just doesn’t like alcohol), mentions that there is, of course, nothing wrong with encouraging employees to avoid heavy drinking on the job. Inebriation doesn’t facilitate productivity. She also emphasizes that her distaste for booze never stopped her from spending many enjoyable hours socializing in pubs. “It’s entirely possible not to drink around people who are drinking,” she writes.

Tolerance Only Goes One Way

But, Widburg then states, this isn’t how Islam rolls. She then continues:

Recall the Minnesota taxi drivers in 2007 who refused to drive people carrying closed bottles of alcohol. Back then, the city cracked down on those drivers. I’m pretty sure that if the Muslims in Minnesota were to try the same tactic in 2024, they’d be met with a more accommodating response.

London, like Minnesota, is a very Muslim city. Roughly 15% of the population in 2021 identified as Muslim, and I bet that it’s a lot higher now, given that the Muslim influx hasn’t stopped or even slowed.

Dr. Peter Hammond has pointed out that, by the time the Muslim population is over 10%, it’s proselytized, demanded halal food in markets and public accommodations (they get their halal, but you don’t get your alcohol), pushed the government to implement Sharia laws, and increasingly used violence to force these demands to be met—all while Muslims are actually a very small proportion of the population.

The Bigger Picture

Again, too, this isn’t just about booze. In 2019, there were reports that two German nurseries had removed pork from their menus, apparently in deference to Muslims. Just this month we heard about a bakery in France that nixed pork for fear of Islamic violence. Then there are Europe’s “no-go zones.” These are Muslim-dominated areas in which, to an extent, civil law has broken down and been supplanted by Sharia.

This all, too, is the result of unserious immigration policy. Demography is destiny, as is said. Yet there never is in any Western nation serious debate about how we’re going to let immigration influence our destiny. In fact, anyone even broaching the topic can be shouted down, called names, and canceled.

But here’s how this discussion starts (I’ll use a fictional country, so as to limit reason-clouding emotional reactions). Imagine that many millions of people immigrated into our nation from Bluelandia. Isn’t it reasonable assuming they’ll have some influence on our culture? Isn’t this more likely still if the Bluelandians harbor passionate, absolutist beliefs they consider nonnegotiable? And won’t their influence be especially profound if we, imbued with multiculturalism, favor accommodation over assimilation?

This is what’s happening, all over the West, with our “Bluelandians.” Then they wonder why Britain just had anti-immigrationist protests and riots. They wonder why anti-immigrationist populists — whom mainstream media label “far-right” — are poised to triumph in Germany’s upcoming elections. (Hint: It’s called “democracy.”)

It’s Just Man’s Nature

Obviously, the anger at the Bluelandia insanity is understandable. To echo a Tucker Carlson analogy, imagine you had four kids and then adopted two others. Then suppose you began ignoring your biological children and gave the adoptees everything they wanted. This included the “native” kids’ toys and recreational opportunities — which they could enjoy while your blood-kin kids had to do most of the chores. Would you be surprised if your biological children became angry and resentful and felt hostility toward the newcomers?

Of course, though, when native Britons react this way, they don’t get an apology and a hug. They only get further proof that they’ve been disowned.